Jan 12, 2026 City Council

[00:03:32]

THANK YOU AGAIN TO SENIOR DISTRICT COURT JUDGE STINSON.

AND THANKS, JODI, FOR ARRANGING ALL OF THAT FOR US, I APPRECIATE IT.

RIGHT AFTER OUR STUDY SESSION, IF ANY FRIENDS OR FAMILY WOULD LIKE TO STICK AROUND AND TAKE PICTURES WE'LL BE INVITE ANYBODY TO COME UP INTO THE GALLERY AT THAT POINT IN TIME.

AND THERE ARE COOKIES FOR ANYBODY WHO WANTS ONE, AND THERE ARE COOKIES ON THE WAY OUT. SO FANTASTIC.

OKAY NEXT ON THE AGENDA FOR TODAY IS TO REVIEW OUR AGENDA FOR TONIGHT.

IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? WE HAVE A FEW ITEMS THERE. YES. ON COLLEGE ROAD.

THE. CHRIS, MAYBE TO YOU. YEAH. YEAH, IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF RIDICULOUSNESS TO GO THROUGH FOR THIS GUY TO BE ABLE TO BUILD A GARAGE ON THE LOT THAT HE OWNS NEXT TO HIM LIKE THIS.

IT NEEDS TO BE ZONED R-3 TO HAVE A SEPARATE BUILDING ON THE LOT NEXT TO HIS HOUSE.

THAT SEEMS CRAZY TO ME. SO RIGHT NOW HE HAS TWO PARCELS.

HIS HOUSE SITS ON ONE PARCEL ON R-3. HE OWNS A SEPARATE TRACK THAT RIGHT NOW IS ZONED R-1.

HE WANTS TO BUILD A DETACHED STRUCTURE ON THAT SEPARATE TRACK OF LAND AND AN R-1 DISTRICT.

YOU CAN'T HAVE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITHOUT THERE BEING A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE ON THE SAME LOT.

[00:05:06]

AS PART OF DOING THAT WE SPOKE TO JAMIE, WHO'S THE APPLICANT.

IT MAKES SENSE, AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO JOIN THESE TWO PROPERTIES TOGETHER TO HAVE IT AS ONE, CONSISTENT ZONING SO THAT FROM HERE IN PERPETUITY, YOU'RE WORKING TO ONE SET OF RULES FOR IT.

AND THERE'S REALLY TWO OPTIONS. THE ONE THAT THE LOT THAT THE HOUSE SITS ON RIGHT NOW IS ZONED R-3.

AND THAT'S LOW DENSITY MULTIFAMILY. AND WHEN HE BUILT HIS HOUSE.

WHICH IS ZONED WRONG RIGHT. IT SHOULD BE R-1.

IT'S A SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE. WELL I MEAN THE ZONING WAS IN PLACE BEFORE HE BOUGHT IT.

AND IF YOU LOOK TO THE WEST, YOU ALREADY HAVE AN EXISTING MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT. SO I THINK THE ZONING IS RIGHT.

AND IN R-3 DISTRICT YOU CAN HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED STRUCTURE.

IT'S JUST THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO COMBINE THESE LOTS, YOU WANT TO GIVE SOME CONSISTENCY.

AND SO WE MET WITH JAMIE. THERE WAS KIND OF TWO OPTIONS PROPOSED AND R-3 ARE THE R-1.

HE ALREADY BUILT HIS HOUSE TO CONFORM WITH R-3 DISTRICT STANDARDS.

SO THE THOUGHT AND RATIONALE WAS WELL, WE'LL JUST REZONE THIS OTHER SLIVER TO R-3 JUST TO MAKE IT ALL CONSISTENT.

IT COULD CERTAINLY BE REZONED TO R-1 AS WELL, AND THE HOUSE WOULD STILL COMPLY.

THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD CHANGE IS THAT IT WOULDN'T GIVE HIM AS MUCH FLEXIBILITY DEVELOPMENT WISE IN THE FUTURE IF HE GOES TO AN R-1.

SO UNDER THE R-3, HE CAN DEVELOP MORE OF THAT PROPERTY THAN HE WOULD AN R-1, MEANING THAT IN R-3 YOU CAN HAVE 45% LOT COVERAGE AND AN R-1.

YOU'RE CAPPED AT 35%. IN AN R-3 DISTRICT. HE COULD HAVE MULTIPLE DWELLINGS ON THERE.

SO HYPOTHETICALLY, I'M NOT SAYING IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT JUST HYPOTHETICALLY, MAYBE ONE OF HIS CHILDREN WANT TO BUILD A HOME ON THAT LAND.

THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH A SUBDIVISION ACTION.

WHEREAS IN R-1 DISTRICT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE ONE ONE DWELLING.

AND THAT WOULD BE IT. SO IT DOES GIVE HIM SOME FLEXIBILITY.

AT PLANNING COMMISSION. HE WAS CERTAINLY OPEN TO REZONING IT TO R-1.

IT WAS JUST PROPOSED AS R-3, JUST TO MAKE THAT SMALL LOT CONSISTENT WITH THE SAME LOT WHERE HIS HOUSE IS AT.

SO EITHER WAY HE'LL COME OUT AHEAD. IT'S JUST THAT IF WE GO R-1, IT DOES HAVE DIFFERENT SETBACK REGULATIONS BUILDING HEIGHTS AS COMPARED TO AN R-3, BUT HE SEEMED OPEN TO EITHER OPTION. I JUST THINK, THEN MULTIPLE HOUSES ON BIGGER LOTS IN TOWN WOULD JUST WANT TO REZONE TO R-3.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? LIKE I WOULD. IF I CAN PUT AN EXTRA HOUSE AN EXTRA STRUCTURE.

YEAH, BUT HIS HOUSE IS ALREADY ON R-3. YEAH, BUT WE'RE REZONING THIS OTHER PIECE.

NO, I KNOW, I KNOW. YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? YEAH. JUST TO MAKE IT SO THEY'RE ALL THE SAME. YEAH.

AND BECAUSE YOU CAN'T, WHY DON'T WE JUST TAKE OUT THE LOT LINE, MAKE IT ONE LOT? BECAUSE THEN THERE'S YOU. YOU CAN'T HAVE HALF THE LOT ZONED ONE WAY AND HALF THE LOT ZONE THE OTHER.

RIGHT. SO WE HAVE TO GO ONE WAY OR THE OTHER IS WHAT WE'RE.

BUT IT'S, I GUESS IT'S A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. YEAH.

BUILT IN AN R-3. WHAT'S THE HOUSE NEXT TO IT? WHAT'S THAT. YEAH. GOES R-1 AS YOU HEAD DOWN COLLEGE ROAD.

RIGHT, SO THEY'RE ALL R-1 EXCEPT HIS, WHICH SEEMS NOT RIGHT TO ME.

PRIMROSE IS RIGHT UP THE HILL FROM ME. OH YEAH, I KNOW EXACTLY WHERE IT'S AT, YOU KNOW, BUT THE REST OF IT'S ALL R-1.

I MEAN, BUT THE THING IS, THIS HOUSE WAS BUILT IN AN R-3 LOT AND HE'S, HE CHOSE TO GO WITH AN R-3.

I MEAN WE'RE MAKING IT ONE LOT AND. YEAH, I DON'T I'M NOT OPPOSED EITHER WAY.

