[00:00:04] ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYBODY. WELCOME TO STUDY SESSION TODAY. WE HAVE SEVERAL ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA BEFORE WE REVIEW THE AGENDA. FIRST UP IS MARK ECKMAN WITH THE CBB ANNUAL REPORT. MARK, IF YOU'LL COME ON UP AND JUST HIT THE BUTTON, PLEASE. THANK YOU. MAYOR SCHUDAK, COUNCILMEMBERS, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE UNLEASH COUNCIL BLUFFS FISCAL YEAR 2026 ANNUAL REPORT. JODY WAS A GUIDE TO MAKE SURE THAT EACH OF YOU HAVE A POCKET FOLDER ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE. YOU'RE GOING TO FIND THE 12-PAGE DETAILED ANNUAL REPORT. ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A COPY OF THE POWERPOINT SLIDES I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH. AND THEN BEHIND THAT IS THE 2026 COUNCIL BLUFFS AND POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY INSPIRATIONAL GUIDE. WITH ME HERE TODAY ARE SOME BOARD MEMBERS. FIRST OF ALL, BOARD PRESIDENT ASHLEY KRUSE, ALONG WITH BOARD MEMBERS VANESSA DOBLES, ALONG WITH LEN FRIEDENBACH, AS WELL AS BRIAN SHEA. AND THEN I HAVE STAFF MEMBERS, DIRECTOR OF MARKETING CRAIG CARLSEN, ALONG WITH DIRECTOR OF SALES, KATHY ROSENE. I'M GONNA JUMP INTO WHERE YOU HAVE HEARD ME TALK A LOT BEFORE, AND THAT IS WHAT IS OUR FOCUS? WHY DO YOU FUND US? AND IT'S ALL ABOUT TRYING TO ATTRACT NEW CUSTOMERS TO LOCAL BUSINESSES. NEW CUSTOMERS THAT COME IN THE FORM OF VISITORS THAT HAVE TRAVELED AT LEAST 50 MILES OR FARTHER TO COME TO COUNCIL BLUFFS. AND WHEN THEY ARRIVE, ALMOST ALL OF THEM BECOME NEW TAXPAYERS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT, BECAUSE IF THEY STAY OVERNIGHT, AND WE CERTAINLY WANT THEM TO, THEY'RE GOING TO PAY THE 7% HOTEL, MOTEL TAX. AND WHEN YOU ADD THOSE TWO BENEFITS TOGETHER, THEY EQUAL ONE FOR ALL LOCAL RESIDENTS. SO, WHILE WE MIGHT BE OUTWARDLY FACING, INVITING STRANGERS TO TOWN, AS YOU'VE HEARD ME SAY BEFORE, WE'RE DOING IT WITH A DECIDEDLY LOCAL PURPOSE IN MIND OF SUPPORTING LOCAL BUSINESSES, LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AND ALL LOCAL RESIDENTS. NOW WHAT DID THOSE NEW CUSTOMERS REPRESENT? ACCORDING TO THE MOST RECENT DATA THAT WE HAVE FROM TOURISM ECONOMICS IN CALENDAR YEAR 2024, THEY SPENT MORE THAN $334 MILLION IN POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY. THOSE NEW TAXPAYERS REPRESENTED AS RECENTLY AS FISCAL YEAR 2026, $3.376 MILLION. THAT'S THE THIRD HIGHEST THE CITY HAS EVER COLLECTED, 6% HIGHER THAN FISCAL YEAR 2025. THIS IS THE FIFTH YEAR THAT WE, OR I SHOULD SAY THE CITY, HAS COLLECTED MORE THAN $3 MILLION, ACTUALLY ALMOST $3.2 MILLION FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS. AND SO, AS YOU TAKE A GLANCE AT THE LOOK BACK THERE FOR 11 YEARS, YOU CAN SEE THAT WE'VE COME A LONG WAYS. THE NEXT THING I USUALLY TOUCH ON IS WHAT DID UNLEASHED COUNCIL BLUFFS HAVE TO DO WITH THIS? AND IT ALL HAS TO DO WITH DIGITAL MARKETING. WE HAVE TO GO WHERE THE CUSTOMER IS, WHERE THE PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMER IS, AND THEY'RE OUT THERE RESEARCHING THEIR OPTIONS, LOOKING FOR PLACES TO GO, THINGS TO DO, AND WE REACH THEM THROUGH DIGITAL MEDIA. WHETHER IT'S ADVERTISING ON SOCIAL MEDIA, THROUGH OTHER DIGITAL PLATFORMS USING GOOGLE, WE GET OUT THERE AND GET AFTER THEM. AND ABOUT A YEAR AGO, WE STARTED PARTNERING WITH A NEW AGENCY, SOJOURN, WHICH HAS A GLOBAL REACH BUT IS ACTUALLY HEADQUARTERED JUST ACROSS THE RIVER IN OMAHA, AND THEY'RE CONSIDERED A PROVEN TRAVEL MARKETING SPECIALIST WHEN IT COMES TO GETTING THAT AUDIENCE AND ENTICING THEM. LAST SUMMER IS WHEN WE FIRST STARTED WORKING WITH THEM, STARTING ON JULY 1, RUNNING THROUGH HALLOWEEN. WE LEARNED A LOT THROUGH THAT PROCESS. THEN WE PAUSED THINGS, AND WE WENT BACK TO DOING SOME WINTER ADVERTISING. THIS IS THE FOURTH CONSECUTIVE YEAR THAT WE'VE DONE THAT, MAKING COUNCIL BLUFFS IN POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY A YEAR-ROUND DESTINATION, WORKING WITH POTTAWATOMIE CONSERVATION, THE WESTERN IOWA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, POTTAWATOMIE TOURISM COMMITTEE, AND WE ALSO ENGAGED THE IOWA TOURISM OFFICE WITH A $10,000 GRANT TO HELP FUND THAT PARTICULAR TWO-MONTH-LONG MARKETING CAMPAIGN. COMPARING IT TO THE YEAR BEFORE, WE OUTPERFORMED THAT IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT METRICS. THEN WE WENT AHEAD AND TOOK A COUPLE OF DAYS OFF AND THEN ENGAGED THE AUDIENCE WITH A SPRING AND SUMMER CAMPAIGN, STARTING ON MARCH 10, RAN IT THROUGH THE END OF JUNE. THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE STOPPED AT THE END OF JUNE. THAT WAS JUST THE END OF FISCAL YEAR 2026. WE CERTAINLY REACHED A LOT OF MARKETS, AND ONE OF OUR BEST WAYS OF MEASURING OUR EFFECTIVENESS IS LOOKING AT OUR ANALYTICS FOR OUR WEBSITE. THROUGH THE ONES THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE, WE HIT ALL-TIME HIGHS IN TERMS OF UNIQUE VISITORS, SESSIONS, PAGE VIEWS. IN FACT, BETWEEN FEBRUARY AND JUNE, WE HIT RECORD NUMBERS OF UNIQUE USERS ON THE WEBSITE EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE MONTHS. THE LAST TWO MONTHS, IN MAY AND JUNE, WE SURPASSED 50,000 UNIQUE USERS ON THE WEBSITE, AND THEN HAVE EVEN CONTINUED THAT INTO JULY, WHERE WE ALSO SURPASSED 50,000. WE SAW EVENTS SOAR, 783 MORE, OR AN INCREASE OF 42.7% TO [00:05:01] 02,618. ANOTHER WAY TO LOOK AT THAT IS THAT THAT WAS SEVEN EVENTS HAPPENING ON EVERY DAY, IF YOU AVERAGE THOSE OUT, OR A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER, OF COURSE, BY THE WEEK. WE DO THIS THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA IN TERMS OF ENGAGING OUR AUDIENCE. WE HAD MORE THAN 27,600 FOLLOWERS. WE CREATED 8.2 MILLION IMPRESSIONS THROUGH THE MORE THAN 900 POSTS THAT WERE ON OUR SOCIAL CHANNELS. WE ALSO HAD SOME OTHER BIG WINS I'D LIKE TO MENTION BRIEFLY HERE, ONE OF WHICH WAS THE FACT THAT THE, THAT IOWA PBS DECIDED TO PRODUCE A DOCUMENTARY ON GENERAL DODGE AND THE TRANS-CANADA RAILROAD. THEY CAME TO US TO SEE IF WE MIGHT BE AN UNDERWRITER FOR THEM LAST OCTOBER. WE TOOK A LOOK AT THAT AND THOUGHT IT WAS A GREAT IDEA TO PROMOTE TWO OF OUR BIGGEST ATTRACTIONS IN COUNCIL BLUFFS. FAST FORWARD TO THE SCREENING. THEY DID A SPECIAL SCREENING ON JUNE 9TH AT THE HOFF FAMILY ARTS AND CULTURE CENTER. WENT OVER BIG TIME. HUGE THUMBS UP FROM THE PACKED THEATER. AND THEN FAST FORWARD JUST A LITTLE UNDER A WEEK, AND IT DEBUTED ON IOWA PBS TO A STATEWIDE AUDIENCE. BUT IT DOESN'T END THERE. IT'S GOING TO BE NATIONALLY DISTRIBUTED THIS OCTOBER. SO, THIS GREAT MAN, THESE ATTRACTIONS THAT HE HAS LINKED TO IN THE COMMUNITY, HIS HOME, AND THE U.P. MUSEUM ARE GOING TO DEFINITELY SEE SOME ADDITIONAL VISITORS. WE ALSO HAD INTERSTATE SIGNAGE FINALLY INSTALLED FOUR YEARS AFTER IT BECAME AN OFFICIAL IOWA WELCOME CENTER. THAT'S HOW MUCH OF A BACKLOG THERE WAS AFTER THE AUGUST 2020 DERECHO. BUT IMMEDIATELY WE SAW RESULTS IN THAT, THAT SIGNAGE DROVE TRIPLE-DIGIT PERCENTAGE INCREASES IN THE NUMBER OF VISITORS THAT WE SAW IN THE MONTHS OF MAY AND JUNE. AND THEN WE ALSO BROUGHT HOME SOME ADDITIONAL AWARDS. SOME OF THE MORE MEANINGFUL ONES IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY REALLY SAID ABOUT OUR TOURISM PRODUCT. THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD MUSEUM RECEIVED THE ONLY IN IOWA TOURISM AWARD FROM THE IOWA TRAVEL INDUSTRY PARTNERS FOUNDATION. AND THEN THE FOUNDATION ALSO GAVE AN AWARD TO PACE, POTAWATOMI ARTS, CULTURE, AND ENTERTAINMENT FOR THEIR ARTS, CULTURE, AND HERITAGE WORK IN TOURISM. AND THEN AT THE VERY END OF THE YEAR, BACK IN DECEMBER, OUR REBRAND FROM THE COUNCIL BLUFFS CVB TO UNLEASH COUNCIL BLUFFS RECEIVED THE NEBRASKA PRSA, OR PUBLIC RELATIONS SOCIETY OF AMERICA, THEIR PAPER ANVIL AWARD OF MERIT. SO, WE'RE PRETTY PLEASED TO GET THAT HONOR. AND THEN I WOULD BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T DIRECT SOME ATTENTION TO HOW OUR BUILDING IS BEING TRANSFORMED THERE AT 509 23RD AVENUE. WE ARE SURROUNDED IN TERMS OF GREEN SPACE WITH NATIVE PLANTS AND POLLINATORS. NOW THAT'S REFLECTED IN OUR BUILDING. AND FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE WE BOUGHT IT EIGHT YEARS AGO, IT LOOKS A LITTLE BIT LESS LIKE A BANK, A LITTLE BIT LESS LIKE THE MINI-ME OF FRONTIER SAVINGS BANK ON VALLEY VIEW. WE'RE GOING TO- I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE THAT MANY MORE VISITORS WANTING TO CHECK IT OUT, WANT TO KNOW WHAT IT'S ABOUT. IF YOU GO FROM EAST, TO WEST, TO EAST AGAIN, BECAUSE IT IS ALL FOUR SIDES, YOU START WITH SPRING PLANTS, THEN INTO SUMMER, WRAP IT AROUND, AND YOU'LL SEE SOME OF THE FALL PLANTINGS. AND WHILE WE HAVE POLLINATORS ON THERE, WE ALSO HAVE SNUCK IN, OR WILL HAVE SNUCK IN, A BLACK SQUIRREL, JUST FOR GOOD MEASURE. SO THAT'S A PART OF WHAT WE'RE DOING THERE. AND WE'RE ALSO GOING TO HAVE SOME INTERPRETIVE PANELS. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT EDUCATION COMPONENT BE A PART OF IT. THEY'RE GOING TO BE STATIONED IN DIFFERENT PLACES TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE DIFFERENT SIZE, SIDES OF THE BUILDING, AS WELL AS SEASONS. AND THAT'LL BE INSTALLED AND READY TO GO BY OCTOBER WHEN WE HOPE TO DO SOMEWHAT OF A RIBBON CUTTING OUT THERE WITH OUR COMPLETED MURAL. WITH THAT, I WANT TO THANK THE COUNCIL AND THE CITY FOR YOUR STRONG SUPPORT OF WHAT WE DO. IF IT WASN'T YOUR ROBUST SUPPORT, WE COULDN'T PUT OUT THE POSITIVE MESSAGING THAT WE DO. AND THERE CAN'T BE ENOUGH POSITIVE MESSAGING OUT THERE IN TERMS OF ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE BEING SAID ABOUT US, DISCOUNTING US. BUT THERE'S SO MANY OTHER THINGS THAT WE DO HAVE THAT SEPARATE US POSITIVELY FROM OTHER COMMUNITIES THAT GIVE VISITORS A REASON TO COME HERE TO, YOU KNOW, ENJOY THEMSELVES OR POTENTIALLY MOVE HERE, IF THEY'RE ABLE TO LOCATE A POSITION THAT THEY WANT TO TAKE WITH THE COMPANY HERE. I ALSO WANT TO ADD SOMETHING THAT'S NOT IN THE POWERPOINT OR THE ANNUAL REPORT. AS SOME OF YOU, NOT ALL OF YOU, KNOW, I'M GOING TO BE RETIRING IN MARCH OF 2027. AND I JUST WANT TO SAY IT'S BEEN A GREAT PRIVILEGE AND HONOR TO WORK WITH ALL OF YOU ON BEHALF OF THIS COMMUNITY AND ITS CITIZENS. THERE'S SO MUCH THAT IT HAS. AND I WILL LOOK FROM AFAR TO SEE ALL THE GREAT THINGS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE DOING AFTER I LEAVE. SO WITH THAT, I WANT TO GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS OR MAKE ANY COMMENTS. BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND ATTENTION. THANK [00:10:01] YOU. CONGRATS ON RETIREMENT. YOU'VE ALWAYS DONE A GOOD JOB OF MARKETING OUR CITY AND DOING A GREAT JOB FOR OUR COMMUNITY. SO I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU, ROGER. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR MARK? THANK YOU, MARK, SO MUCH. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. NEXT UP, WE HAVE CHRIS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE OUR GUEST FROM SHOCKEY CONSULTING TO TALK ABOUT THE ELEVATE CBE 2050 PROJECT? GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYBODY. SO, AS YOU KNOW, THE CDA COUNCIL BLUFFS, BEING LED BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, IS... I'LL LET THEM CLEAR OUT FIRST. OKAY. SO, AS YOU KNOW, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT IS IN THE PROCESS OF LEADING THE CITY'S EFFORTS TO ADOPT A NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN. WE'RE ALMOST GETTING TO THE HALFWAY POINT. WITH US TODAY IS SHOCKEY CONSULTING, WHO'S ASSISTING THE CITY WITH THIS PLANNING ENDEAVOR. I'M HERE TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE AND KIND OF DISCUSS KIND OF NEXT STEPS MOVING FORWARD. SO, WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO JEFF WILLIAMS, SHEILA SHOCKEY WITH SHOCKEY CONSULTING. (INAUDIBLE) MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, I AM SHEILA SHOCKEY WITH SHOCKEY CONSULTING, AND WITH ME HERE TODAY IS JEFFREY WILLIAMS, YOUR PROJECT MANAGER, AND CARRIE KINELLER. WE ARE HERE TO WORK ON YOUR PROJECT, AND WE HAD A GREAT PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING EARLIER TODAY AND LOOK FORWARD TO A PUBLIC MEETING COMING UP. I WANTED TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE OF WHERE WE ARE. WE ARE ON SCHEDULE AND ON BUDGET, WHICH IS GREAT. AND LET'S SEE IF I CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THIS WORK. THERE WE GO. NO, BACK. HMM. GO DOWN. I'M TRYING TO GO BACK. YEAH, I WAS TRYING TO GO. OKAY, THAT ONE. THERE WE GO. AND THEN YOU JUST KEEP GOING DOWN. THERE WE GO. OKAY, SORRY ABOUT THAT. THIS IS ALMOST LIKE MY TV REMOTE. I HAVE TROUBLE WITH IT. IT'S JUST PARTIALLY THERE. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S SOMETHING YOU CAN DO. CAN YOU MAKE IT WORK? SO, THERE WE GO. CAN YOU GO BACK ONE MORE, PLEASE? (INAUDIBLE) YEAH, I THINK IF YOU JUST HIT PLAY. (INAUDIBLE) OH, OKAY. OR UP? OKAY, I'LL JUST GO BACK AND SEE IF I CAN. SO YEAH, IF YOU CAN SCROLL IT UP. THERE YOU GO. AWESOME. THANKS SO MUCH. SO TODAY AT OUR PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING, WE LOOKED AT SOME PROPOSED GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND GOT FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVES. AND WE HAVE A GREAT PLANNING COMMITTEE THAT'S BEEN FORMED THAT REALLY IS A GOOD CROSS-SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY AND DIFFERENT INTERESTS, DIFFERENT GEOGRAPHIC AREAS AS WELL. AND SO, THESE PROPOSED GUIDING PRINCIPLES WILL BE EDITED AS WE GO ALONG PRIOR TO THE NEXT PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING. AND THEY ALL CONFORM WITH AND REALLY IMPLEMENT THE 14 PRINCIPLES THAT ARE REQUIRED BY IOWA STATE LAW FOR YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING. AND SO, BUT WE WANT THEM TO BE VERY SPECIFIC TO WHAT YOUR COMMUNITY WANTS TO SEE IN COUNCIL BLUFFS. JEFFREY. GOOD AFTERNOON, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. SO, THE WORK THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WE'VE CERTAINLY TALKED ABOUT QUANTITATIVE DATA, BUT ALSO UNDERSTANDING QUALITATIVE DATA. AND HOPEFULLY YOU ARE AWARE, AND HOPEFULLY YOU'VE BEEN TAKEN SOME OF THE SURVEYS THAT WE PUT FORTH IN TERMS OF GETTING PEOPLE'S IMPRESSIONS, UNDERSTANDING, DESIRES ABOUT THE FUTURE OF COUNCIL BLUFFS AND HOW IT GROWS. SO ALSO, WITH THIS DATA KIND OF, UM, PUTTING SOME SNAPSHOTS TOGETHER. SO, WE, THIS INITIAL SURVEY IS A RESPONSE RATE THAT'S GETTING CLOSE TO ABOUT 500 PEOPLE. AND UNDERSTANDING WE'RE GETTING LOTS OF INTEREST FROM FOLKS THAT ARE LONG TENURED HERE, LIVING IN THE CITY, GETTING INTEREST FROM ACROSS THE CITY. AND AS WE WORK THROUGH THE WHOLE SURVEY FORMAT AND STRATEGY, WE START TO GET MORE SPECIFIC. THERE IS A DOWNTOWN SURVEY THAT I HOPE EACH OF YOU HAVE TAKEN AND ENCOURAGED OTHERS TO DO THE SAME. SO, THROUGH THIS PROCESS, WE'VE WORKED TOGETHER TO PUT TOGETHER A, A VISION STATEMENT. WE'RE SEEING THE TALKS ABOUT COUNCIL BLUFFS AND WHAT ITS PRIORITIES ARE AND HOW THE FUTURE NEEDS TO LEAN INTO ITS HISTORIC CHARACTERISTICS, ITS FAMILY FRIENDLY NATURE, AND BE A WELCOMING COMMUNITY FOR ALL, AND THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES. WHAT YOU'LL FIND NEXT IS WE'LL START MOVING TOWARDS GETTING SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS. SO NOT JUST THOUGHTS, IDEAS, BUT THIS IS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AT A PARTICULAR LOCATION. I AM GOING TO GO [00:15:01] INTO THE... JEFFREY, THAT'S NOT GOING TO WORK BECAUSE IT'S NOT A POWER. IT'S A PDF. AGAIN, I THINK, WELL, THIS MAY BE MY TEASE TO SEE THIS DATA UP CLOSE AND IN PERSON. COME TOMORROW NIGHT TO THE DOWNTOWN WORKSHOP THAT'S HAPPENING IN THE LIBRARY FROM FIVE TO SEVEN. SO, YOU CAN SEE THAT, THAT DATA UP CLOSE. SO, THE IDEA IS WE ARE AT A POINT NOW WHERE WE HAVE A PLAN. WE'VE ALWAYS TALKED ABOUT THESE BEING TWO PLANS, BUT ONE VISION, WHICH IS SET GUIDING PRINCIPLES, THANKS AGAIN TO THE OVERALL ADVISORY COMMITTEE TODAY. AND THEN NOW YOU'RE GOING TO START TO SEE SOME DIFFERENTIATION IN THE PROCESS, UNDERSTANDING DOWNTOWN THROUGH THE LENS OF BEST PRACTICES, BEING MORE SPECI... PARTICULAR AND SPECIFIC ABOUT LOCATIONS, AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BEING BROADER. ONE OF THE COMMENTS TODAY WAS ABOUT THESE GUIDING PRINCIPLES. WRITE THEM IN SUCH A WAY THAT YOU DON'T PUT ANYBODY INTO A BOX WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE. SO NOW YOU'RE GOING TO START TO SEE THE DIFFERENTIATION AS WE, WE MOVE FORWARD. SO, WE'RE CLOSING OUT PHASE THREE. WE'VE LAUNCHED THE PROJECT. DISCOVERY WAS UNDERSTANDING FEEDBACK FROM COMMUNITY MEMBERS, ALSO UNDERSTANDING DATA POINTS AND CONDITIONS. AND SO NOW WE'RE STARTING TO MOVE TO THAT REFINEMENT OF VISION AND STATEMENT. AND AS WE MOVE OUR WAY THROUGH THE YEAR, ULTIMATELY TO RECOMMENDED ACTIONS. AND WITH THE GOAL OF AS WE MOVE INTO 2027, WE'LL NOW START TO SEE DRAFTS OF DOCUMENTS AND HOW THINGS COME TOGETHER. SO THAT IS WHERE WE ARE AT. AND MY CLOSING SLIDE WAS LITERALLY JUST WHAT, WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN NEXT. WE'LL ALWAYS BE SEEKING ENGAGEMENT THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS UNTIL YOU ADOPT PLANS. SO THAT WILL CONTINUE. WE'LL CONTINUE REFINING THE DATA POINTS THAT WE SEE. AND NOW WE'RE MOVING TOWARDS, AGAIN, LITERALLY BEING TO GEOLOCATE AND PLACE DOTS ON THE MAP TO TALK ABOUT WHERE THINGS SHOULD HAPPEN OR WHERE THINGS SHOULDN'T HAPPEN. AND THEN ULTIMATELY, IT'S GETTING A PLACE. WE'LL START TO SEE SOME SCENARIOS. SO HERE ARE SOME OPTIONS. IF YOU'RE AT A LOCATION, HERE'S OPTION A OR OPTION B. THAT'S WHERE THE SURVEY SERIES IS GOING, AND THAT'S WHERE THE DOCUMENT IS GOING. AND AGAIN, PLEASE ENCOURAGE FOLKS TO COME OUT. WE HAD GREAT TURNOUT FOR OUR COMMUNITY MEETING. GREAT FEEDBACK. IT'S AN OPEN HOUSE STYLE. STAY AS LONG AS YOU CAN. PLEASE GIVE YOUR FEEDBACK. THIS IS THE POINT IN TIME. WE LEARNED SO MUCH ABOUT HOW THE COMMUNITY WANTS THIS DOCUMENT TO COME TOGETHER. SO, WITH THAT, I KNOW I HAVE A FULL DOCKET AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. AND AGAIN, ONE LAST SHAMELESS PLUG. YOU CAN TALK TO ME IN DEPTH ABOUT THIS TOMORROW NIGHT FROM 5 TO 7 IN THE PUBLIC LIBRARY. THANK YOU, JEFFREY. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR JEFFREY AND HIS TEAM? OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. UP NEXT, THEN, IS A DISCUSSION ON THE NOTICE TO TERMINATE THE FUNDING AND OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT AND LEASE CONTRACT FROM MIDLAND'S HUMANE SOCIETY. WHITNEY, I THINK YOU'RE TAKING THE LEAD ON THIS ONE. JUST GONNA, WE RECEIVED A NOTICE FROM THE HUMANE SOCIETY, AND THAT IS WHAT IS LISTED ON THE AGENDA IS THE NOTICE TO TERMINATE THE CURRENT, UM, FUNDING, OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT, AND LEASE. SO, THIS WAS SENT TO THE CITY ON JUNE 5TH, GIVING A SIX-MONTH NOTICE, WHICH IS REQUIRED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENTS. WE HAD PREVIOUSLY TALKED ABOUT THE HUMANE SOCIETY AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WITH THE TNR PROGRAM AND THINGS. AND I THINK THAT WE'VE BEEN IN, IN COOPERATION WITH AND WORKING WITH THEM ON VARIOUS EFFORTS. AND SO, I THINK THAT I WANTED TO HAND OUT THE LETTER AND GO THROUGH SOME OF THE ISSUES, SOME OF THE THINGS I'VE RESEARCHED ALREADY, AND I CAN PROVIDE YOU GENERAL BACKGROUND. SOME OF THEM, WE WILL NEED ADDITIONAL TIME. AND SO, I'M HOPING TO BE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS SO THAT WE WOULD KNOW WHAT DIRECTION WE SHOULD MOVE. I'VE ASKED MARCY, WHO I'M GONNA HAVE TO INTRODUCE HERSELF, TO BE HERE WITH ME. DO I PUSH THE BUTTON? IT'S ALREADY ON. HI, I AM MARCELLA PELTZ, AND I AM AN ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER WITH COUNCIL BLUFFS. SOON-TO-BE CHIEF ON SATURDAY. I WAS JUST GONNA MAKE YOU SAY THAT. SO, ON SATURDAY, MARCY WILL BE STARTING AS THE CHIEF BUILDING, OR SORRY, CHIEF BUILDING. YEAH, YOU WANT ROBIN'S JOB. I KNOW, I DON'T WANT ANYONE TO KNOW. SORRY, CHIEF ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER. ONE CAN BE TRANSPARENT ABOUT THAT. YEAH, SHE IS... MARCY HAS WORKED WITH ANIMAL CONTROL FOR A LONG TIME. SHE'S ACTUALLY WORKED WITH MIDLANDS HUMANE SOCIETY PRIOR TO THAT AND HAD BEEN WITH ANIMAL CONTROL BEFORE THAT. SO, MARCY BRINGS A WEALTH OF KNOWLEDGE. AND IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT ANIMAL CONTROL OR HOW ANIMAL CONTROL IS CURRENTLY WORKING WITH MIDLANDS HUMANE SOCIETY, I AM DEFINITELY NOT THE PERSON TO ADDRESS THOSE QUESTIONS. AND SO, MARCY HAS SOME THOUGHTS, AND SHE'S THE PERSON WHO CAN SPEAK SORT OF MOST KNOWLEDGEABLY ABOUT THOSE THINGS. AND SO JUST [00:20:02] STARTING AT THE BEGINNING OF THE LETTER, THEY TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW MIDLANDS IS, THEY ARE IN EFFECT, WHICH IS CLEAR ON THE SECOND PAGE WHERE THEY SAY THAT THEY ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMINATION PROVISIONS OUTLINED IN THE TERM SECTION OF THE 2017 FUNDING AND OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT AND LEASE. THIS LETTER CONSTITUTES THE REQUIRED SIX MONTHS' WRITTEN NOTICE PRIOR TO EXPIRATION OF THE CURRENT RENEWAL TERM. THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF TERMINATION OF THAT AGREEMENT WILL THEREFORE BE DECEMBER, 31ST OF 2026. SO, THE LETTER DOES TERMINATE THE FUNDING AND OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 31ST. THE FIRST PART OF THE LETTER TALKS ABOUT SORT OF THE PURPOSE AND KIND OF WHAT'S HAPPENING, AND I THINK IT'S GIVING US THEIR PERSPECTIVE. AND SO, I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT KIND OF TO START AT THE BEGINNING AND WORK THROUGH. SO, THE FIRST PART IS TALKING ABOUT THE LAND. THERE'S SOME THINGS IN THIS LETTER THAT I THINK ARE TRUE STATEMENTS AND SOME THINGS THAT I THINK ARE NOT HOW THE CITY WOULD CHARACTERIZE THEM, AND WE CAN KIND OF WALK THROUGH THOSE. BUT THERE HAS BEEN A DESIRE AT LEAST SINCE I HAVE STARTED AT THE CITY FOR MIDLANDS HUMANE SOCIETY, THEY'VE BEEN ASKING, THEY'D ASKED FOR US TO GIVE THEM THE LAND THAT THEY'RE BUILDING, THAT THE BUILDING SITS ON. AND THEN THEY'D ASKED IF WE WOULD SELL IT. AND SO, COUNCIL HAD PREVIOUSLY HAD DISCUSSIONS A LONG TIME AGO ABOUT THAT. SO, THE LAW IS WE ABSOLUTELY CANNOT GIVE IT TO THEM. THEY ARE NOT A GOVERNMENT ENTITY. SO, A CITY CAN GIFT TO A GOVERNMENT ENTITY LIKE A SCHOOL DISTRICT OR THE COUNTY OR TO THE STATE. WE CAN GIVE, WE CAN GIVE LAND TO THEM, BUT WE CANNOT GIVE LAND TO NONPROFITS. SO, GIFTING THE LAND WOULD BE AN ABSOLUTE