I WANT THE GUY TO BUILD A LOT. I'M OKAY WITH R-3.

I'M JUST SAYING EVERY SINGLE-FAMILY HOME THAT THEY WERE, THEY'RE GOING TO COME AND SAY, I WANT TO BE ZONED R-3 SO I CAN BUILD A SEPARATE STRUCTURE, RIGHT? BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IN R-1 YOU CAN'T HAVE A SEPARATE STRUCTURE, RIGHT? WE LIMIT IT TO ONE. YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING. THEY CAN APPLY FOR IT.

YES. WELL YEAH I'M OKAY WITH THAT. BUT HE'S R-3 ABUTTING OTHER R-3 WHICH IS MULTIFAMILY LIKE.

YEAH, BUT I MEAN YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE IT. THERE'S OBVIOUSLY WOODS AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN THAT HIM AND PRIMROSE.

IT JUST SEEMS LIKE I SAID, I THINK OTHER PEOPLE ARE GOING TO WANT TO BECOME R-3 SO THEY CAN BUILD A DETACHED STRUCTURE IF THEY HAVE A BIG ENOUGH LOT, WHICH MAKES SENSE TO ME. THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO WEATHER R-1 OR R-3, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU IN MY OPINION.

WELL, WE COULD DO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OR A PR OVERLAY ON THIS SPECIFIC.

I MEAN, WE COULD DO THAT. WE HAVE THAT ABILITY.

WE DON'T HAVE TO JUST JUMP TO REZONING AND SPOT ZONING EVERYWHERE.

WE'RE NOT SPOT ZONING. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

WE'RE JUST MAKING IT CONGRUENT ZONING FOR THE WHOLE PLOT.

I GET IT, I'M JUST, HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO IT NO MATTER WHAT.

IT'S ZONED ISN'T WHERE I'M. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY. YEAH, BUT, I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT I DON'T SEE WHY YOU'RE PITCHING A FIT ABOUT IT BEING R-3 THEN.

I GUESS. I MEAN, HE BOUGHT THAT LOT WHEN IT WAS R-3 ZONED TO BUILD HIS HOUSE ON IT.

AND SO IT'S JUST BY VIRTUE OF HIM NOT WANTING TO BUILD THIS ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, HE HAS TO COMBINE IT.

[00:10:01]

THE R-3 IS WHAT WAS SUGGESTED, AND THAT'S WHAT HE WENT FORWARD WITH.

COUNCIL COULD CERTAINLY SAY IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO DO R1, AND YOU CAN MAKE THAT AS PART OF YOUR FINAL MOTION.

I DON'T THINK HE'S OPPOSED THAT EITHER. I'M OKAY WITH R-3.

IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IT'S, LIKE I SAID, THERE'S IT'S A SLIGHTLY ODD SITUATION, BUT IT I MEAN, HE BUILT ON R-3 KNOWING THOSE RULES I FEEL LIKE IT'S KIND OF ODD FOR US TO SAY, OH, WELL, NOW I KNOW YOU'RE BUILT ON R3, BUT NOW YOU DO HAVE KIDS DOWN THE ROAD, YOU WANT TO BUILD AN AUXILIARY STRUCTURE.

YOU CAN'T. YOU KNOW, YOU BOUGHT THAT MAYBE FOR A REASON.

I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW. BUT HERE'S MY QUESTION, JOE.

EVEN IF IT WAS R1 AND HE WANTED TO BUILD ANOTHER STRUCTURE ON THERE, DO YOU THINK HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO. YEAH, I'M FINE WITH IT. ME TOO. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY. YEAH, HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO BUILD HIS GARAGE, OBVIOUSLY. LIKE IT'S I HAVE A, AND HE COULD. BUT IF IT WAS R-1 HE COULDN'T.

AND THAT'S. I'M TRYING TO SAY ONE. SHOULD BE ABLE TO LET HIM.

EVEN IF IT'S R-1 THAT'S WHAT. IF IT'S AN R-1 HE CAN COME IN AND ASK FOR A CONDITIONAL USE STRUCTURE, PUT ON THAT PROPERTY, AND WE WOULD HAVE CONDITIONS INVOLVED WITH THAT. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT HE'S CUT OUT OF THE BUILDING PROCESS COMPLETELY.

IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT AVENUE OF BEING ABLE TO GET IT DONE.

WE PUT THAT IN OUR CODES JUST A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO.

THAT CONDITIONAL USE. WELL, AND THE ACCESS COMES IN FROM THAT LOT.

I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY YOU BUY A BIG LOT LIKE THAT. YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO BUILD A HOUSE AND A SHOP. THAT'S WHY I THINK IT SHOULD BE ONE LOT. FOR SURE. I GUESS I NEED TO ASK, CHRIS, IS AM I CORRECT IN UNDERSTANDING THAT HE WOULD HAVE THAT POSSIBILITY TO DO THAT ON A CONDITIONAL USE? IF HE LEFT IT AS R-1, HE WOULD HAVE TO BUILD A HOUSE BEFORE HE BUILT THE GARAGE ON THERE.

NOT EVEN ON A CONDITIONAL USE? NO, BECAUSE IN AN R-1 DISTRICT, A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ARE NOT CONSIDERED CONDITIONAL USES.

THEIR USE IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT. SO. SEE WHAT I MEAN? AND THAT, WE PROBABLY JUST GOT TO CLEAN IT UP BECAUSE LIKE YOU SAID, I THINK IF IT WAS ZONE, I DON'T CARE WHAT IT'S ZONED. HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO. HE OWNS BOTH. YEAH. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT AND THAT'S.

CORRECT. THAT'S MY MISTAKE THERE. IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING UNDER CONDITIONAL USE YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR SOMETHING A PERMIT IN THAT.

AND THEN WE WOULD DECIDE AS A COMMUNITY WHETHER THAT WOULD FIT OR NOT.

SO, THAT'S SOMETHING WE MAYBE. WE CAN GO WITH FORWARD WITH R-3 ON THIS ONE, I JUST THINK.

WE MIGHT NEED TO LOOK.

SO JUST FOOD FOR THOUGHT, SIR. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? I DON'T THINK SO. OKAY. PUBLIC HEARINGS. WE HAVE THREE OF THEM TONIGHT.

ANY QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THE THREE PUBLIC HEARINGS? ORDINANCES ON FIRST. SO THIS IS THE ALARM SYSTEMS? YES. AND NOW I SEE WHEN I GO THROUGH THIS. HOLD ON, I CLOSE MY DEAL.

IT'S A RED LINE VERSION, RIGHT? SO IT REMOVES THE PORTION OF IN REFERENCE TO THE FALSE ALARM FEES.

BUT IT DOESN'T TALK TO, UNLESS I MISSED IT, TO OUR ARRANGEMENT WITH THE THIRD-PARTY COMPANY SOMEWHERE NOT IN IOWA, RIGHT? WE ARE.

THEM, CORRECT? THIS DOES NOT SPEAK TO THIS. THIS IS.

I KNOW THAT. TO THAT ISSUE. THIS IS JUST WITH REGARD TO THE CHANGING THE LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY, IT IS INTENDED THEN ONCE THE ORDINANCE CHANGE HAS BEEN MADE.