NO. AND THEN THERE WAS A SECONDARY QUESTION OF ARE WE ABLE TO SELL THIS LAND? AND WE HAD DISCUSSED AT THAT POINT THAT THIS LAND ORIGINALLY WAS GIVEN BY THE CARDELL FAMILY TO THE BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS WHEN THAT WAS AN INDEPENDENT ENTITY AND EXISTED. AND SO, THIS LAND WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE CITY. IT WAS GIVEN TO THE BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS. THERE IS NOT A RESTRICTION IN THAT WARRANTY DEED SAYING THAT THE LAND HAS TO BE USED FOR PARK PURPOSES, BUT THE LAND WAS GIVEN TO THE BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS. WHEN THE BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS WAS DISSOLVED, THAT LAND WAS THEN TRANSFERRED TO THE CITY, AND THERE IS A GENERAL TO BE USED FOR THE PUBLIC PURPOSE RESTRICTION OR LANGUAGE IN IT. BUT WE HAVE CLEAR MARKETABLE TITLE. THERE'S NOTHING THAT KEEPS US FROM SELLING LAND. AND ANY TYPE, SO IF WE WENT OFF OUR TITLE OPINION, IT'S GOING TO COME BACK AND SAY MARKETABLE TITLES IN THE CITY; THEY CAN SELL THE LAND. THE GRAY AREA IS THAT THIS IS LAND THAT WAS GIVEN BY A PRIVATE FAMILY, A PRIVATE ENTITY, TO THE BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF A PUBLIC PARK AND THEN GIVEN TO THE CITY FROM THE BOARD OF PARK COMMISSION. SO, YES, IT'S TRUE THAT THERE'S NO RESTRICTION ON THE DEED, BUT THAT ISN'T NECESSARILY THE SAME AS SAYING THAT THERE'S NOT A PUBLIC USE REQUIREMENT ON THIS LAND. BOTH THE 2010 AGREEMENT, WHICH WAS THE INITIAL AGREEMENT WE ENTERED INTO WITH MIDLANDS, AND THE 2017 AGREEMENT, WHICH ONE OF THEM THAT THEY'RE TERMINATING WITH THE NOTICE, MAKE CLEAR THAT THERE'S AN OBLIGATION ON THE CITY TO HAVE A PARK ON THIS LAND. BOTH OF THEM SAY THAT MIDLANDS HUMANE SOCIETY IS GOING TO HAVE A DOG PARK ON THIS LAND TO FULFILL THE CITY'S OBLIGATION TO USE THIS LAND FOR A PARK OR TO USE A PART OF THIS LAND AS A PARK. SO, THERE WAS A GENERAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT- I WAS NOT HERE IN 2010 OR IN 2017- THAT EVERYONE AGREED THAT THIS LAND WAS SUPPOSED TO BE USED FOR A PARK. NOT ALL OF THE LAND IS BEING USED FOR A PARK, BUT WE MAINTAINED THAT IT WAS THE INTENT OF THE FAMILY AND THAT THE LAND WAS SUPPOSED TO BE USED AS A PARK, AND SO THAT THE DOG PARK WAS A PROVISION PUT IN TO COMPLY WITH THAT IN BOTH AGREEMENTS. SO, THE CASE LAW IS, AS YOU MIGHT IMAGINE, MESSY AS IT ALWAYS IS. WHENEVER WE COME TO YOU WITH AN ANSWER FOR SOMETHING, IT'S ALWAYS MAYBE. AND SO, I HAVE DONE A BRIEF SORT OF OUTLINE ON THE QUESTION OF THE LAND AND THE THINGS THAT THE COURT LOOKS AT IS GOING TO BE THE ORIGINAL ACQUISITION OF THE LAND, HOW WE GOT IT, AND THEN WHETHER OR NOT THE PUBLIC TRUST, PUBLIC USE DOCTRINE WOULD APPLY. BECAUSE IT WAS GIVEN TO US FOR A PARK PURPOSE BY A PRIVATE FAMILY AND NOT FROM THE STATE, THOSE ARE FACTORS THAT WEIGH IN FAVOR OF SAYING YES. A COURT COULD RULE THAT THERE IS, IN FACT, A PUBLIC USE RESTRICTION ON THIS LAND. THE DEEDS AND TITLE WORK THEMSELVES DO NOT SAY THAT. THEN THE COURT SAYS GO BACK AND FIND OUT WHAT THE INTENT WAS, LOOK AT WHAT WAS HAPPENING AT THE TIME THAT THE DEEDS WERE TRANSFERRED. I HAVE NOT GONE BACK TO LOOK AT THE BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONER MINUTES, IF THEY EXIST FROM 1962. IF YOU WANT ME TO DO THAT, I WILL DO THAT. IF YOU WANT ME TO LOOK AT THE COUNCIL MINUTES FROM 1970, I WILL MAKE JODY TAKE ME DOWN TO THE SCARY DARK ROOM, AND I WILL LOOK THROUGH THESE RECORDS WHICH I'M SURE DO EXIST. BUT I HAVE NOT DONE THAT YET BECAUSE BEFORE WE DO THAT, AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE, BEFORE WE SPEND HOURS AND HOURS AND HOURS ON PROJECTS, I WANTED TO KNOW KIND OF WHAT YOUR GUYS' THOUGHTS ARE ON SELLING THIS LAND. IF YOUR INITIAL THOUGHTS WERE, IT WAS GIVEN TO US TO USE AS A PARK, WE WANT TO USE IT FOR A PARK, WE DON'T WANT TO SELL IT, THEN I DON'T WANT TO PUT THOSE HOURS INTO IT. I AM HAPPY TO PUT THAT TIME INTO IT IF YOUR INCLINATION IS LET'S CONSIDER SELLING AND YOU WANT TO HAVE A FULL REPORT, HAPPY TO DO THAT. SO THAT'S PIECE ONE. THAT'S [00:25:02] THEIR SORT OF FIRST QUESTION IS THEY'RE GOING TO, THEY'RE INDICATING THAT THEY NEED TO EXPAND THEIR FACILITY AND THAT IN ORDER TO DO THAT, THEY'RE SAYING SOME DONORS WON'T DONATE IF WE DON'T OWN THE LAND. NOW, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, THEY DIDN'T OWN THE LAND WHEN THEY BUILT THE BUILDING, BUT SOME DONORS MAY HAVE THOSE RESTRICTIONS. I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY DONORS ARE OR IF THEY'D BE ABLE TO EXPAND WITHOUT IT. THAT'S NOT INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE. SO THAT'S SORT OF THE BUILDING, SORRY, THE NEED FOR BUILDING EXPANSION AND OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND IS QUESTION ONE. QUESTION TWO IS REALLY MORE ABOUT THE CURRENT SETUP. AND SO, WHAT WE DID IS IN 2010, IT WAS AGREED BY THE COUNTY AND THE CITY AND MIDLAND HUMANE SOCIETY THAT WE WERE SORT OF DUPLICATING EFFORTS AND THAT IT WOULD BE A BETTER IDEA TO POOL OUR RESOURCES AND RUN A FACILITY TOGETHER. AND AT THAT TIME, THE CITY HAD THIS LAND, AND IN 2010, THE CITY MADE CLEAR THAT IT WOULD MAKE AVAILABLE THIS LAND SO THAT A SHELTER COULD BE BUILT ON IT AND IT COULD BE RUN BY THE MIDLANDS HUMANE SOCIETY, AND THAT THEY WOULD LEASE SPACE TO BOTH THE CITY AND THE COUNTY IF THEY WANT IT. THAT IS A TERM THAT'S WRITTEN INTO THE 2010 AGREEMENT. IN 2015 THEN, THINGS START ROLLING AND THEN WE END UP WITH THESE AGREEMENTS SORT OF IN 2017 THAT ARE REFERENCED IN HERE IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH, BUT WE END UP WITH A LEASE AGREEMENT FOR 99 YEARS, SO WE LEASED THEM OUR LAND FOR 99 YEARS AT $10 A YEAR IN RENT AND WE SAID THAT COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OF THE TERMS OF THE 2010 AGREEMENT IS ALSO MATERIAL TO OUR LEASE, MEANING IF THEY WERE NOT GOING TO FOLLOW THE TERMS OF THE 2010 AGREEMENT, WE COULD CONSIDER THAT TO BE A BREACH OF THEIR LEASE. IN THAT 2010 AGREEMENT, IT ALSO CONTEMPLATED AN OPERATING AGREEMENT AND A LEASE TO THE CITY OF SPACE FOR ANIMAL CONTROL WITHIN THE FUTURE SHELTER. THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE NOW. THOSE WERE DONE IN TWO DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS IN 2017. ONE, THE LEASE OF 99 YEARS, AND THEN THE FUNDING AND OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT AND LEASE. SO, THE LEASE BEING REFERRED TO IS ACTUALLY THE LEASE TO THE CITY FOR THE SPACE THAT ANIMAL CONTROL CURRENTLY OCCUPIES ATTACHED TO THE AND IN THE BUILDING WHERE THE HUMANE SOCIETY IS HOUSED. THE TERMINATION OF THAT MEANS THAT THEY ARE NOW, I MEAN, INTENTIONALLY OR NOT TERMINATING AS OF DECEMBER 31ST MEANS THAT THEY'RE TERMINATING NOT JUST THE FUNDING AND OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT BUT ALSO OUR LEASE, WHICH MEANS THAT UNDER THE 2010 AGREEMENT, THEY'RE NOT COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENTS, WHICH MEANS THAT UNDER THEIR LEASE AGREEMENT, WE HAVE A VALID ARGUMENT THAT THEM REMOVING ANIMAL CONTROL FROM THE BUILDING WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THEIR LEASE OF 99 YEARS. AND SO, THERE IS A QUESTION THAT HAS COME UP BEFORE ABOUT WHO OWNS THIS BUILDING, WHERE THE HUMANE SOCIETY IS AT. THE HUMANE SOCIETY HAS INDICATED IN MULTIPLE MEETINGS THAT I'VE BEEN IN THAT THEY BELIEVE THEY OWN THIS BUILDING. I HAVE LOOKED EVERYWHERE I CAN FIND FOR ANYTHING SAYING THAT THEY OWN THIS BUILDING. I DO NOT BELIEVE, UNLESS THERE ARE DOCUMENTS OUT THERE THAT I HAVE NOT SEEN, WHICH IS WHOLLY POSSIBLE, THAT THAT IS ACCURATE. I COULD NOT SAY 100% FOR SURE THAT THAT IS NOT ACCURATE, BUT MY POSITION, HAVING READ THE 2010, THE 2017, AND THE 2017 AGREEMENT, IS THAT IT WAS INTENDED THAT THEY WOULD OWN THE BUILDING DURING THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE. IT DOES CLEARLY SAY IN THE 2010 AGREEMENT THAT THERE SHALL BE TWO PHASES, A DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE, AND THEN AN OPERATING PHASE. AND IN THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE, IT SAYS THAT THE MIDLAND HUMANE SOCIETY SHALL BE CONSIDERED THE SOLE OWNER OF THE PROJECT DURING THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE. IT ALSO SAYS IN THAT SAME AGREEMENT THAT ONCE THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS ISSUED, THAT ALL OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE SHALL BE VOID. AND WE WOULD MOVE ON TO THE OPERATING PHASE. IT DOES NOT SAY IN THE OPERATING PHASE THAT THAT BUILDING BELONGS TO THE HUMANE SOCIETY. IN THE WHEREAS PARAGRAPHS OF THE 2010 AGREEMENT, IT ALSO SAYS WHEN IT REFERS TO THE PROJECT THAT IT SHALL BE THE LAND AND ANY IMPROVEMENTS MADE THEREON, WHICH WOULD BE CONSIDERED A BUILDING. HOWEVER, THE COURTS ARE GOING TO LOOK AT THE INTENT OF THE PARTIES AT THE TIME THAT THEY ENTER INTO THE AGREEMENT. I WAS NOT HERE. I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION TO PROVIDE. HOWEVER, I THINK THERE'S A GENUINE QUESTION ABOUT WHO OWNS THIS BUILDING. I THINK THAT THAT MIGHT BECOME VERY RELEVANT IF THEY ARE NOT, IN FACT, INTENDING TO CONTINUE TO LEASE TO THE HUMANE SOCIETY. LAST NIGHT, WE GOT A DOCUMENT FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE HUMANE SOCIETY, AND IT DOES NOT INCLUDE A LEASE PROVISION FOR THE ANIMAL CONTROL. IT SAYS IT LAYS OUT SORT OF A FRAMEWORK OF HOW THEY SHOULD DROP ANIMALS OFF, BUT IT DOES NOT, IN FACT, INCLUDE ANY KIND OF A LEASE FOR THEM TO BE IN THE BUILDING. AND SO, IT WOULD BE UP TO COUNSEL TO DECIDE AT THAT POINT HOW WE WANT TO PROCEED WITH THAT, IF YOU WANT US TO LOOK INTO THINGS, BUT THAT IS THE [00:30:01] SITUATION AS IT STANDS. I THINK THERE'S ALSO THE ISSUE OF THE OPERATING AGREEMENT, HOW THINGS ARE CURRENTLY WORKING. I'D SAY BOTH SIDES HAVE BEEN UNHAPPY WITH HOW, WITH SORT OF, IT'S BEEN ABOUT WHAT SERVICES, WHO'S DOING AND HOW ANIMALS COME IN AND DON'T COME IN, AND SO I'M GOING TO, THERE ARE SOME MODIFICATIONS, CERTAINLY, THAT COULD BE MADE TO THE AGREEMENT, AND SO I WANTED MARCY TO BE ABLE TO COME AND TALK ABOUT KIND OF THE CURRENT ARRANGEMENTS, WHERE THINGS STAND, WHAT ARE, YOU KNOW, WHAT ANIMAL CONTROL SPOTS ARE, HOW THEY'RE KIND OF SEEING THINGS AT THIS POINT. SO. SO OBVIOUSLY, I THINK THAT WE HAVE A REALLY GOOD PAST WITH THE HUMANE SOCIETY. I THINK THAT IT'D BE WORTH LOOKING INTO MORE OF THE NUMBERS, MORE OF THE BLACK AND WHITE, OF THE COSTS VERSUS, YOU KNOW, MOVING FORWARD, AND WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT, AND I THINK BECAUSE IT'S BEEN SUCH A GRAY AREA FROM THE BEGINNING UNTIL NOW, JUST AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, WHO'S GOING TO DO WHAT, WHEN, BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING WRITTEN DOWN. SO, WE NEED A STRONGER CONTRACT, IF ANYTHING, AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, MOVING FORWARD WITH, LIKE, GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATIONS IS IDEALLY WHAT YOU WOULD WANT TO DO, BUT MAKING SURE THAT THOSE, YOU KNOW, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT, WHEN IT COMES TO EVEN JUST WHO TO CONTACT WHEN SOMETHING ISN'T RIGHT, TO WHO PAYS FOR WHAT, AND THE CONTRACT DOESN'T REALLY STATE MUCH NOW. SO, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, I WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, WE OBVIOUSLY, GAYLEN RETIRED IN MARCH, AND I DON'T START CHIEF UNTIL SATURDAY, SO I KIND OF GOT LOOPED IN, AND I DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT A LOT OF THE LITTLE DETAILS, BUT IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS SPECIFICALLY, ABOUT THINGS, I CAN TRY MY BEST TO ANSWER THOSE, BUT I THINK THAT IF WE HAVE SOMETHING MAYBE JUST MORE CLEAR THAT WE COULD OPERATE BETTER TOGETHER, AND I THINK THAT'S KIND OF WHAT THEY ARE WANTING AS WELL. IN TERMS OF SO, THERE ARE A COUPLE THINGS THAT, SO THERE IS NOT CURRENTLY A DOG PARK OPEN TO THE COMMUNITY ON THIS LAND. IT IS; THERE IS A DOG PARK AREA; IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT MIDLANDS HUMANE SOCIETY IS USING IT ONLY FOR THE DOGS THAT ARE AT, ANIMALS THAT ARE AT THE MIDLANDS HUMANE SOCIETY. I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IF IT IS OUR BELIEF THAT THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE USED AS A PUBLIC PARK, WE SHOULD BE SURE THAT GOING FORWARD THAT THEY'RE REQUIRED TO OPERATE A PUBLIC PARK, THAT THE DOG PARK BE OPEN, THAT, YOU KNOW, IT BE STAFFED, AND THAT IT BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC TO USE IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH OUR VIEW OF THE DEEDS AND THE ACTUAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE LAND, IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. SO THAT IS ONE THING THAT I KNOW THAT WE IDENTIFIED THAT IS NOT CURRENTLY BEING DONE. YES, NO, I THINK IT WAS A YEAR AGO THAT THEY STOPPED THE DOG PARK. IT WAS LIKE A MORE OF LIKE A PRIVATE DOG PARK, NOT LIKE THE OPEN ONES THAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY. BUT YEAH, THEY DO USE IT FOR THEIR OWN DOGS THERE. THERE, AND THEN, SO THE OTHER ISSUE IS THE FUNDING AND OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT. AND SO, THEY ARE CORRECT THAT THERE WERE SOME YEARS WHERE THINGS WERE NOT DONE THE WAY THAT THE AGREEMENT DICTATES. AND SO BASICALLY, IN 2017, WE DRAFTED MAYBE THE MOST COMPLICATED FUNDING STRUCTURE OF ALL TIME AND SAID THAT WE ARE GOING TO DO 1.2, $1.25 PER CAPITA BASED ON THE CPI KANSAS CITY INDEX, WHICH OF COURSE, KANSAS CITY WAS THEN NOT SELECTED AS A LOCATION BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGAIN. SO, THE CPI INDEX FOR KANSAS CITY WENT AWAY LITERALLY RIGHT AWAY AFTER THAT. BUT EVEN USING THE CPI KIND OF ACROSS THE US OR THE ONE THAT WOULD REPLACE IT, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO THE AGREEMENT SAID THAT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO MEET EVERY TWO YEARS AND SORT OF CONSIDER THE FEE STRUCTURE AND HOW FEES SHOULD BE PAID TO THEM. IT DOES NOT APPEAR AS THOUGH WE DID THAT BIANNUALLY. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A REQUIREMENT ON BOTH OF US. I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT HAPPENED. IT DID HAPPEN THAT IN 2017, WE ENTERED INTO THIS AGREEMENT. IN 2018, FOR WHAT I CAN FIND IS THAT IT LOOKS LIKE THE HUMANE SOCIETY CAME AND GAVE A PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL. AND THEN IN 2018, WE INCREASED THE AMOUNT WE WERE PAYING THEM BY 60%. SO, WE TOOK WHAT WE HAD BEEN PAYING THEM, AND WE INCREASED IT BY 60%. THAT'S NOT BECAUSE THE AGREEMENT REQUIRED THAT. THAT IS DEFINITELY NOT IN LINE WITH ANY KIND OF CPI ESCALATOR. I HAVE, I HAVE YET TO FIND ANY AGREEMENT THAT SAYS THAT. THERE'S NOT ANYTHING IN WRITING THAT. AMENDMENT. I CAN'T FIND ANYTHING THAT SAYS WHY. BUT WE DEFINITELY DID START PAYING THEM 60% MORE IN 2018. SO, THIS PARAGRAPH HERE, AND I KNOW YOU GUYS HAVEN'T READ IT BECAUSE I JUST TURNED IT OVER TO YOU, BUT BASICALLY, THEY'RE SAYING WE DIDN'T GET AN INCREASE FOR ABOUT EIGHT YEARS. WELL, IN 2017, WE GO UP 60% TO 2018. AND THEN THERE'S NO INCREASE UNTIL THEY RAISED THE ISSUE IN 2024. AND IN 2025, WE LOOKED [00:35:02] AT, OKAY, SO ASSUMING THAT THE 60% INCREASE WAS CORRECT, HOW MUCH SHOULD WE GO UP IN ORDER TO COMPENSATE FOR THE FACT THAT WE DIDN'T ACTUALLY INCREASE THESE YEARS? AND WE DID THAT. FINANCE RAN THE CALCULATIONS, AND WE ARRIVED AT THE CURRENT FIGURE, WHICH IS $159,369 A YEAR. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PAYING THEM CURRENTLY ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. AND THERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT IF, WELL, IF THE 2018 INCREASE; IT'S HARD TO KNOW. DID THEY ASSUME THEN THAT THEY WERE JUST GOING TO GIVE THEM THIS MAJOR BUMP AND THEN THEY WOULDN'T COME IN AND ASK? IT, IT DEFINITELY ISN'T IN LINE WITH THE AGREEMENT IN TERMS OF KIND OF HOW IT WAS SUPPOSED TO ESCALATE. I HAVE HAD- I'VE RUN THE MATH, AND I'M NOT A MATH EXPERT, SO I ALSO HAD AI RUN THE MATH FOR ME. AND IF, IF THE 2018 INCREASE WAS NOT IN AN EXECUTED PROPER AGREEMENT, THEN WE HAVE ACTUALLY, WE'VE OVERPAID, BASICALLY. WE'RE AT THE POINT WHERE WE HAVE, WE HAVE DONE WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO IN TERMS OF PAYMENTS. BECAUSE EVEN IF YOU, IF WE HAD BEEN MAKING THE CPI ESCALATORS BASED ON POPULATION, WE WOULD STILL HAVE, WE WOULD HAVE PAID THEM ENOUGH TO NOW. SO, WE HAVE, YES, IT'S TRUE THAT WE DID NOT GIVE THEM AN INCREASE, AND WE WERE, THEY WERE ENTITLED TO AN INCREASE ACROSS THE YEAR. WE BELIEVE THAT THAT HAS BEEN SORTED AND THAT WE ARE IN A POSITION WHERE WE HAVE PAID THE HUMANE SOCIETY WHAT WAS DUE AND OWED TO THEM AND THAT THERE'S NO DISPUTE AS TO THAT. THEY CAME TO US LAST FALL, WELL, I BELIEVE IN THE SUMMER, BUT I GOT INVOLVED IN THE FALL, AND THEY WERE ASKING FOR AN INCREASE LAST YEAR OF, IT WAS ABOUT THREE TIMES WHAT WE WERE PAYING THEM AT THAT POINT. AND SO, THE LAST NUMBER I HAD WAS ABOUT $500,000 A YEAR. AND SO, THE PROPOSAL THAT THEY SENT BACK TO US HASN'T, DOESN'T HAVE A FIGURE IN IT. AND AGAIN, IT CAME IN LAST NIGHT, SO I HAVEN'T THOROUGHLY REVIEWED IT, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE HOPING THAT YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO PROPOSE A NUMBER TO THEM. IF THEY'RE STILL WORKING ON THOSE NUMBERS, I KNOW THAT THERE'D BEEN AN EMAIL TO THE MAYOR SAYING THAT THEY WERE, THEIR FINANCE COMMITTEE WAS MEETING, AND THEY WERE HOPING TO HAVE THOSE NUMBERS TO US BY SEPTEMBER. SO, IT COULD JUST BE THAT THEY DON'T HAVE A PROPOSED FIGURE YET. I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE CAN LOOK AT COMPARABLE CITIES; WE CAN LOOK AT WHAT OTHER PLACES THEY'RE PLAYING. I ALSO REACHED OUT TO THE COUNTY BECAUSE THEY ALSO HAVE COME ON BOARD WITH A CONTRACT WITH THE HUMANE SOCIETY. THE COUNTY'S PAYING $3 PER CAPITA BASED ON THE CPI INDEX TO THEM AS WELL. THEIR CONTRACT WAS JUST UP IN JUNE OF 2026 AND GOT RENEWED. SO, IN TOTAL, THEY'RE PAYING THEM ABOUT $93,000 A YEAR. THAT'S WHAT THE COUNTY PAYS TO MIDLANDS HUMANE SOCIETY. WE ALSO, NOT JUST IN TERMS OF ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS, BUT WHEN WE AGREED TO THE LEASE OF THE LAND, WE ALSO AGREED WE PUT UP $1.5 MILLION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING. SO THAT'S AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT THAT WE PAID. AND SO, SINCE 2017 TO NOW, IT'S JUST UNDER $3 MILLION WE'VE PAID IN SORT OF ANNUAL COSTS, AND THEN WE PUT UP THE $1.5 MILLION FOR THE BUILDING. AND SO AND WE ESSENTIALLY GAVE THEM THE LAND. WE HAVEN'T GIVEN IT TO THEM. $10 A YEAR. WE ARE RENTING IT TO THEM FOR 99 YEARS FOR $10. CORRECT. YES, SO, IT IS, IT IS CHEAP RENT AS FAR AS LAND RENT GOES, YES, FOR SURE. SO. AND THEY'RE SUBLEASING IT TO US, BASICALLY, FOR THE SPACE, RIGHT? YES, THEY SUBLEASE US. IT IS NOT A IT IS 1900 SQUARE FEET IF YOU INCLUDE THE GARAGE WHERE WE PARK THE TRUCKS. BUT THE OFFICE SPACE ITSELF IS MAYBE AS BIG AS THE INTERIOR OF THIS COURT, OR OF THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS. NOT YOUR SIDE, JUST OURS. I THINK THE BATHROOM IS MOST OF THE SPACE. AND THE BATHROOM IS MOST OF THE SPACE. THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS WITH SORT OF POLICIES AND PROCEDURES BECAUSE WE ARE, OUR ANIMAL CONTROL STAFF HAVE TO EUTHANIZE ANIMALS IN OUR OFFICE SPACE ALSO. AND SO THAT IS ALSO A THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT THE SPACE RESTRICTIONS AND THINGS. BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT THE HUMANE SOCIETY HAS SPACE RESTRICTIONS, AND THEY'RE SAYING WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF SPACE, WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF SPACE, WE NEED MORE SPACE. AND THAT IS, I THINK, A TRUE STATEMENT, AND THAT PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN THERE HAVE SAID THAT THAT'S ABSOLUTELY TRUE, THAT THEY DO NEED MORE SPACE. AND SO, I THINK THAT LONG TERM WE, IT'S IN THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY, IT'S IN THE BENEFIT OF THE HUMANE SOCIETY. I THINK THAT IT HAS BEEN A GOOD PARTNERSHIP. I THINK THAT EVERYONE AGREES THAT THE CONTRACT SHOULD BE UPDATED TO HAVE SOME NEW PROVISIONS THAT, YOU KNOW, IT IS, IT COULD BE CLEARER ON WHO DOES WHAT AND WHEN, AND THAT THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE WOULD LOOK AT. SO, IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, MAINTAINING THE RELATIONSHIP AND KEEPING THINGS GOING, I THINK IT MAKES SENSE FOR US TO HAVE A PLAN A TO BE, YES, GO IN GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATIONS, TRY TO REACH AN AGREEMENT, TRY TO FIND SOMETHING THAT'S FAIR FOR BOTH THE CITY AND THE HUMANE SOCIETY. OBVIOUSLY, THEY PROVIDE A VALUABLE SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT A LOT OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS FEEL VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT. IT'S SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ANIMALS ARE TAKEN CARE OF AND THAT THEY HAVE A PLACE TO GO, AND THAT IS, THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR COMMUNITY AND THEREFORE AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE CITY. SO, I THINK THAT PLAN A SHOULD [00:40:02] ALWAYS BE, TRY TO REACH A NEW AGREEMENT, YOU KNOW, NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH. I ALSO THINK THAT IF THAT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN, WE NEED TO BE PREPARED FOR THE WORST, AND WE NEED TO HAVE A PLAN B IN CASE WE GET TO DECEMBER 25TH, AND WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN PLACE, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN, OUR ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS HAVE TO BE OUT OF THEIR SPACE, AND WE ALSO HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE THERE. UM. LIKE IT INFRASTRUCTURE THAT NEEDS TO BE MOVED, AND SO THAT'S NOT MASSIVE. I'VE TALKED TO MARK HOWARD ABOUT IT. HE INDICATED THAT IN ABOUT TWO DAYS WE COULD HAVE THAT CHANGED AROUND AND THAT WE COULD DO THAT IF WE ABSOLUTELY NEEDED TO, AND SO THAT'S A PIECE OF IT, BUT SOMETHING TO CONSIDER, AND SO REALLY LAND SALE, I THINK WE BOTH FEEL THAT RENEGOTIATING WITH THE MIDLANDS HUMANE SOCIETY IS IN OUR BEST INTEREST. LET'S TRY TO NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH, COME TO A NEW AGREEMENT. I THINK ON THE BACK SIDE, TO PROTECT THE CITY, I WOULDN'T BE DOING MY JOB IF I DIDN'T SAY I ALSO THINK WE SHOULD BE PRICING OUT WHAT IT COSTS TO DO THE WORK OURSELVES. YOU KNOW, IF