THAT WE WILL, OKAY. I BELIEVE WAS COMMUNICATED IN THE COUNCIL COMMUNICATION OUR CONTRACTS NOT UP UNTIL MAY OF 2026 AND WE HAVE TO PROVIDE 90 DAYS NOTICE, BUT WE HAVE NOT YET PROVIDED THE NOTICE IN ORDER TO TERMINATE THAT CONTRACT, BUT WOULD DO SO IN GOOD TIME.

YEAH, AS LONG AS WE DO THAT, IT'S A TERRIBLE PROGRAM AND IT CAUSES MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT DOES.

GOOD. SO MYSELF PERSONALLY AND OTHER FOLKS I KNOW HAVE HAD ISSUES WHERE WE ARE AFRAID TO ACTUALLY HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT SHOW UP BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO GET HIT WITH A FEE. AND THEN TURNS OUT SOMEONE BROKE IN AND ROBBED AND STOLE WHATEVER.

BUT OUR OWN FEAR. IT DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF HAVING AN ALARM OR A POLICE FORCE.

SO, YES. AND I DON'T KNOW IF CHIEF DAVIS IS HERE, BUT OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT PUT A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF WORK IN IN DECEMBER OF 2024 AND DID

[00:15:04]

THEN YOU HAVE TO SEND IT OVER LIKE IT'S 1992.

IT'S, THERE ON THE EAST COAST, YOU CAN'T GET AHOLD OF ANYONE.

THERE'S NO REAL PERSON TO TALK TO YOU. WE CAN'T FIX IT HERE.

WE HAVE NO CONTROL OF IT. SO WE'RE ALLOWING THEM TO PUT A BILL OR A TAX, IN MY OPINION, ON OUR CONSTITUENCY AND WE HAVE NO WAY TO DO ANYTHING.

WE HAVE NO SAY OVER IT. IT'S MORE THAN AGITATING FOR ME AND MANY OTHER FOLKS THAT I'VE SPOKEN WITH ABOUT IT.

SO AND THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THEY SHOOT OUT IN FINES, FEES, BILLS, WHATEVER DOESN'T EVEN MATCH THE COSTS OF OUR ACTUAL LIKE WHAT IT ACTUALLY COSTS US TO DO THOSE ACTIONS.

IT'S LIKE I SAID BEFORE, IT'S A DETERRENT. WE GOT ROBBED CHRISTMAS MORNING.

YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T SEND THE POLICE DOWN THERE BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO PAY THE $500 BILL FOR ANOTHER FALSE ALARM.

SO I DROVE DOWN MYSELF LIKE, WELL, TURNS OUT WE'D BEEN ROBBED.

THAT'S THE SECOND TIME IT'S HAPPENED TO ME. HAPPENED LAST YEAR.

THEY BROKE IN AND I THOUGHT, OH, WELL, NO MOTION SENSORS ARE GOING OFF.

IT MUST HAVE BEEN A RANDOM THING. I GUESS WE'RE PROBABLY OKAY.

GET DOWN THERE. SURE ENOUGH, BUSTED WINDOWS OUT, RIPPED UP REGISTER, I MEAN, THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I'M JUST PARANOID TO HAVE TO GET ANOTHER $500 BILL THAT I CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHO THE HECK I SEND THE MONEY TO, AND GOD FORBID I'D BE ABLE TO PAY ONLINE. YOU HAVE TO PHYSICALLY SEND IT TO THEM.

IT IS AWFUL, SO. IT HAS THAT. THAT EXACT SAME FRUSTRATION HAS BEEN EXPRESSED BY MANY CITIZENS TO OUR OFFICE.

I KNOW ALSO TO MAYOR SHUDAK AND TO OTHERS THAT THERE IS A LOT OF FRUSTRATION WITH THE PROGRAM AS IT EXISTS.

SO WE'RE HOPING THAT THIS WOULD CLEAN IT UP AND REMOVE THE FALSE ALARM FEES, BECAUSE WE AGREE, BASED ON THE RESEARCH THAT CHIEF DAVIS AND HIS TEAM DID, THAT IT DOES NOT, IN FACT, DETER FALSE ALARMS. AND WE WANT TO INSTEAD USE THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO WORK WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE CAMERA PROGRAM THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE, WHICH IS A DATABASE PROGRAM. SO NOT ONLY WOULD WE BE REMOVING FALSE ALARM FEES, BUT WE WOULD BE WAIVING THE $25 REGISTRATION FEE FOR ANYBODY WHO HAS AN OUTWARD FACING CAMERA AND SIMPLY FILLS OUT THE INFORMATION FOR THE CAMERA DATABASE PROGRAM THROUGH THE PD.

NICE, I LIKE IT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTION ON ORDINANCE ON FIRST? QUESTIONS FOR ORDINANCE ON SECOND? AND WE HAVE FOUR RESOLUTIONS TONIGHT.

ANY QUESTIONS ON FOUR ON ANY OF THE FOUR RESOLUTIONS.

IS JAKE HERE BY CHANCE? THERE WE GO, NO.

QUESTIONS ON APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS AND CANCELLATIONS.

ON THE LAST RESOLUTION, I, JUST LOOKING AT THE COST.

I THINK $600,000 IS A LOT OF MONEY TO PUT TOWARDS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM WITH THAT. IT'S BY FAR THE SINGLE HANDEDLY MOST IMPORTANT PLAN THE CITY IS GOING TO DO.

THAT'S GOING TO PRETTY MUCH DETERMINE OUR TRAJECTORY AND HOW WE GROW OVER THE NEXT 20 TO 25 YEARS.

WHO DID THE FIRST ONE CHRIS, WHO DID OUR LAST 2050? WAS IT THIS COUNCIL? HOUSE OF LEVINE. HOUSE OF LEVINE DID IT BACK IN.

IT WAS ADOPTED IN 2014. AT THAT TIME, I THINK AT THAT TIME IT WAS ABOUT $250,000.

HERE, WE'RE DOING TWO PLANS AT ONCE. THE INITIAL THOUGHT WAS WE WOULD DO OUR DOWNTOWN PLAN FIRST, GET THAT ACCOMPLISHED, COME BACK, AND THEN DO OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

DO SOME INTERNAL STAFF DISCUSSIONS. IT JUST SEEMED TO MAKE MORE SENSE TO LET'S JUST DO IT ALL AT ONCE.

BECAUSE THEY BOTH REALLY DO GO HAND IN HAND. AND ULTIMATELY WE WOULD HAVE AMENDED THE COMP PLAN TO COME BACK AND ADOPT THE DOWNTOWN PLAN.

AND PLUS, WHEN YOU DO THESE TYPE OF PLANS THE PUBLIC COULD PERHAPS GET SOME FATIGUE BEHIND IT.

YOU'RE COMING RIGHT BACK WITH ANOTHER PLANNING EXERCISE. SO IT JUST MADE SENSE TO CONSOLIDATE TOGETHER.

AND SO THE COMBINED TOTAL OF THOSE TWO IS PRETTY CLOSE TO $600,000.

AND WE WERE PRETTY MUCH RIGHT ON BUDGET WITH IT, WHAT WE THOUGHT IT WOULD COME INTO.

BUT. WE ALSO POSTED WHAT WE THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BUDGET IN THE RFP.

I MEAN. WE DID, AND. NOBODY'S GOING TO COME IN.

NOTE TO SELF, TOO SLOW UNDER THE. DROP THAT 10% FROM NOW ON RIGHT.

[00:20:03]

FOR REAL, I THINK WE DO THAT A LOT OF TIMES. I AGREE.

WE WILL BE LOOKING AT RFPS GOING FORWARD AS TO HOW.

FOR REAL. I MEAN. I AGREE. ESTIMATE, ENGINEER'S ESTIMATION IS THIS.

WELL, WE BETTER BE CLOSE. YEAH, I JUST, IT'S A LOT OF MONEY.

THESE FOLKS ARE FROM KANSAS. THEY DON'T KNOW A WHOLE LOT ABOUT OUR COMMUNITY.

WHAT? HOW MUCH OF THIS PLAN WILL THE PUBLIC BE INVOLVED IN? THE PUBLIC IS GOING TO BE EXTENSIVELY INVOLVED IN ALL OF IT. THERE'S GOING TO BE IN THIS COUNCIL AS WELL.

THAT'S THERE'S GOING TO BE FOCUS GROUP SESSIONS.

THERE'LL BE MEETINGS INDIVIDUALLY WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS, DEPARTMENT HEADS. IT IS GOING TO BE A TRANSPARENT PROCESS.

AND THAT'S A BIG PART OF THE BUDGET COST IS THE PUBLIC OUTREACH, YOU KNOW, MAINTAINING THE WEBSITES, YOU KNOW, DOING THE NOTIFICATIONS, GETTING PEOPLE TO THE TABLE, GOING TO WHERE THEY'RE AT, NOT EXPECTING THEM TO COME TO US. SO IT'S A BIG PART OF THE OVERALL PROJECT BUDGET, BUT IT'S EXTENSIVE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT FROM THE START TO THE VERY END OF IT THROUGH THE ADOPTION PROCESS. SOUNDS GOOD. THANK YOU. HOSTING TOWN HALLS AS WELL TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE GENERAL PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE AND INPUT AS WELL. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE AGENDA FOR THIS EVENING? I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT THAT IF ANY OF YOU HAVE ANY NAMES THAT YOU'RE WANTING TO PUT FORWARD FOR THE VACANCY, MAKE SURE THAT THEY EMAIL ME THEIR INTEREST OR DROP OFF A LETTER OR SOMETHING OF THAT SORT SO THAT WE CAN GET THEM IN THE POOL.

BY NOON ON THE 16TH, CORRECT? NOON ON FRIDAY.

SO WE POSTED. ON THE THIRD. SO WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE 17TH, RIGHT? TECHNICALLY THE 20TH. OKAY. I'M NOT LOOKING AT CALENDAR, I GUESS.

OKAY. ARE THERE. AND THEN WE HAVE THE. THE 19TH MONDAY AT 5, BECAUSE OF THE WEEKEND.

THEN WE HAVE A PERIOD OF X AMOUNT OF DAYS TO GO FROM THERE.

SO THAT'S THE FIRST WINDOW THAT SOMEBODY COULD FILE A PETITION AND THEN ONCE THE APPOINTMENTS MADE.

THERE'S 14 MORE DAYS. IT'LL BE ON THE NEXT AGENDA.

COOL. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL SEE EVERYBODY BACK AT 7 AGAIN.

IF FRIENDS AND FAMILY WANT TO COME FORWARD FOR PICTURES, YOU'RE WELCOME TO AT THIS TIME.

AND AS. YOU PLEASE STAND FOR THE

[1) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE]

AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD AND CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. PLEASE LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE PRESENT.

[2) CALL TO ORDER]

[3) CONSENT AGENDA]

[4.A) Resolution 26-06 Resolution approving the plans and specifications in connection with the Indian Creek Levee Freeboard Maintenance.  Project # PW22-06A          ]

STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

RESOLUTION 26-06. NOW IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE INDIAN CREEK LEVEE FREEBOARD MAINTENANCE PROJECT PW22-06A.

IS PROOF OF PUBLICATION ON FILE? YES, IT IS. ANY WRITTEN PROTESTS RECEIVED? NONE RECEIVED. ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL REGARDING THIS MATTER? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? MOTION. MOTION. MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE.

SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.

OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES. RESOLUTION 26-07. NOW IS THE TIME

[4.B) Resolution 26-07 Resolution to vacate and dispose of the east/west platted alley in Block 15, Fleming and Davis Addition, the east/west platted alley in Block 16, Fleming and Davis Addition, and a 272-foot-long section of South 15th Street right-of-way lying between 11th Avenue and 12th Avenue and abutting said Blocks 15 and 16, Fleming and Davis Addition. 25-0001-PZASV]

BLOCK 15, FLEMING AND DAVIS ADDITION. AND THE EAST/WEST PLATTED ALLEY OF BLOCK 16, FLEMING AND DAVIS ADDITION, AND THE 272-FOOT-LONG SECTION OF SOUTH 15TH STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY LYING BETWEEN 11TH AVENUE AND 12TH AVENUE AND ABUTTING SAID BLOCK 15 AND 16, FLEMING AND DAVIS ADDITION. THIS IS 25-0001-PZASV.

[00:25:04]

SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES.

[4.C) Resolution 26-08 Resolution to vacate and dispose of the east/west alley abutting properties legally described as Lot 4, Curtis and Ramsey’s Addition, and the south 45 feet of Lots 1 and 2 and all of Lot 3, all in John Schickentanz Subdivision of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block M, Curtis and Ramsey’s Addition. Location: Unimproved alley abutting properties addressed at 717 and 719 South 8th Street and 721 7th Avenue. 25-0002-PZASV]

LOCATION IS UNIMPROVED ALLEY ABUTTING THE PROPERTIES ADDRESSED 717 AND 719 SOUTH 8TH STREET AND 721 SOUTH AVENUE.

SOUTH. EXCUSE ME. 7TH AVENUE. IS PROOF OF PUBLICATION ON FILE? YES, IT IS. ANY WRITTEN PROTESTS RECEIVED? NONE RECEIVED.

ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL REGARDING THIS MATTER.

IS THERE A MOTION FROM THE COUNCIL? MOTION TO APPROVE.

SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.

MADAM CLERK. ORDINANCE 6668, AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITLE 3, BUSINESS REGULATIONS AND LICENSES,

[5.A) Ordinance 6668 Ordinance to amend Title  3, Business Regulations and Licenses, Chapter 3.12 “Alarm Systems”, of the 2025 Municipal Code of Council Bluffs, Iowa, by amending Sections 3.12.030 “Alarm System Registration Required”, 3.12.040 “Registration Application Fee - Termination and Renewal”, 3.12.050 “Current Information, Term of Registration and Renewal”; repealing Section 3.12.080 “False Alarm Fees”; amending and renumbering Sections 3.12.090 “Suspension or Revocation of License or Permit” and 3.12.100 “Appeal Procedure” and renumbering Sections 3.12.110 “Notices” and 3.12.110 “Penalty”.]

[6.A) Ordinance 6663 Ordinance to amend Title 5, Sewers, Chapter 5.25, "Tap-On Fees" of the 2025 Municipal Code of Council Bluffs, Iowa, by amending Sections 5.25.010 "Purpose", 5.25.030 "Procedures for Adoption", 5.25.040 "Contents of Ordinance" and retitling and amending Section 5.25.050 "Sewer Extension Enterprise Fund". ]

MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. IS THERE A DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED.