WE HAD TO, YOU KNOW, IF WE HAD TO CONSIDER, CONSIDER A DIFFERENT ANIMAL SERVICES PROVIDER, WHERE WOULD WE GO, HOW WOULD THAT WORK? BECAUSE IF IT IS, YOU KNOW, IF IT COMES BACK AT AN ASTRONOMICAL ASK AND THE CITY'S UNWILLING TO DO THAT, WE CAN'T SHOW UP JANUARY 1 WITH NOWHERE FOR ANIMALS TO GO, AND SO I THINK THAT, BELT AND BRACES, WE ALSO NEED TO BE CONSIDERING IF WE WANT TO LOOK AT OTHER ANIMAL SERVICES AND/OR TAKING IT BACK IN-HOUSE, WHICH AGAIN IS NOT ANYONE'S PLAN A UNLESS YOU TELL US THAT'S PLAN A. I DON'T THINK THAT, THAT SHOULD BE PLAN A, BUT I DO THINK THAT WE NEED TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION AND START LOOKING AT THAT. WELL, I THINK THAT WAS THE ONLY ONE HERE. DO YOU REMEMBER WHY IN 2018 I WAS THE ONLY ONE HERE, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER WHY WE GAVE THEM A 60% BUMP. MAYBE YOU DO, NIKKI. (INAUDIBLE) YEAH, I DON'T. I DON'T. I WAS HERE, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER. THAT'S A BIG JUMP. I DON'T REMEMBER WHY WE DID THAT. SO, YOU HAD VALUABLE INFORMATION AT THAT TIME TO WHY WE DID. I WAS HERE, BUT I DID NOT UNDERSTAND LEASES AND ALL THIS STUFF AT THE TIME, BUT FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, WE DID THE NATIONAL KIND OF WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE, AND WE WERE WAY UNDERPAID FOR PER CAPITA RATES, AND THAT'S KIND OF HOW IT WAS PRESENTED FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, BUT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE IT RUN. SO, YEAH. YEAH. OKAY, THAT WAS MY FIRST QUESTION, AND THEN WHITNEY, MY SECOND QUESTION REALLY IS: WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT WHO OWNS THE BUILDING AND THE LAND I MEAN, THEY OFFERED TO BUY IT. CLEARLY, WE OWN IT, RIGHT? I MEAN, WE DEFINITELY OWN THE LAND. THERE'S NO QUESTION. AND THE BUILDING. THEY OFFERED TO BUY THE BUILDING, I BELIEVE. I DON'T RECALL. OR WAS IT JUST THE LAND? IN EVERY CONVERSATION I'VE HAD, THEY HAVE REPRESENTED THAT THEY BELIEVE THEY OWN THE BUILDING. I'M NOT SURE YOU CAN OWN THE BUILDING ON LAND YOU DON'T OWN. YOU CAN IF THE AGREEMENT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THAT IS THE INTENTION OF THE PARTY. BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT AGREEMENT IN PLACE. AND USUALLY THERE WOULD BE SOMETHING IN THE AGREEMENT THEN THAT SAYS IN THE EVENT THAT THE LAND LEASE GETS TERMINATED, THE BUILDING SHALL BE DECOMMISSIONED. RIGHT. BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT. USUALLY, YEAH, NO. WE SOLD USUALLY WE HAVE SOMETHING KIND OF THAT PROVIDES FOR HOW THEY'RE GOING TO GET THEIR BUILDING OFF OUR LAND IN THE EVENT THAT WE TERMINATE THEIR LEASE. RIGHT. SO THAT'S MY QUESTION. TERMINATE INCLUDING. NIKKI OR DEB, SHE COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING THAT SAYS YOU OWN THE BUILDING. DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT SAYS YOU OWN THE BUILDING? (INAUDIBLE) NIKKI, ONE OF YOU, YOU'RE HERE TO REPRESENT NIKKI. I SAW YOU. YOU GOT TO COME UP HERE. BUT THERE'D BE A DEED. I'M JUST SAYING SHE COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING, SHE SAID. AND NO, I'M NOT TRYING TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT. BUT IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT SAYS YOU OWN THE BUILDING, IT'S GOING TO BE A LOT EASIER FOR US TO DISCUSS THAT. OKAY. WELL, THE LAW IS THAT YES, YOU CAN OWN A BUILDING THAT'S NOT ON LAND THAT YOU OWN. THAT IS THE TRUTH. YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN OWN A BUILDING ON MY GROUND. YOU CAN OWN THE BUILDING. I CAN OWN THE GROUND. THAT IS THE WAY IT WORKS. THEY ARE CALLED THE GROUND LEASE. THIS. BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT IN PLACE. THAT'S VERY QUESTIONABLE. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. BECAUSE THESE TWO AGREEMENTS THAT WHITNEY REFERS TO, I THINK WHITNEY AND I WOULD BOTH AGREE: NEITHER ONE OF US WAS HERE WHEN THEY WERE PUT TOGETHER. THEY'RE VERY POORLY DONE. THEY'RE VERY CONFUSING, AND SO I DON'T KNOW; I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK. I THINK THEY OWN THE BUILDING. I THINK THAT YOU OWN THE LAND; THAT'S WHY WE'RE LEASING THE LAND FROM YOU. OTHERWISE, WE'D BE LEASING THE BUILDING FROM YOU. I THINK OF THIS BACK WITH MY BANKING. LET'S SAY YOU'RE BUILDING A HOUSE, DEB. IT'S NOT A HOUSE, BUT THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE. BUT IT'S A BUILDING THAT YOU WOULD OCCUPY, AND SOMEBODY'S GOING TO BUILD IT FOR YOU. UM-HMM. WHOEVER'S BUILDING THAT BUILDING, RIGHT, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET THAT TO GET ON THE TITLE. THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING ABOUT THE TITLE AND DEED. WHAT DOES THAT SAY? WE SOLD GROUND TO NEIL DRICKI THAT WAS PART OF THIS PARCEL, CORRECT? AND THEN WE SPLIT IT. SO, THE CITY OBVIOUSLY OWNED THAT BECAUSE WE SOLD IT. BUT THE TITLE WORKS. THAT WOULD GO THE SAME WAY THAT YOU OWN THE GROUND; YOU SOLD [00:45:03] THE GROUND. YOU DON'T OWN THE BUILDINGS THAT MR. DRICKI IS BUILDING. AND IT'S NOT A PARK. BUT HE OWNS THE GROUND NOW. WE SOLD IT TO HIM. CORRECT. SO THAT'S WHAT I SAY. I'M SAYING THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE TRYING TO GET ME TO SAY THAT WHEN MIDLANDS BUILT THE BUILDING, IT'S YOURS. AND I'M SAYING THAT'S NOT THE CASE. THERE ARE MANY BUILDINGS. THERE'S RESTAURANTS. THERE'S FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS. THERE'S CHAIN STORES THAT DO NOT OWN THE GROUND. OKAY. THEY LEASE THE GROUND. THEY BUILD THE BUILDING. BUT THEY'LL HAVE THAT AGREEMENT IN PLACE SAYING THAT THEY... RIGHT. AND I'M SAYING I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T HAVE THEIR STUFF RIGHT HERE WITH ME. THE ONLY WAY THAT THAT HAPPENS IS IF THAT AGREEMENT IS IN PLACE. NO. AND I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE THAT OR NOT. OKAY. BUT IT IS POSSIBLE. IT IS VERY COMMON, ACTUALLY, IN COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE. IF THAT AGREEMENT IS IN PLACE. THAT'S WHAT I SAY. IT IS COMMON. YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND THAT. IF YOU HAVE THAT IN PLACE, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THAT IN PLACE RIGHT NOW. OKAY. WELL, YOU CAN THINK THAT. BUT THAT'S JUST MY OWN. I HAVE TO LOOK. I HAVE TO GO BACK AND REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS AGAIN. BECAUSE IT'S BEEN SEVERAL YEARS SINCE I'VE READ THEM. BECAUSE I WAS HERE TO PRESENT WITH THEM SEVERAL TIMES WHEN THEY CAME FOR THEIR INCREASES THEY REQUESTED. IT'S KIND OF LIKE THIS IS THE WAY I'M, I'M SEEING IT IN CONSTRUCTION. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR WOULD ACTUALLY OWN THE BUILDING AS IT WAS BEING BUILT. RIGHT. IT WASN'T HERE. IF I BOUGHT A PIECE OF PROPERTY AND HAD A GENERAL CONTRACTOR BUILD A HOME, HE WOULD OWN THAT HOME UNTIL IT WAS TURNKEY. AND THEN IT WOULD BE SIGNED OVER TO ME. AND THAT'S THE WAY I UNDERSTAND THAT LEASE TO BE WRITTEN, AS THEY HAD OWNERSHIP DURING THE BUILDING OF THIS. BUT IT TERMINATED AT TURNKEY. AND THEN FROM THERE, I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE'RE AT. RIGHT. WELL, I WILL DISAGREE WITH YOU ON THAT. BECAUSE IF I OWN A PIECE OF GROUND TODAY IN THE NAME OF DEBORAH PETERSON, I CAN HIRE XYZ CONTRACTOR TO COME AND BUILD A HOUSE. AND THAT HOUSE AND THAT GROUND BELONGS TO ME. THAT CONTRACTOR DOES NOT TAKE TITLE TO MY LAND. THAT CONTRACTOR DOES NOT TAKE TITLE TO MY HOUSE. HE HAS THE MATERIAL IN THE BUILDING, AND HE CAN LIEN IT. NOT CORRECT. I WAS GOING TO SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO LITIGATE THIS HERE. I'M NOT GOING TO HAVE A LEGAL ARGUMENT HERE. MY QUESTION WAS, LIKE YOU SAID, IT CAN HAPPEN. SHE COULDN'T FIND IT. I WAS ASKING IF YOU HAD IT. I WILL HAVE TO LOOK, AND I WILL ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR YOU. THAT'S ALL I WANT TO KNOW. WAS IF... OKAY. IF YOU WERE LIKE, YEAH, I ACTUALLY HAVE IT RIGHT HERE. THAT'S . I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT. MAKE IT A LOT BETTER. WHEN WE GOT THIS LETTER JUST NOW, ALL OF US, WE JUST SAW THIS. I THOUGHT MAYBE YOU WERE LIKE, I ACTUALLY HAVE THIS. THAT IS WHY I WAS ASKING. I DON'T HAVE IT HANDY. OKAY. BUT I'LL LOOK AT IT, AND I WILL SEND IT TO WHITNEY, WHATEVER WE HAVE, IF THAT'S FINE WITH YOU. THAT'D BE GREAT. RATHER THAN COMMUNICATING WITH ALL OF YOU. WELL, YEAH, JUST BECAUSE SHE DOESN'T HAVE IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU DON'T HAVE IT. THAT'S RIGHT. AND IF I'LL JUST COMMUNICATE WITH HER, IS THAT FINE? THAT'S FINE WITH ME. OKAY. AND YOU KNOW. AND I KNOW YOU KNOW, BUT THAT'S A HARD ASK TO BE LIKE, DEB, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING FROM EIGHT YEARS AGO? NO. YOU KNOW, IN YOUR BACK POCKET. I THOUGHT SINCE, I THOUGHT SINCE THIS LETTER CAME TO YOU, THEN THEY MIGHT HAVE THE INFORMATION, RIGHT? LIKE, WE ACTUALLY OWN THE BUILDING. WE'RE LEASING IT. I THOUGHT THEY'D HAVE THAT. NOT PUT IT ON THE SPOT. SHE, NORMALLY YOU'D BE LIKE, YEAH, HERE IT IS. YEAH. NO. DEAL WITH IT. I UNDERSTAND. NOT PUTTING YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT PLEASE COME UP TO THE MIC. TELL ME THE LEGAL THING RIGHT NOW AND GIVE ME YOUR LEGAL OPINION. YOU'RE LIKE, I'M GONNA PAUSE ON THAT. SO, I, I UNDERSTAND WHERE SHE'S COMING FROM. BUT YES, SO YES, AS I SAID, THE FUNDING AND OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT AND LEASE IS ONE OF THE TWO AGREEMENTS IN 2017 ALONG WITH THE LEASE PROVISION ITSELF. THE 2010 AGREEMENT IS THE ONE THAT THERE WAS NO BUILDING AT THAT TIME. IT DELINEATED THAT A BUILDING WAS GOING TO BE BUILT, AND IT BROKE IT INTO TWO PHASES. ONE OF THEM IS THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE, AND THE OTHER IS THE OPERATION PHASE. AND IN THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE, WHERE IT LISTS THE DUTIES OF THE PARTIES, IT SETS OUT WHAT THE CITY IS GOING TO DO, PAY THE $1.5 MILLION, HOW THEY'RE GOING TO PAY IT, AND THEN IT SAYS MHS. AND THEN IT OUTLINES WHAT MHS IS GOING TO DO. AND NUMBER FOUR, THERE IS MHS SHALL BE DEEMED THE SOLE OWNER OF THE PROJECT SUBJECT TO THE RIGHTS OF THE CITY SITE SET OUT HEREIN. THAT IS LISTED NUMBER FOUR IN THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE UNDER THEIR DUTIES. RIGHT ABOVE THAT, TWO PARAGRAPHS ABOVE, IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THE RIGHTS, DUTIES, AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES AS TO THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE SHALL CEASE UPON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT, WHICH IS IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT D, WHICH IS THE BUILDING PLAN, AND UPON THE GRANT OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. THAT IS THE ONLY PLACE IN ANY AGREEMENT THAT I HAVE HAD A SEARCH THROUGH THE CITY WHERE IT EVEN REFERENCES MHS OWNING THAT BUILDING. AND I READ THAT TO MEAN THAT THAT WAS DURING THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE, SIMILAR TO THE WAY THAT WE'RE SAYING SYNC OWNS THE AMENITIES OUT THE RIVERFRONT. WE NEVER TRANSFERRED OUR LAND TO THEM. RIGHT. BUT THEY ARE INSURING IT. THEY'RE TREATING IT. IT'S THEIR BUILDING MATERIALS. IT'S THEIRS UNTIL WE TAKE IT BACK. [00:50:01] BUT WE HAVE THAT AGREEMENT