IS THERE AN INTEREST IN WAIVING THE THIRD CONSIDERATION? MOTION. SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION ON MOTION TO WAIVE THIRD.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.

RESOLUTION 26-09, A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE BID OF COMPASS UTILITY, LLC FOR THE SOUTH 23RD STREET REHAB.

[7.A) Resolution 26-09 Resolution approving the bid of Compass Utility, LLC for the South 23rd Street Sewer Rehab, Phase II. Project # PW26-12 ]

IS THERE A DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.

THOSE OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. RESOLUTION 26-10, A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE LIST OF AUTHORITIES FOR

[7.B) Resolution 26-10 Resolution amending the list of authorities for execution of financial transactions between the City of Council Bluffs, Iowa and institutions to hold City funds (non-corporate resolution). ]

MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. IS THERE A DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES RESOLUTION 26-11, A RESOLUTION TO APPOINT

[7.C) Resolution 26-11 Resolution to appoint Jake Schorlemmer to the position of Assistant city Attorney I, within the City Attorney's Office.       ]

TO THE POSITION OF ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY I, WITHIN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. S. IS THERE A DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.

RESOLUTION 26-13, A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH SHOCKEY CONSULTING FOR PLANNING AND CONSULTING SERVICES TO PREPARE THE

[7.D) Resolution 26-13 Resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a contract with Shockey Consulting for planning consulting services to prepare a 2050 Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Master Plan. MIS-25-004]

[00:30:09]

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS. IF I GET A SECOND, I'LL GIVE YOU MORE DISCUSSION ON WHY.

WELL, SECOND, NOW I WANT TO KNOW, I THOUGHT. I MEAN, I MADE A COMMENT AT A STUDY SESSION I.

IT IS A LARGE CHUNK OF MONEY. $600,000 IS A LOT OF MONEY TO HAVE SOMEBODY.

YES, I REALIZE THEY DO THIS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY, BUT FROM KANSAS COME UP AND PUT TOGETHER A DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN AND A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY. THE BLUFFS 2030 PLAN WE'VE AMENDED IT OVER 25 TIMES.

THREE BIG TIMES. I CAN REMEMBER IT WAS WEST BROADWAY CORRIDOR, MID-CITY AREA, WIDE PLAN, AND WE JUST AMENDED IT RECENTLY FOR THE JOINT CITY AND COUNTY LAND. USAGE? YEAH. YEAH. USAGE, WHEN WE CHANGED THE TWO-MILE RULE AND.

YEAH. YEAH. WE DID A BUNCH, SO. I GUESS I, 1, I'D LIKE TO WAIT UNTIL WE GET A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR IN PLACE.

I THINK THAT'S A BIG PART OF WHO'S GOING TO HELP RUN THIS FOR THE CITY.

OBVIOUSLY YOURSELF TOO, JILL. 2, IT'S A BIG CHUNK OF MONEY.

AND 3, I THINK, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, WE'VE CHANGED IT SO MUCH, RIGHT? WE PUT THESE PLANS IN PLACE, AND THEN SOMEBODY COMES TO US WITH A DIFFERENT IDEA, AND WE CHANGE IT.

IT DOESN'T EVEN MATTER, RIGHT? WE COME UP HERE AND.

AND I THINK I'M OKAY WITH THE CHANGES. I JUST THINK SPENDING $600,000 TO PUT TOGETHER A PLAN THAT IS REALLY, REALLY FLUID, SIMILAR TO THE CIP THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS PUT TOGETHER.

THINGS CHANGE ALONG THE WAY IS NOT THE BEST PLAN.

SO I'D LIKE TO HAVE MORE DISCUSSION ABOUT IT BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD.

I GUESS I JUST. AND AGAIN, I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR IN PLACE WHEN WE START THIS.

DO WE? I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WANT TO SAY, HEY, WE'LL WAIT UNTIL WE GET A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 100%, BECAUSE. THAT COULD TAKE. I MEAN, IT'S TAKING US A WHILE TO FILL SOME SPOTS AROUND HERE BEFORE.

YEAH, YEAH. BUT I'D BE INTERESTED IN A LITTLE BIT MORE CONVERSATION.

YOU'RE RIGHT. THERE IS AN AWFUL LOT OF FLUIDITY TO THIS PIECE OF PAPER.

AND WHEN WE GET TO THE TOWARDS THE END WHERE WE HAVE A 30 YEAR PLAN THAT'S 25 YEARS OLD, I MEAN, IT'S NOTHING LIKE IT WAS IN INCEPTION. AND THINGS ARE VASTLY DIFFERENT.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IF WE HAVE NO PLAN AND IF WE DON'T HAVE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE NO DESTINATION, WHERE ARE WE SAILING? YOU KNOW. I KNOW THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE INTERVIEW PROCESS.

THERE WERE TEN, TEN DIFFERENT FIRMS APPLIED, AND IT WAS NARROWED DOWN TO SHOCKEY.

BUT I THINK THAT WE. I GUESS I'D LIKE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT, LIKE WHAT? WHAT THE GOAL IS. WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO TELL US THAT THAT WE DON'T KNOW.

RIGHT. LIKE, WHAT ARE YOU KNOW, I ASKED STEVE ABOUT IT AND HE SAID, LIKE, YOU KNOW, IN 50 OR 25 YEARS, CAN WE DOUBLE THE POPULATION? RIGHT. AND CAN WE STAY ON TRACK WITH WHAT OUR GOAL IS AND NOT GROW TOO FAST? WELL, I THINK FAST ENOUGH. IF I GATHER SOME OF WHAT THE PROCESS OF DOING THAT IS, IS, IS THEY'LL BE ASKING THE COMMUNITY LIKE, HEY, LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT HAVING FORUMS AND THINK TANKS INVITING PEOPLE IN, HEY, CITY OF WHAT DO YOU AS MEMBERS OF THIS COMMUNITY WANT FOR AN OVERALL AND LONG TERM REACHING GOAL MORE SO THAN A COUNCIL.

WHAT DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD DO? YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WE'RE. WELL, YES.

BUT I, THE 2030 PLAN HAD PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT. THAT WAS TERRIBLE.

NOBODY, I MEAN IT WAS VERY MINIMALLY ATTENDED.

SURE. AND SO I DON'T THINK WE SPENT $600,000 TO HAVE ANOTHER MINIMALLY ATTENDED MEETING.

WE CAN DO THAT ON OUR OWN. YEAH. I MEAN, RIGHT.

I MEAN, IF I'M BEING HONEST WITH YOU, I GUESS I'D JUST LIKE TO HAVE MORE OF A CONVERSATION AROUND IT.

AND I MEAN, WHEN YOU WERE SITTING OVER HERE, YOU VOTED NO ON IT, RIGHT? AND SO I'D LIKE TO GET YOUR THOUGHTS ON IT WITHOUT HAVING A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AS WELL.

YEAH. I VOTED NO WHEN THIS CAME THROUGH THE FIRST TIME.

BECAUSE WHEN I ASKED, HOW LONG DID IT TAKE TO COMPLETE? THEY SAID ABOUT 18 MONTHS. WHICH PUTS US IN YOU KNOW, KNOW, 2028.

SO TWO YEARS PRIOR, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE NEED TO HAVE THE PLAN IN PLACE PRIOR TO HITTING 2030.

BUT AT THAT POINT IN TIME WHEN I VOTED NO, IT WAS, TO ME IT SEEMED LIKE WE WERE RUSHING TO START THE PROCESS,

[00:35:07]

SO, I VOTED YES. THIS IS WHY I VOTED YES. BECAUSE THINGS COME UP LIKE I KNEW THAT, OKAY, IF WE HAVE TWO YEARS, BUT IT'S GOING TO TAKE 18 MONTHS, WE HAVE A SIX-MONTH WINDOW, BUT I KNOW HOW WE DO STUFF.

AND THERE'S ALWAYS I MEAN, IT'S GOVERNMENT, THINGS ALWAYS GO OVER BUDGET AND OVER WHETHER IT'S TIME, MONEY, WHATEVER, YOU KNOW. SO STARTING EARLY ON, GETTING A PLAN OF WHAT TO DO I DIDN'T SEE A HURT.

AND LET'S GET IT PUT. YOU KNOW LET'S START MAKING OUR PLAN EARLY SO WE'RE PREPARED I GUESS.

AND THAT'S WHY I ORIGINALLY VOTED. YES. BUT YOU'RE I MEAN, YOU'RE RIGHT, IT'S A LOT.

IT'S A BIG SUM OF MONEY. BUT AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW.

IS IT SOMETHING WE DO OR DO WE DO IT OURSELVES? I DON'T KNOW. I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS HOW WILL THIS AFFECT WHEN WE DO URBAN RENEWAL AREAS OF OUR COMMUNITY? THAT'S A LEGAL QUESTION WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND NOT HAVING A 2050 PLAN IN PLACE AND READY ARE WE GOING TO EXCLUDE US OUT OF FINANCING OR THINGS THAT WE CAN DO LEGALLY? YOU MEAN.

WITH OUR URBAN RENEWAL PLANS AND OUR TIF DISTRICTS AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS, THOSE ARE THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE, AND THAT'S WHY I VOTED TO GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED ON THIS.

AND SO BECAUSE I KNOW THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS WE HAVE TO DO WHEN WE DO AN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN THAT IS IN LINE WITH A 2050 PLAN OR 2030 PLAN, I GUESS THAT'S A QUESTION TOWARDS LEGAL MORE SO, AND IF WE NEED TO TABLE IT FOR A WHILE, THOSE ARE SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT I WOULD HAVE THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE. THE 2030 PLAN WOULD BE IN PLACE FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS, RIGHT? YEAH. WELL, UNTIL 2030. YEAH, RIGHT. BUT IT IF THERE'S.

IF WE HAVE TO HAVE A 2050 PLAN FOR FEDERAL GRANTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT IN PLACE, I THINK LEGAL AND A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR CHRIS, THE INTERIM CAN TELL US THOSE THINGS, BUT THEY HAVEN'T TOLD US THAT, RIGHT? AND THEN ALSO WE CAN CALL THE 2030 PLAN A 2050 PLAN.

WE HAVEN'T ACCOMPLISHED WHAT WE HAVE SET IN THAT ONE YET, RIGHT? IF WE WANT TO, WE CAN CHANGE THE PLAN, THE NAME OF THE PLAN? WELL, ONCE WE ONCE WE FINISH THE 2050 PLAN, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND GO RIGHT INTO IT. WE DON'T HAVE TO DO IT.

YEAH, A CHANGE. YOU KNOW, WE CAN CANCEL OUT THE 2030 AND GO AHEAD AND START INTO OUR 2050 PLAN.

DO WE.

I KNOW THAT I HAVE A FEELING THAT NOT HAVING A CERTIFIED 2050 PLAN COULD AFFECT SOME OF THOSE URBAN RENEWAL AREAS AND BROWN FIELDS AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS WHEN WE GO TO THE STATE.

SO THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO KNOW. COUNCILMAN SANDAU, ARE YOU LOOKING FOR A TABLE FOR THIS MEETING AND TO HAVE CHRIS AND LEGAL? YES, WHY DON'T WE NEXT ARE WE. YEAH, I THINK YEAH.

WHY DON'T WE GET SOME. PERIOD OF TIME? LET'S GET.

CHRIS AND YOUR STAFF LOOK AT IT I THINK IS. WE'VE ALWAYS HONORED IF SOMEBODY NEEDS MORE TIME THAT'S SOMETHING WE'VE.

WELL WE GOT TILL 2030, SO I THINK WE GOT TIME.

BUT YES, YOU'RE RIGHT. SO WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO TABLE.

WOULD YOU DO A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THE 26TH.

YES, TO JANUARY 26TH. YEAH. SECOND CONCURS. OKAY.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT? WILL EVERYBODY JUST GET TO US, OR DO WE NEED TO HAVE ANOTHER.

WILL YOU. CHECK INTO THAT, BOYS AND GIRLS? YES.

BE HAPPY TO. GIVE US SOME MORE GUIDANCE. TOUCH BASE WITH THE INTERIM DIRECTOR.

OKAY. THANK YOU. YES.

WELL, COME ON UP. TONY'S ALWAYS GOT ANSWERS. SO ONE OF MY RESPONSIBILITIES IS ATTENDING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS, SO I DO WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THAT CHRIS GIBBONS HAS BEEN THE LEAD ON THIS.

AS OUR PLANNING, HE'S ESSENTIALLY BEEN THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING.

SO HE IS VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT THIS, AND PROBABLY MORE SO THAN HIS FORMER DIRECTOR.

AND HE WOULD BE MUCH BETTER SUITED TO COME IN AND TALK ABOUT THIS.

THE WAY IT WAS PRESENTED AT PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE PREVIOUS THE LIKE, WHAT I READ BEFORE THE RFP IS, AND I THINK THIS WAS KIND OF ALLUDED TO EARLIER WHEN CHRIS RESPONDED, BUT WE'RE AT A POINT WHERE WE WANT TO DO SOME REVITALIZATION IN OUR DOWNTOWN AREA, AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE WOULD HAVE TO AMEND.

WE WOULD HAVE TO DO A SEPARATE DOWNTOWN PLAN IN ORDER TO, BECAUSE WE HAVE A, WE CURRENTLY TREAT IT AS.

[00:40:04]

SO IT'S REQUIRED TO HAVE ITS OWN PLAN. WHEN YOU SAY REQUIRED, RIGHT.

WE CAN'T GIVE URBAN REVIVE WITHOUT A DOWNTOWN PLAN? UNDER IOWA LAW IT'S, IF YOU HAVE ZONING, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

OH. AND SO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS INTENDED TO BE, IT'S NOT INTENDED TO BE LIKE YOU ARE.

IT'S NOT INTENDED TO BE HANDCUFFS, LIKE, YOU CAN ONLY DO THIS, BUT IT IS INTENDED TO INTENTIONALLY SOLICIT COMMUNITY FEEDBACK.

IT'S INTENDED TO BE THE GUIDING DOCUMENT FOR YOUR YOUR YOUR ZONING AND PLANNING.

AND I KNOW ONE THING THAT WAS A PARTICULAR INTEREST TO ME IS THEY COME IN AND EVALUATE ALL OF OUR ZONING CODES AND HOUSING CODES AND A LOT OF THAT TYPE OF STUFF, AND THEY ESSENTIALLY WILL RECOMMEND NEW CODE WHICH IS A HUGE UNDERTAKING FOR ANY OF US. YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF IN OUR CODE THAT IS OUTDATED.

YEAH. AND THERE'S THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE THAT IF IT'S IN OUR CODE, WE SHOULDN'T BE GRANTING VARIANCES, BECAUSE IF EVERYTHING DESERVES A VARIANCE, THEN IT SHOULDN'T BE THE.

IT SHOULDN'T, IT SHOULD TAKE OUT THE CODE. LIKE WE WERE DISCUSSING EARLIER. AND BY DEFINITION, IT DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF BEING LAW.

LIKE TODAY WITH R-1 AND R-3. AND SO, I MEAN, CHRIS GIBBONS HAS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS THAN I DO.

YOU KNOW, IT DID GO THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION. THEY HAD A LENGTHY DISCUSSION ABOUT IT AS WELL, ESPECIALLY WITH SOME OF THE CONCERNS ABOUT DO WE NEED TO DO THIS NOW? AND I'LL ADMIT, I DON'T REMEMBER HOW THAT WENT.

I JUST, I DO REMEMBER THEY DISCUSSED IT AT LENGTH AND DECIDED THAT IT WAS MORE PRACTICAL TO DO IT NOW.

AND THOSE AREN'T RECORDED. THEY'RE JUST HAND RECORDED, RIGHT? YOU CAN'T GO WATCH THOSE ONES BECAUSE IT'S AT THE LIBRARY. THEY TAKE MINUTES.

SO I'M, CHRIS OR SOMEONE IN PLANNING WOULD HAVE THE MINUTES OF THAT.

BUT YOU KNOW, AND THERE'S I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I THINK HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH PEOPLE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD BE SMART AS WELL.

BUT I JUST, I DID WANT TO, I MEAN, I'M NOT SAYING DON'T TABLE IT.

I'M JUST SAYING IT IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO HAVE ONE.

YEAH. AGAIN, I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE THE DISCUSSION OF CAN WE DO IT OURSELVES WITH OUR STAFF? I MEAN, WE HAVE PEOPLE WITH A BUNCH OF LETTERS BEHIND THEIR NAME, YOU KNOW? RIGHT. LIKE, OR DOES IT HAVE TO BE STAMPED BY CITY ENGINEER OR, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING LIKE, WHAT'S THE REQUIREMENTS TO, FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, RIGHT? LIKE I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE TO HIRE A CONSULTANT. YEAH, FROM WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, TOO, IT SOUNDS LIKE IF THIS IS GOING TO GO BACK THROUGH ALL OF OUR ZONING CODE, WHAT'S THE MAN OR PERSON HOURS, WHATEVER.

THAT'S. THAT WE WOULD SPEND IN-HOUSE TO DO THAT FOR LEGAL.

I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S PART OF IT, TOO. LIKE, I MEAN, ALL OF A SUDDEN.

WELL, AND I THINK THAT'S. YOU KNOW. IT'S, I MEAN, IT'S COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING, RIGHT.

CORRECT. SO WE'RE TALKING NOT JUST WHAT IS THE ZONING, BUT WE ARE TALKING ENGINEERING.

WE'RE TALKING I MEAN, WITH US AROUND THE RIVER.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FLOOD PLANNING. YOU'RE TALKING, I MEAN, IT'S EXTENSIVE AND IT'S MEANT TO DO EVERYTHING FOR THE WHOLE CITY.

AND THERE ARE AMENDMENTS, BUT IT'S TYPICALLY BECAUSE WE HAVE A SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN MIND THAT IS MAYBE MORE SPECIFIC OR YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT DOESN'T TECHNICALLY FIT THE DEFINITION, BUT IT IS WITHIN THE SPIRIT OF THE GUIDING DOCUMENT.

IT JUST WASN'T CONTEMPLATED AT THE TIME. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I FOLLOW ALL THE COMMENTS.

I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF VALIDITY TO IT. AND I THINK THAT IN TERMS OF BEING PROVIDING YOU GUYS MORE INFORMATION AND BEING MORE TRANSPARENT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING EVERYBODY WANTS.

YEAH, AND TO BE FAIR, I, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH, YOU'RE RIGHT, BEING TRANSPARENT IS GOOD.

I WASN'T SAYING ANYBODY WASN'T. SO YEAH, JUST I WOULD LIKE MORE INFORMATION, LIKE TO GO THROUGH ALL OF OUR ZONING CODES AND THINGS THAT ARE OUT OF DATE OR THINGS NEED TO CHANGE, THAT'S A HUGE UNDERTAKING. AND THAT'S I DIDN'T KNOW THAT WAS PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. DID ANY OF YOU? JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY.

WOW. JOE? I DIDN'T KNOW THAT. THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I WAS ALLUDING TO.

I DON'T KNOW, I DIDN'T KNOW ALL OF THE LEGAL THINGS THAT ARE IN THERE, BUT I DID KNOW THAT THERE WERE SOME THINGS FROM THE TIME THAT I HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN THAT WE NEED THIS LEGAL DOCUMENT IN ORDER TO GO FORWARD.

YEAH. HONESTLY, LIKE A ONE PAGER OF, HEY, THESE ARE THE TOP 25 THINGS THAT YOU'RE GOOD THAT YOU KNOW FROM CHRIS OR CHRIS AND LEGAL OF, HEY, THESE ARE THINGS THAT ARE THESE ARE THE TEN GOALS THAT WE'RE GOING TO ACCOMPLISH WITH THIS $600,000, RIGHT? I THINK THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE.

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SEE THE COUNCIL ITSELF, YOU KNOW, COME FORWARD WITH SOME PERSONAL GOALS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN OUR DIRECTION OF OUR COMMUNITY AND SEE IF THAT WILL FIT INTO OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

YOU KNOW, LIKE I WAS STATING TO YOU EARLIER, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE POPULATION.

[00:45:02]

AND IT SHOULD THAT BE INCLUDED IN THIS 2050 PLAN ALSO.

OKAY. SOUNDS GOOD. BUT YEAH I'D LIKE WE'RE GOOD AT TABLE OKAY.

SO TABLE 26. YEP. YES. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF TABLING RESOLUTION 26-07 UNTIL THE 26? 26. 26. 26-13. 26-13. 13. SORRY. YEAH. 26-13.

APOLOGIES. AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES.

SO WE HAVE APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS AND CANCELLATIONS.

[8.A) Liquor Licenses1. Courtyard By Marriott CB, 2501 Bass Pro Dr. (New)2. D & S Express, 4040 S. Expressway St.3. Mega Saver, 1749 W. Broadway4. The Grass Wagon, 110 S.29th St.]

SECOND. IS THERE A DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. IS THERE ANY OTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COUNCIL TONIGHT? I HAVE NONE. ANY CITIZENS REQUEST TO BE HEARD TONIGHT?

[10) CITIZENS REQUEST TO BE HEARD]

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. FOR THE RECORD, THE MICROPHONE'S ALREADY TURNED ON FOR YOU.

CHRISTINE REISSER, 104 HAPPY HOLLOW BOULEVARD, COUNCIL BLUFFS, IOWA, 51503.

AND WHAT I'VE BEEN DYING TO TALK TO THIS COUNCIL ABOUT FOR YEARS IS WE HAVE A BUILDING AT THE INTERSECTION OF PEARL STREET AND MAIN STREET, AND IT USED TO BE THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK.

IT'S KIND OF A YELLOWISH COLOR NOW. IT HAS BEEN A SLUM QUALITY PROPERTY IN THE HEART OF OUR CITY, IN ONE OF THE MOST HEAVILY TRAVELED PAST.

AND THE WINDOWS ARE BROKEN OUT, THE BRICKWORK IS CRUMBLING, AND IT IS A BUILDING IN SHAMBLES.

AND WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS, I KNOW YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DIFFERENT PROPOSALS, BUT THAT STICKS OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB.

AND I WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS THE CITY GOING TO DO ABOUT THIS VERY OBVIOUS, STRIKING, DETERIORATING SLUM BUILDING THAT IS IN THE CENTER OF OUR CITY? I WOULD TELL YOU, IT'S ON THE RADAR OF ALL OF US.

WE HAD SOME MEETINGS ABOUT IT AND IT IS HOPEFULLY GOING TO CHANGE SOON.

IT IS ON THE RADAR. SO I FOR A LONG TIME WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT IT, JUST TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.

YOU'RE RIGHT, BUT. IT'S HARD TO TALK ABOUT IT.

IT IS. WE KNOW WHERE YOU'RE AT WE, AND I THINK STEVE AND JOE HAVE BEEN UP HERE.

I WOULD ASSUME AGREE THAT WE= AGREE WITH YOU.

SO WE'RE WORKING ON IT. YOU KNOW, I'VE HEARD SOME REALLY GOOD IDEAS ABOUT WHAT TO DO WITH THAT PROPERTY.

SOMEBODY WHO WAS RUNNING FOR THE CITY OF COUNCIL BUT DIDN'T MAKE IT TO THE COUNCIL, SAID, MAYBE WE COULD HAVE WHERE THAT BUILDING IS, OR IT COULD BE CHANGED TO WE COULD HAVE A TRANSPORTATION HUB AND WE CAN MAKE IT REALLY COOL.

SO THERE ARE A LOT OF GOOD IDEAS CIRCULATING AROUND.

YEAH. ARE WE TALKING ABOUT TALKING ABOUT THE OLD U.S.

BANK BUILDING OR THE. YEAH, THE 500 WEST BROADWAY.

YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. I WOULD TELL YOU, AND I MEAN, THIS WAS NO DISRESPECT.

PEOPLE COME TO US WITH IDEAS ALL THE TIME WITH NO MONEY TO DO IT.

RIGHT. I MEAN, I'M JUST.

I KNOW WE ALL DO, BUT PEOPLE COME AND SAY, OH, WE SHOULD DO THIS, WELL YOU CAN.

THE OTHER UNFORTUNATE SITUATION WITH THAT SPECIFIC PROPERTY, IF I RECALL, IS IT'S IN A FLOODPLAIN.

AND THE WAY THAT FEMA DOES THINGS, THE WAY THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS SET UP, THERE'S MANY ENCUMBRANCES TO THOSE PROPERTIES.

AND WHAT YOU CAN DO IN THE YOU CAN'T IMPROVE THEM PAST A CERTAIN POINT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE FLOODPLAIN OR THE FLOOD= STUFF WORKS. SO IF IT'S VALUED AT, SAY, $100,000 PROPERTY, YOU CAN ONLY DO $50,000 WORTH OF RENOVATIONS.

OTHERWISE YOU'RE DOING MORE THAN 50%, IN WHICH CASE IT'S DOESN'T WORK AND YOU CAN'T.

IT BREAKS THE RULES. SO THERE'S SOME DIFFERENT INTRICACIES ABOUT THAT PIECE SPECIFICALLY.

BUT WE HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS. I MEAN, IT WAS BROUGHT UP GREATLY WHEN WE HAD THE OFFICER INVOLVED DEAL WITH THE WITH THE DOG AND ALL THAT.

YEAH, SO.

YOU. NO ONE CAN HEAR YOU AT HOME, SORRY. THAT PROPERTY DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A FLOODPLAIN.

I DON'T THINK THERE ARE ANY FLOODPLAINS TECHNICALLY, AROUND THAT PART OF BROADWAY.

THERE IS. THE CREEK RUNS RIGHT NEXT TO THE. UNFORTUNATELY, THE INDIAN CREEK RUNS UNDERNEATH A WHOLE LOT OF THAT.

[00:50:06]

MY QUESTION IS THE SMALL PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE THAT'S GOING ON OVER OFF OF DODGE PARK.

IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE ANYTHING HAS HAPPENED WITH THAT FOR A WHILE.

I'M JUST WONDERING WHERE WE'RE AT WITH THAT. SO I TOOK A TOUR OF IT ABOUT 2 OR 3 WEEKS AGO.

IT'S NOT GOING TO GO ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE RIVER.

IT'S AN OUTLOOK. AND IT WILL BE OPEN THIS SPRING, SO.

SO THAT'S NOT GOING ACROSS THE RIVER. IT'S NOT GOING ACROSS THE RIVER.

IT IS STOPPING EXACTLY WHERE IT IS. THERE'LL BE BENCHES THERE.

THERE'S OVERHANGS. SO YOU CAN SIT THERE AND ENJOY A BOOK, MULTIPLE LEVELS SO YOU CAN SEE.

BUT IT IS NOT GOING ACROSS. IT IS, AT ITS COMPLETION AS IT IS.

IT'S APPEAR OKAY. YEP. THERE'S GOING TO BE A LITTLE CLASSROOM TYPE AREA STUFF.

IT'S WE ARE. JILL LOOKED AT IT, AND A BUNCH OF US LOOKED AT IT A COUPLE OF DAYS BEFORE AND VARIOUS.

IT'S REALLY COOL. WHEN, IT'S GOING TO BE COOL.

INSTEAD, IT WAS A CONSTRUCTION SITE AND THERE WAS STUFF FLYING EVERYWHERE WE WENT, BUT IT WHEN IT'S DONE, IT'LL BE A BIG OPEN SPACES, SO THE SCHOOLS WILL BE ABLE TO MAYBE LIKE TAKE FIELD TRIPS AND GO DOWN AND DO DIFFERENT THINGS.

AND THERE'S GOING TO BE AN AREA AT THE END FOR THE KIDS TO BE ABLE TO LIKE, SEE THE RIVER AND LEARN ABOUT NATURE AND THINGS AND THEN OTHER AREAS KICK OFFS ON EITHER SIDE OF IT, BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO EXTEND ANY FARTHER.

OKAY. WELL, THAT WAS THAT WAS MY QUESTION. YOU ANSWERED IT VERY WELL. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE WISHING TO BE HEARD TONIGHT? OKAY. JUST A POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE. I WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME COUNCILMAN BUTTON TO THE TO THE COUNCIL AND AGAIN, CONGRATULATE STEVE ON BEING REELECTED AS WELL, COUNCILMAN GORMAN.

SO THANK YOU GUYS VERY MUCH. AND WITH THAT, WE ARE ADJOURNED.

THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.