IN PLACE SPECIFYING. AND WE HAVE, RIGHT. AND THAT'S WHERE THE DIFFERENCE, I THINK, HERE IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE THAT NECESSARILY IN PLACE. BUT DO WE KNOW WHAT THE TITLE WORK SAYS? THE TITLE TO THIS PROPERTY IDENTIFIES THAT BOTH THE CITY AND THE BUILDING ARE OWNED BY THE CITY OF COUNCIL BLUFFS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSOR'S DETERMINATION AS TO OWNERSHIP IS NOT CONCLUSIVE. SO, ALTHOUGH IT IS, IT'S NOT BEING TAXED BECAUSE IT'S BEING OWNED BY, IT'S OWNED BY THE CITY RIGHT NOW. THEY'RE A NON-PROFIT. THEY COULD, THEIRS ISN'T AUTOMATIC THE WAY OURS IS, BUT THEY, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT- I'M NOT SAYING THAT THEY'RE LIKE EVADING TAXES. THEY'RE A NON-PROFIT. IF THEY WERE ASSERTING OWNERSHIP, THEY COULD HAVE ASKED FOR A TAX EXEMPTION. BUT RIGHT NOW, THE ASSESSOR IS SAYING THE CITY OWNS BOTH. AND YOU'RE ALSO SAYING THERE'S NO TERMINATION AGREEMENT THAT WAS WRITTEN INTO THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT SPECIFYING. THAT'S LITERALLY THE ONLY PLACE I CAN FIND WHERE IT DEALS WITH WHO OWNS THIS BUILDING. AGAIN, I AM NOT SAYING THAT THERE MAY NOT BE OTHER AGREEMENTS. THERE MAY BE. I MAY NOT JUST BE ABLE TO LOCATE THINGS. AND SO, IT'S POSSIBLE. SO, LIKE DEB SAID, SHE'LL REACH OUT TO US. AND SO, MY QUESTIONS REALLY ARE LAND. DO YOU WANT ME TO LOOK INTO, DO YOU WANT ME TO LOOK INTO WHETHER WE CAN SELL THIS, OR WOULD YOU RATHER HOLD ON TO THE LAND? JUST THOUGHTS. YOU MENTIONED THAT AND THE HESITATION WITH SELLING THE GROUND TO THEM WOULD BE BECAUSE IT WAS PROVIDED TO US FOR A SPECIFIC USE. THAT IT, THAT IT WAS USED, RIGHT? IT, IT WAS PROVIDED TO US FOR A PARK PURPOSE. IT WAS PROVIDED TO THE BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS TO BE USED AS A PARK. AND WE DID BREAK OFF AND SELL PART OF THE LAND. WE DID DO THAT. CORRECT. BUT EVEN BY THE TIME WE DID THAT, IT WAS UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE THIS DOG PARK ON THIS LAND. SO, WE WERE FULFILLING OUR OBLIGATION TO USE THIS LAND. THE AGREEMENT DIDN'T SAY WE'D USE EVERY PIECE OF THAT LAND FOR A PARK. IT WAS JUST THAT WE WOULD. SO, WHAT AND THAT WAS DONE IN 60S, 1960S. 62. WHEN THOSE THINGS GET PUT IN PLACE, IS THERE A TIME LIMIT THAT GOES WITH THAT? NOT FOR, THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT DOCTRINES THAT COULD TECHNICALLY APPLY TO THIS LAND. AND I CAN SEND YOU GUYS A MEMO ON IT. I PREPPED ONE ACTUALLY FOR TODAY AND THEN THOUGHT THIS IS GOING TO BE A LONG CONVERSATION, AND I DON'T WANT TO HIJACK ALL THE STUDY SESSIONS WITH IT. BUT THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT WAYS THAT THE COURT COULD SEE IT. SO, IT'S WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A PUBLIC USE CONCERN AND WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S AN ACTUAL RESTRICTION ON THE, SO, OR IF IT CREATED A CHARITABLE TRUST. I DO NOT THINK THAT THERE WAS A CHARITABLE TRUST CREATED WHEN THE LAND WAS GIVEN TO THE BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS. BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT I WOULD NEED TO LOOK AT BECAUSE IT WOULD BE THE 1962 LAW AND NOT THE CURRENT LAW TO LOOK AT THAT. BUT I'VE GIVEN THE 1962 LAW A BRIEF LOOK, AND I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THAT WOULD BE APPLICABLE. SO, THE ONLY CONCERN AT THIS POINT WOULD BE THE FACT THAT IT'S PROPERTY DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE. AND THAT WOULD DETERMINE, THAT WOULD BE BASED ON THE CASE LAW. AND THERE IS, THERE IS SOME KIND OF CONCERNS, AND THEN THERE'S IOWA CODE SECTION 364.7. BUT BASICALLY, THE QUESTION IS GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, DID THEY, WAS THE GIFT INTENDED TO BE, AND SHOULD IT BE HELD FOR A PUBLIC PURPOSE? AND SO THAT WOULD BE THE THING THAT WE WANT TO. AND SO, WE'VE SAID, BECAUSE IT CAME FROM THE PARK COMMISSIONERS, THE PUBLIC PURPOSE SHOULD BE TO HAVE THAT LAND FOR A PARK. IN 2010, WE SAID THEY'RE GONNA, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE A DOG PARK FOR THE COMMUNITY ON THAT LAND BECAUSE OF THE OBLIGATION TO HAVE A PUBLIC PARK ON THAT LAND. AND THEN WE SAID IT AGAIN IN 2017, THAT AS PART OF THE OPERATING PHASE, THAT THEY'RE GOING TO RUN A DOG PARK ON THAT LAND TO FULFILL OUR OBLIGATION TO HAVE A PARK ON THAT LAND. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS HERE, LIKE. FIRST OF ALL, WE'VE HAD A GREAT RELATIONSHIP WITH MHS FOR A LONG TIME. WE'VE DONE A LOT OF THINGS TOGETHER. WE JUST DID THE TNR PROGRAM. WE'VE DONE A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS. I THINK WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT, ONE, WHO OWNS THE DAMN BUILDING. I MEAN, THAT'S THE FIRST THING WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT BECAUSE IF WE WERE GOING TO SELL IT TO THEM, ARE THEY BUYING THE BUILDING? WHO PUT YOU KNOW, I THINK YOU SAID WE PUT UP $1.5 MILLION TO BUILD IT. WHAT WAS THE OTHER FUNDING SOURCE? IT WAS PRIVATELY FUNDED, OTHERWISE BY DONATIONS TO BUSINESS. AND WE HAD A SCHEDULE IN PLACE THAT SAID THAT WE WERE GOING TO MATCH BASICALLY AS THEY, LIKE OUR $1.5 MILLION WAS GOING TO MATCH AS THEY BUILT. GOTCHA. AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT, RIGHT, ONCE YOU GUYS DETERMINE WHO OWNS THE BUILDING, RIGHT, AT THE END OF THE AGREEMENT, IF WE OWN THE BUILDING, THEN OUR FOLKS DON'T GO ANYWHERE. DECEMBER 31ST, RIGHT? JANUARY 1, OUR FOLKS WOULD STAY IN THERE. AND THEY, THEY WOULD END UP LEAVING. EVEN IF... OR WE WOULD LEASE IT. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? WE WOULD RENEGOTIATE TO THEM A LEASE. WE HAVE TO KNOW A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS BEFORE I THINK WE CAN MAKE AN EDUCATED DECISION. IS THERE A POSSIBILITY HERE WHERE... CAN I JUST... OWNERSHIP OF THE BUILDING IS SEPARATE FROM THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY NEED TO LEASE SPACE TO THE CITY. BECAUSE EVEN IF... BUT THEY'VE TERMINATED THEIR [00:55:01] LEASE. RIGHT. SO EVEN IF THE... LET'S SAY, LET'S SAY WE OWN THE LAND; THEY OWN THE BUILDING. LET'S SAY, THAT'S THE BACK SCENARIO. THEY STILL AGREED IN THEIR LEASE OF THE LAND THAT THEY WOULD BE BOUND BY THE 2010 AGREEMENT REQUIREMENTS, WHICH INCLUDE LEASING US SPACE IN THE BUILDING. OKAY. SO, WHETHER WE OWN THE BUILDING OR NOT, OR WHETHER THEY'RE SUBLEASING IT TO US OR LEASING IT TO US, EITHER WAY, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE SPACE FOR ANIMAL CONTROL. OKAY, LET'S SAY... THEY ARE IN BREACH WE OWN THE BUILDING; WE OWN THE LAND. GO TO THAT SCENARIO. SAME THING WITH REGARD TO THE ACTUAL... WE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO LEASE IT TO THEM. THEY'RE ONLY TERMINATING THE FUNDING AND OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT. THEY HAVE NOT GIVEN NOTICE TO TERMINATE THE LEASE. SO, WHEN I SAID THAT THERE'S TWO 2017 AGREEMENTS, THERE'S THE 2010 GENERAL ANIMAL SHELTER AGREEMENT. AND THEN THERE'S THE 2017 LEASE OF THE BUILDING SPACE. SORRY. LEASE OF THE LAND AND THE OPERATING AND FUNDING AGREEMENT AND THEN THE LEASE FOR ANIMAL CONTROL TO BE THERE. THEY'RE ONLY TERMINATING PIECE B, NOT PIECE A. I'M SAYING... I THINK THEY ONLY INTEND TO TERMINATE PIECE B, BUT I'M WORRIED THAT BY TERMINATING PIECE B, THEY INADVERTENTLY ALSO PUT US IN A POSITION WHERE WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THEY'VE TERMINATED PIECE A BECAUSE IT'S A FUNDAMENTAL TERM OF THE LEASE IN THE FIRST PLACE, THAT WE HAVE SPACE AVAILABLE AND THAT THEY PROVIDE US... GOT ME CONFUSED. GO AHEAD. AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, DEB AND I ARE NOT GOING TO AGREE ON WHO OWNS THIS BUILDING. I MEAN, I JUST DON'T... I THINK THAT'S UNREALISTIC. NO. I MEAN, UNLESS THERE IS LIKE A REALLY GOOD AGREEMENT SOMEWHERE WHERE IT SAYS LIKE MIDLANDS HUMANE SOCIETY ALWAYS OWNS THIS BUILDING, EVERYONE AGREES TO THAT, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO... I KNOW. THAT'S WHY I WAS JUST ASKING. YOU MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO FIND IT. MAYBE THEY HAVE SOMETHING THAT DOES SAY THAT. YES. THAT'S WHY I ASKED. IF THAT EXISTS, THEN I WILL HAPPILY COME BACK AND SAY, GOOD NEWS. YEAH. AN AGREEMENT THAT... WE KNOW WHO OWNS THE BUILDING. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION THAT WE'RE NOT... WE DON'T KNOW THE ANSWERS TO YET. SO, IT'S, IT'S HARD. LIKE I SAID, IF WE OWN THE BUILDING, WE OWN THE LAND, AND THEY TERMINATED ALL THE AGREEMENTS, JANUARY 1ST, OUR FOLKS WOULD STAY, AND THEY WOULD LEAVE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE OR NOT? NO. THEY WOULD NOT LEAVE JANUARY 1ST. WE WOULD HAVE TO SERVE THEM A 90-DAY NOTICE THAT THEY'RE IN BREACH TO LET THEM KNOW THAT THEY HAVE 90 DAYS TO CURE. OR WE WOULD LEASE IT TO THEM UNDER A NEW LEASE. IF THEY DIDN'T... WE'D HAVE TO EFFECTIVELY EVICT THEM OR WHATEVER. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. THIS WHOLE THING, TO RENEGOTIATE... YEAH. THAT'S MY GOAL HERE. I THINK THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT. IN THAT ROUTE, WE'D HAVE TO EVICT THEM OR WHATEVER, BUT THEY'D ALSO HAVE TO EVICT US OR HOWEVER. YEAH. IT'D BE BASICALLY MUTUALLY ASSURED. BUT MY QUESTION WAS GOING TO BE, COULD THERE BE A SITUATION, OR SINCE YOU SAID WE MATCHED FUNDS AS THEY CAME IN, COULD THERE BE POSSIBLY... POSSIBLY A RESULT SOMEWHERE WHERE TENANTS IN COMMON, OR WE BOTH OWN... THEY OWN HALF, WE OWN HALF BECAUSE WE'RE PARTNERS IN THIS SITUATION. I MEAN, I'VE NOT SEEN A CASE WHERE THEY FOUND JOINT OWNERSHIP. I GUESS THEY COULD SAY THAT WE ENTERED INTO A JOINT VENTURE TO OWN THE BUILDING TOGETHER, ALTHOUGH I WOULD THINK THAT YOU NEED SOME KIND OF... THERE'S NO LANGUAGE THAT SUPPORTS THAT. YOU'RE THE ONE THAT SAID JOINT VENTURE EARLIER. YOU SAID JOINT VENTURE, THE CITY, THE COUNTY. YES. SORRY. THE HUMANE SOCIETY. THAT'S WHY I ASKED. WE WANTED TO ENTER INTO A JOINT VENTURE TO CHANGE THE WAY WE WERE DOING PRACTICES IN 2020. SURE. GOTCHA. OKAY. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT CONSTRUCTION OF THE... THERE IS NOTHING IN THERE THAT INDICATES TO ME THAT OUR INTENTION WAS FOR US BOTH TO OWN HALF THE BUILDING. NO. I DON'T... THAT WOULD SEEM... YEAH. I THINK THAT WE... I'M JUST SAYING IN THE EVENT, SINCE IT SOUNDS LIKE WE DON'T HAVE A VERY GOOD... THAT SPECIFIC PIECE WASN'T ACTUALLY LAID OUT AS AN ALTERNATIVE, I GUESS. I THINK THE OVERALL BEST CASE HERE IS THAT WE CONTINUE TO ALL WORK TOGETHER IN THIS, THIS SPACE, ESPECIALLY WITH ALL THE, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT EFFORTS AND THINGS WE'VE DONE AS OF LATE. IT DOESN'T DO ANYONE ANY GOOD IF THEY... SO THAT WE CAN DO THIS TNR PROGRAM AND NOW THEY DON'T HAVE A PLACE TO BE, OR WE DON'T HAVE A PLACE TO WORK WITH EITHER. SO. SO, IT SOUNDS... I MEAN, TO YOUR QUESTION WHETHER... DOES THE COUNCIL WANT HER TO LOOK INTO THE OPTION OF SELLING THE LAND? BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF RESEARCH. SO, DO YOU WANT HER TO GO DOWN THAT PATH OR NOT? I THINK THE LEAST WE HAVE TO DO IS FIND OUT WHO... I THINK IT'S HARD TO MAKE THE DECISION WHAT'S THE TITLE WORK SAYING AND WHO OWNS WHAT RIGHT NOW. I CAN TELL YOU WHAT THE TITLE WORK SAYS. THE TITLE WORK... BECAUSE WE HAD STUART TINLEY DO A TITLE OPINION WHEN WE SOLD A PARCEL OF LAND, AND IT'S GOING TO BE THE SAME. YEAH. WE HAVE MARKETABLE TITLE IN THE LAND. OKAY. THE LAND IS DEFINITELY OURS. NO ONE IS DISPUTING THAT THE LAND IS OURS. IS OUR LEASE AGREEMENT- DO YOU REMEMBER- DOES IT SPECIFY WE'RE LEASING THE LAND TO THEM, OR WE'RE LEASING THE PARCEL TO THEM OR THE BUILDING? THE LEASE AGREEMENT IDENTIFIES THAT WE'RE LEASING THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS IDENTIFIED BY AN EXHIBIT THAT IS NOT ATTACHED. HUH! THAT'S GREAT. AS DEB SAID, THESE AGREEMENTS COULD BE BETTER. GOT IT. SO, WE, IN THE EVENT WE'RE TO ENTER INTO A RENEGOTIATION AND FIGURE OUT A NEW OPERATING AGREEMENT, [01:00:04] THAT WOULD ALSO PRECLUDE US FROM HAVING TO GO DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE OF WATCHING VIDEO FROM THE 60S OR PROBABLY READING IT TYPECAST. YEAH. SORRY, CAN YOU SAY THE FIRST PART ONE MORE TIME? IN THE EVENT WE COULD REACH A NEW OPERATIONAL AGREEMENT, WHICH IT SOUNDS LIKE IS THEIR TRUE INTENT, WE DON'T- WE KNOW IT'S A GRAY AREA, BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE EXPENSIVE FIGHT OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHO ACTUALLY OWNS WHATEVER. IF. RIGHT. I MEAN, WE KNOW WE OWN THE LAND. NO. CORRECT. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT. IF YOU WANT ME TO LOOK AT CAN WE SELL THE LAND, I WILL DIG ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE BOTTOM OF THAT. IF YOU DON'T WANT ME TO DO THAT AT THIS POINT, I DON'T HAVE TO. AND THAT IS NOT, WE KNOW WE OWN THE LAND. IT IS NOT PARAMOUNT TO THE QUESTION OF RENEGOTIATING THE OPERATING AGREEMENT, WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN SELL THE LAND. SURE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YEAH, THEY'RE TWO SEPARATE PIECES. IT'S A DIFFERENT QUESTION. CORRECT. I UNDERSTAND. SO, OUR FOCUS RIGHT NOW CAN BE NEGOTIATING IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE HUMANE SOCIETY, TRY TO REACH AN AGREEMENT, YOU KNOW, DO THAT AT THIS POINT, TRY TO GET A NEW OPERATING AGREEMENT IN PLACE. I ASSUME WE WOULD ALSO WANT TO LEASE THE SPACE FOR THE ANIMAL CONTROL. BUT THAT, YOU KNOW, I GUESS WE CAN DISCUSS, OR WE CAN LOOK AT THEM GOING SOMEWHERE ELSE IF THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. BUT THAT CAN BE OUR PRIMARY FOCUS RIGHT NOW. AND I CAN DIG INTO THE 60S WHENEVER. THAT'S NOT GOING ANYWHERE. SURE. THE QUESTION OF THE BUILDING, I CAN TELL YOU WHAT THE TITLE SAYS. I CAN TELL YOU WHAT THE CASE LAW ON IT IS. I CAN SEND YOU A MEMO WHEN I GET BACK UP TO MY OFFICE. I CAN TELL YOU THAT I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER. SO, I MIGHT HAVE TO MAYBE THERE'S BOXES SOMEWHERE WITH PAPERWORK SOMEWHERE IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, FOR I THINK IT WAS UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH AT THAT POINT FOR ANIMAL CONTROL. BUT I CAN SEE IF THERE'S ANY OTHER PIECES OF PAPER. BUT WHEN I ASKED COURTNEY HARDER LAST OCTOBER, ARE THERE ANY OTHER AGREEMENTS? IS THERE ANY OTHER PAPERWORK? BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THERE SHOULD BE MORE INFORMATION. SHE SAID NO. SO, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I KNOW. I DON'T KNOW. I CAN PROVIDE YOU THE ANSWER ON THE LEGAL ANALYSIS ABOUT THE BUILDING. BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT I'M GOING TO HAVE A CONCLUSIVE ANSWER FOR YOU OTHER THAN TO SAY IT IS MY LEGAL OPINION THAT, BASED ON WHAT I KNOW NOW, IT WOULD BE OURS. BUT I'M SAYING THAT WITHOUT CERTAINTY. AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR ON THAT. MARCY THINKS WE WERE UNDER THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT AT THAT TIME. SHE KNOWS ALL THE GOOD INFORMATION. SO, I GOT TO FIND OUT WHERE THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT RECORDS OF THE CITY WENT WHEN THEY STOPPED BEING A HEALTH DEPARTMENT. SO YES, SO CHECK IN THE SOCKS IN THE BASEMENT WITH ALL THE EXTRA FUNDING. YEAH. SO, IT SOUNDS LIKE JODY AND I MIGHT SPEND SOME TIME IN THE BASEMENT, WHICH IS REALLY FUN. SO, I'LL SHOW YOU WHERE I'M GOING. YEAH. SO, BUT YEAH, I CAN LOOK AT I CAN LOOK INTO THOSE THINGS. SO, DO YOU WANT ME TO LOOK AT WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO LOOK AT RIGHT NOW? WHAT KIND OF AGREEMENT WE NEED TO, TO ALL PLAY NICE TOGETHER, HONESTLY? I MEAN, YEAH, BUT YOU, YOU DON'T WANT TO STAY IN THE BUILDING BECAUSE IT'S NOT BIG ENOUGH. I MEAN, RIGHT. I MEAN, YEAH, COME ON. I MEAN, THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. WE DO THIS WHOLE AGREEMENT THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO STAY IN THE BUILDING ANYWAY. THEY TOLD US THAT. OH, I THOUGHT YOU JUST SAID YOU WANTED TO RENEGOTIATE. I DO WANT TO RENEGOTIATE. THE PROBLEM IS, IS LIKE WHO OWNS THE BUILDING. AND AGAIN, WE HAVE TO WORK THROUGH ALL THIS. BUT LIKE IF I BUILD ON TO THAT BUILDING AND YOU TAKE IT BACK FOR ME, THAT'S WHY MY DONORS DON'T WANT TO DO IT. CORRECT. RIGHT. LIKE, SO THERE'S A LOT OF COMPONENTS THAT WE HAVE TO EXPAND. THERE IS NO MORE. SURE. THERE'S NO MORE. I CAN JUST FIT IT IN THE BUILDING. I CAN'T EVEN ADD MORE STAFF. RIGHT. SO THAT'S WHAT THIS WHOLE THING IS JUST THAT WE'RE AT THE 2020S. THE END OF THIS CONTRACT NEGOTIATION TIME, AND WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT EXPANSION. AND IF, IF IT'S NOT ON THAT PROPERTY, WHERE IS IT, AND WHAT IS IT? AND DO WE USE THIS AS AN INTAKE BUILDING AND WE LEAVE ANIMAL CONTROL THERE, AND WE BUILD ANOTHER BUILDING AND DO A CAPITAL CAP? I DON'T KNOW. BUT WITHOUT HAVING THOSE ANSWERS, LIKE I CAN'T EXPAND AND DO MORE FOR OUR COMMUNITY, WHICH IS OUR GOAL. AND SO THAT'S WHERE IT'S HARD. AND I WOULD SAY THAT AS WELL FROM, YOU KNOW, YOU TALK ABOUT DONORS. I'M GOING TO STEP BACK AND GO BACK TO MY OLD WORLD OF BANKING. I COULD NEVER DO YOUR LOAN. RIGHT. I COULDN'T DO IT. RIGHT. IT'S NOT CLEAR TITLE. CORRECT. I'M NOT GOING TO HAVE YOU PUT YOUR MONEY INTO SOMETHING THAT YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW IF YOU'RE OWING, OWNING RIGHT NOW. RIGHT. AND AS I SAY, THAT OTHER AGREEMENT THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT, THAT IS A KEY TO THIS. BUT RIGHT NOW, YOU GO BACK TO THE TITLE WORK, WHICH IS WHAT SHE'S SAYING IS, WELL, THE TITLE WORK IS SAYING IT'S IN THE CITY'S HANDS. OF COURSE, I COULD NOT LOAN YOU MONEY TO SAY, GO AHEAD AND BUILD ONTO THIS BUILDING. IT'LL BE A GREAT INVESTMENT FOR YOU. YES EXACTLY. YOU REALLY DON'T OWN IT. BUT YOU'LL HAVE TO FIGURE OUT AN AGREEMENT LATER ON. AND THAT'S NOT. BUT YES, I TOTALLY GET WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM. AND THAT'S THE SAME WITH THE DONORS, RIGHT? ABSOLUTELY. IF YOU DON'T OWN THE LAND. WHY WOULD I GIVE YOU MONEY? YEAH. YOU DON'T OWN IT. CORRECT. I'M ENHANCING SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY... RIGHT. BY LETTING YOU DO THAT. SO, WHEN WE ASKED ORIGINALLY ABOUT PURCHASING THE LAND, [01:05:01] THAT WAS THE GOAL OF OURS. LIKE, THEN WE HAVE THE FOOTPRINT. WE CAN SAY, YES, IT'S OURS. WE CAN GET AN ARCHITECT. WE CAN ADD ONTO THE BUILDING, AND EVERYTHING'S GREAT, BUT. SO, I THINK THE TWO THINGS I WOULD ASK WHITNEY DO IS DECIDE, WORK WITH DEB AND WHOEVER TO FIGURE OUT WHO OWNS THE BUILDING AND COME TO AN AGREEMENT. IF YOU CAN'T, LET US KNOW THAT. AND THEN SEE IF, IF WE CAN'T SELL THE LAND. REALLY, I'D WANT TO KNOW IF WE CAN'T SELL IT. THAT'S THE QUESTION. WHEN IT WAS DONATED TO THE PARK COMMISSIONERS, IF WE CAN'T SELL IT, THEN WE ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER. RIGHT. AND ONE MORE THING ON THAT. SO, WE DID REQUEST THAT WE COULD TAKE THE DOG PARK BACK BECAUSE OF SPACE ISSUES IN OUR ANIMALS, AND WE DO HAVE THAT IN WRITING. OKAY. WE WERE ABLE TO NOT HAVE THE PUBLIC. YEAH. FACING DOG PARK. NOW THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE COULDN'T PUT A PARK ON IT, DEPENDING ON WHAT HAPPENS. SO, I THINK THERE'S THAT NEGOTIATION AS WELL, CAUSE WE UNDERSTOOD THAT WHEN WE WERE TRYING TO BUILD, TRY TO BUY THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH, THAT IT WOULD NEED A PARK NO MATTER WHAT. AND SO, I THINK THAT'S A NEGOTIATION POINT AS WELL OF WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. GOTCHA. THAT'S FINE. YEAH. YEAH. OH, IT'S JUST AN EMAIL FROM, LIKE, PRETTY HARD. OKAY. OKAY. SO, AN AGREEMENT WITH COUNCIL CAN, IT SAYS IN THE AGREEMENT, IT CAN ONLY BE MODIFIED BY A WRITTEN AGREEMENT SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES AND APPROVED BY COUNCIL. YAP. SO, BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. RIGHT. RIGHT. WE SAID WHAT WE SAID. I'M FINE WITH IT. I'VE LEARNED A LOT. YEAH. CAN I ASK A QUESTION JUST IN TERMS OF SPACE NEEDS, WOULD YOU GUYS BE ABLE TO STAY? I KNOW THAT YOU GUYS PURCHASED THE PLANNED PARENTHOOD BUILDING RECENTLY AND CLOSED IN JUNE. YEP. SO WOULD YOU GUYS BE ABLE TO STAY IN THE CURRENT FOOTPRINT KNOWING THAT YOU'LL HAVE ADDED CAPACITY IN THE PLANNED PARENTHOOD BUILDING? PLANNED PARENTHOOD WOULD BE LIKE VETERINARY SERVICES. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE BOARDING SERVICES. SO, IT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PROGRAM. I WAS HOPING I WAS LIKE, MAYBE THAT'LL, MAYBE THAT DOES. IT DOESN'T ALLEVIATE ANY OF THE LAND QUESTIONS. I THINK THOSE ARE THE, WHAT I'D LIKE HER TO FIND OUT BEFORE I CAN MAKE ANY SORT OF EDUCATED DECISION ON WHAT WE NEED TO DO. DO YOU GUYS AGREE, DISAGREE? I AGREE. I THINK WE NEED MORE INFORMATION. YEAH. I THINK I'D LIKE TO SEE, I MEAN, WE CAN CONTINUE NEGOTIATIONS, BUT EITHER WAY, IF WE DO NEGOTIATE AND COME TO A SETTLEMENT, WE NEED TO KNOW YEAH. CLEAN THIS MESS UP. I MEAN, THIS NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP. NO MATTER WHAT, CORRECT. I THINK ONE POSITIVE THAT EVERYBODY RECOGNIZES IS THAT PERHAPS DOING A NEW AGREEMENT WILL GIVE US A CHANCE TO BE CLEAR. ON THE SAME PAGE. AND TO HAVE... YES, OUR OPERATING PHASE IS LIKE TWO PAGES OF SOMEWHAT LIKE ASPIRATIONAL GOALS INSTEAD OF, YEAH, IT'S NOT. A CONTRACT. THE AGREEMENTS ARE NOT GREAT. SO, I THINK THAT, THAT, YEAH, I THINK THAT IT, I THINK IT COULD BE HELPFUL FOR US TO DO THAT. SO, I THINK THAT IT'S A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO DO THAT. SO, WELL, I THINK IT SO, WE'RE GOING TO NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH. WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO REACH AN AGREEMENT ON A NEW OPERATING AGREEMENT AND THINGS. YOU WANT ME TO LOOK INTO WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN SELL THE LAND AND WHO OWNS THE BUILDING? CORRECT. OKAY. AND I THINK THAT CLEANING EVERYTHING UP WILL PUT MARCY'S STAFF AND YOUR STAFF IN A BETTER POSITION AS WELL. SO, NOBODY'S BICKERING AND FIGHTING AND UNDERSTANDING WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT. YEAH. AND WE ALL KNOW WHERE WE HAVE TO GO FORWARD. YEAH. DO YOU WANT AS PART OF, DO YOU WANT MARCY TO FIGURE OUT HOW MANY STAFF WE HAD WHEN WE RAN IT OURSELVES? WHAT THE COST OF THAT IS, LIKE TO HAVE A COMPARISON OF LIKE IF WE WERE GOING TO, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD COST THE CITY 500,000 TO TAKE IT IN-HOUSE. IT WOULD COST, I MEAN, WOULD YOU LIKE US TO ALSO BE RUNNING THOSE SORT OF CALCULATIONS AT THE SAME TIME? YEAH. I THINK THAT WOULD BE VALUABLE. I NEED TO LOOK AT THE WORST-CASE SCENARIO, WHICH WOULD BE WE ARE NOT BEING ABLE TO PARTNER, AND THEN WE HAVE TO DO IT OURSELVES, AND WHAT'S THE COST GOING TO BE INVOLVED WITH THAT? I WOULD AGREE. OKAY. WE HAVE TO LOOK AT BOTH SIDES. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SORRY, THAT TOOK A LOT LONGER THAN I JUST- I ALWAYS JUST WANT INITIAL FEEDBACK. THAT WAS A LOT. BUT INITIAL FEEDBACK'S A LOT, SO MY APPOLOGIES. ALL RIGHT. NEXT UP IS TO REVIEW THE AGENDA. UM, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? THANKS, MR. GALVIN. THANK YOU SIR. CAN I ASK ZACH A QUICK QUESTION ON 4D? THIS WAS JUST, IT WAS MORE OF A GENERAL QUESTION, ZACH, BECAUSE WE'VE COME UP WITH DIFFERENT PARKS. AND MY QUESTION THEN WAS, AS YOU'RE PUTTING TOGETHER KIND OF CIP AND THINGS LIKE THAT, HOW DO YOU DECIDE WHICH PARKS GET UPDATED? DO WE DO IT BASED ON THE AGE OR THE EQUIPMENT OR THE USAGE OF THE EQUIPMENT OR HOW DO YOU NORMALLY DO THAT? YEP. SO, AGE HAS A, A BIG, YEAH, PART TO DO WITH IT. WE'VE, LIKE THESE LAST COUPLE PLAYGROUNDS, LIKE BIG LAKE, WE'VE TARGETED THOSE PLAYGROUNDS THAT WERE INSTALLED IN THE NINETIES. BUT THERE'S SOME PLAYGROUNDS, LIKE TROLLEY PARK, THIS SPECIFICALLY THAT YOU POINTED OUT, REALLY ISN'T THAT OLD A PLAYGROUND. HOWEVER, THE RESILIENT RUBBER SURFACING HAD DETERIORATED [01:10:01] TO A POINT WHERE IT WAS UNSAFE, SO WE HAD TO COME IN AND TARGET THAT. SO, THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT WAS A SMALL FACELIFT, ESSENTIALLY, YEAH, TO BRING IT BACK UP TO SPEED. BUT, YEAH. BASICALLY, THE PLAYGROUNDS THAT HAVE, YOU KNOW, THAT ARE IN TO THE POINT OF DEFERRED MAINTENANCE, YOU KNOW, WHERE WE PICK OUT. SO. OKAY. YEAH. YEAH, I DIDN'T KNOW. YOU ALWAYS HAVE STUFF GOING. I KNOW YOU'RE SUPER BUSY WITH ALL THESE. I WAS JUST LIKE, HOW DO YOU EVEN DECIDE WHERE DO WE GO NEXT? WHAT DO WE DO WITH THAT? SO, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? ALL RIGHT, PUBLIC HEARINGS. OKAY. ZACH? YEP. I, I WAS GOING TO ASK ON THE. HOLD ON ONE SECOND. THE FRANCHISE FEES ARE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA BECAUSE IT'S GETTING SET FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT THERE IS ACTUALLY DISCUSSION AND CHRISTINE STONE WITH OTHERS AND COONEY IS AVAILABLE AND IS NOW ON OUR ZOOM ACCOUNT. SO, IF WE COULD GO THROUGH THOSE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PART OF OUR REVIEW. YEAH, I, I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK HOW WE SET IT AT 25 YEARS. WAS THAT STANDARD? SHE IS CHRISTINA? NO. SHE'S PART OF OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION. SHE'S PART OF OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION. (INAUDIBLE) YEAH, I GUESS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS WAS JUST THE 25 YEARS. LIKE, IS THAT A STANDARD, OR IT FEELS LIKE. WE, WE GET INTO SOME OF THESE AGREEMENTS THAT ARE LONG, AND IT'S LIKE THEY'RE IN PLACE FOR MAYBE TOO LONG AND WE SHOULD EVALUATE THEM IN A SHORTER PERIOD OF TIME. AND SO THAT'S. IS 25 YEARS SOMETHING THAT AMERICA WANTED? IS THAT SOMETHING WE WANTED? YOU KNOW, LIKE. I'M NOT SAYING IT'S WRONG. I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC BEHIND 25 YEARS OF AN AGREEMENT. MAYBE SHOULD BE REVIEWED EVERY FIVE YEARS. CHRISTINE, IT'S WHITNEY. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN HEAR US, OKAY. AND IF YOU CAN HEAR THE QUESTION THAT COUNCIL MEMBER SANDAU JUST ASKED, WE'VE GOT TO THE PART OF THE AGENDA WHERE WE HAVE THE ITEMS ON TO PUT THEM FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AND ALSO TO DISCUSS THE RATE. AND SO, THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY IN OPEN SESSION IN AN OPEN MEETING FOR COUNCIL TO ASK QUESTIONS AND HAVE DISCUSSION. WE HAVE A SEPARATE IN THE EVENT THAT THERE'S QUESTIONS RELATED ANY PENDING LITIGATION, THOSE WOULD BE ASKED IN CLOSED SESSION. BUT THESE ARE, THESE ARE QUESTIONS TO SET THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TO DISCUSS THE AGREEMENT. AND SO, HIS QUESTION WAS, WHY ARE WE DOING IT FOR 25 YEARS? IS THAT STANDARD? HI, THIS IS CHRISTINE. CAN EVERYBODY HEAR ME? YEAH. YES. OKAY. VERY GOOD. SO YES, 25 YEARS, I WOULD SAY, IS RELATIVELY STANDARD FOR A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT UNDER IOWA LAW. A FRANCHISE CANNOT EXCEED 25 YEARS, BUT IT CAN BE LESS THAN THAT. BUT I WOULD SAY 20 OR 25 YEARS IS NORMALLY WHAT I TYPICALLY SEE. IS THERE, IS THERE MORE VALUE TO MID-AMERICA OR TO OUR SIDES TO REVIEW THAT SOONER? RIGHT. LIKE I, AGAIN, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW. IT'S BAD. I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. LIKE WE'VE, WE'VE SEEN OTHER AGREEMENTS WE'VE GOTTEN INTO THAT IT'S LIKE THEY'VE BEEN IN PLACE FOR SO LONG, THEY JUST KEEP GOING. AND IT'S LIKE, WOW, WE SHOULD HAVE REVIEWED THIS A LONG TIME AGO. AND SO, IS SETTING A FIVE-YEAR CHECK-IN OR FIVE YEAR WITH AN OPTION TO RENEW AFTER FIVE YEARS ON, ON THE, ON A SIMILAR RATE. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT, I MEAN, I GUESS REALLY, I SHOULD ASK THE COUNCIL MORE. I MEAN, AS YOU SAID, 25 IS THE MAX OR YOU CAN'T GO OVER 25. YOU'VE SEEN 20 AND 25. DO YOU, I GUESS REALLY THE COUNCIL, DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD LOOK AT 25 YEARS A LONG TIME? NONE OF US ARE PROBABLY GOING TO SIT IN HERE. RIGHT. AND IT'S LIKE, SHOULD WE LOOK AT SOMETHING SMALLER? I GUESS I WOULD ASK MIMI AND YOU, WHITNEY TO AND CHRISTINE, IF YOU COULD WEIGH IN, I GUESS. I THINK THAT, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT IS THE FEE AMOUNT. AND I THINK THAT CHRISTINA CAN SAY THIS ALSO PROBABLY BETTER THAN ME, BUT SO THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT RELATES TO MORE THAN JUST THE FEE SETTING AMOUNT. AND THE FEE CAN BE CHANGED IN THE FUTURE REALLY AT ANY TIME, AS LONG AS IT'S AGREED TO. AND THERE'S PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENTS AND THINGS. AND SO, CHRISTINE CAN TALK TO THAT. BUT IF YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT THE FEE AMOUNT, CAUSE YOU'RE UNCLEAR ON IF YOU WANT TO SET THE FEE FOR 25 YEARS, OR IF YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE RATE OF WEIGHT. I THINK BOTH. OKAY. YEAH. CHRISTINE, CAN YOU SPEAK TO THOSE? YEAH. SO, IF A FRANCHISE HAS TO BE ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE, ANY FRANCHISE THAT, UM, IS BEING AMENDED TO INCREASE A FRANCHISE FEE, IF YOU'RE AMENDING THE ORDINANCE TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE FRANCHISE, THAT ALL [01:15:01] REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE APPROVAL PROCESS. UM. SO, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD HAVE SHORTER FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS. IT'S JUST THEN EVERY, HOWEVER MANY YEARS, YOU WILL NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT A NEW ORDINANCE, WHICH REQUIRES THREE READINGS. SO, THERE IS SOME PROCEDURAL STEPS THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE COMPLETED TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE ORDINANCE EXTENDED. AND AS WHITNEY SAID, THE UM, IT IS AN ORDINANCE. SO, THE COUNCIL CAN ALWAYS AMEND AN ORDINANCE BY A SUBSEQUENT ORDINANCE. IT WOULD REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE UTILITY, BUT THAT WOULD BE TRUE EVEN IF YOU WERE EXTENDING THE FRANCHISE UPON ITS EXPIRATION. SO, THERE'S NO ABILITY TO UNILATERALLY, UM, AMEND A FRANCHISE, EXTEND A FRANCHISE. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S AGREED TO BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE UTILITY. SO, I THINK BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SOME PROCEDURAL STEPS THAT HAVE TO BE TAKEN. THAT'S WHY WE TYPICALLY SEE LONGER FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS IN PLACE. UM. ADDITIONALLY, YOU KNOW, THE FRANCHISE GIVES THE UTILITY THE RIGHT TO BE WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY. THAT'S THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT. AND IT INCLUDES LIABILITY PROVISIONS, RELOCATION PROVISIONS, ALL OF THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. UM. AND SO, YOU KNOW, BUT OBVIOUSLY UTILITIES THEY PLAN TO BE IN COMMUNITIES FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. SO, I WOULD SAY THAT'S ALSO WHY WE TYPICALLY SEE LONGER TERMS FOR FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS. OKAY. I WOULD JUST SAY THAT FROM, I GUESS, I JUST I GUESS I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC BEHIND IT. IT'S, IT IS A LIFT TO NEGOTIATE THESE AGREEMENTS WITH THE FRANCHISE PROVIDERS. IT HAS BEEN MONTHS AND MONTHS OF BACK AND FORTH AND WORK. AND SO, IT IS OBVIOUSLY UP TO YOU GUYS, BUT IT IS A LIFT TO DO IT. IF YOU WANTED TO DO IT EVERY FIVE YEARS, IT REQUIRES, IT REQUIRES A LOT OF WORK TO AGREE ON TERMS AND, UM, TO KIND OF GO BACK THROUGH EVERYTHING. SO THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY CONSIDERATION IN TERMS OF... WAS THE LAST ONE 25 YEARS. THE LAST ONE WAS IN, YES, 90. IS IT 90? I THINK WE DID ONE IN 95. AND THEN WE DID ANOTHER ONE IN 2010 OR SOMETHING. BUT YES, THEY WERE, MAYBE IT WASN'T 2010. IT WAS A LONG TIME. YES. THE ORIGINAL WAS 25. AND THEN WE DID ACTUALLY ENTER INTO A DIFFERENT AGREEMENT. BUT YES, I CAN'T REMEMBER IF THAT WAS BLACK HILLS OR MIDAMERICAN, BUT YES, I BELIEVE THAT THE ORIGINAL WASN'T 25. IS IT, IS IT EQUALLY AS LARGE A LIFT TO MAKE A CHANGE DOWN THE ROAD OR IS IT EASIER TO WORK WITHIN A SET FRAMEWORK? SAY 10, 15 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, THE WORLD IS IRREVOCABLY DIFFERENT. AND WE DECIDE, OH, OKAY, WE SHOULD DO SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. WE COULD MAKE CHANGES TO OUR RATE AND THINGS. JUST AS WOULD BE TRUE, LIKE CHRISTINE SAID, WE CANNOT UNILATERALLY CHANGE IT. IT NEEDS TO BE AGREED TO. SO, MY QUESTION IS, WOULD IT BE AS HARD, WOULD IT BE AS BIG A LIFT AS IT IS TO REWRITE IT EVERY FIVE YEARS? YOU MEAN IF WE WERE ONLY DOING THE FEE INSTEAD OF THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT? CORRECT. NO. I WOULD SAY IT WOULD BE A MUCH SMALLER LIFT BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF THE TIME THAT WE SPENT NEGOTIATING AND KIND OF FRUSTRADING ON TERMS DEALT WITH RIGHT-OF-WAY. GOTCHA. AND RELOCATIONS. AND NOT, AND NOT ANY. THE FEE IS LESS CONCERNING TOO MIDAMERICAN. THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO ACCESS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THAT WE'RE NOT ASKING THEM TO RELOCATE OR ASKING THEM TO PAY TO RELOCATE FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS. SURE. AND SO MOST OF THE BACK AND FORTH. IS ON THAT. REALLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FEE. THAT'S. THAT'S. SO THEN IT WOULD BE EASIER TO SET A 25-YEAR, WHATEVER THE LONG-TERM IS, AND THEN IF WE NEED TO MAKE SLIGHT ALTERATIONS TO FACILITATE MARKET CHANGES AT THAT TIME OF RATE THAN TO BE IN A 25. YES. SO IS THERE A RISK THAT MAYBE FRANCHISE FEES GO AWAY AND WE WANT TO HAVE THIS EXPIRE ALL OF IT IN FIVE YEARS AND GO BACK TO MAKE A NEW AGREEMENT WHOLLY? POTENTIALLY. THAT'S THE ONLY BENEFIT I COULD SEE MAYBE TO HAVING A SHORTER TERM. OTHERWISE, I DON'T SEE MUCH BENEFIT TO IT. SURE. IF WE WOULD LOOK AT, LIKE, JUST THE FEE, THE SUNSET FOR RENEGOTIATION, SAY EVERY FIVE TO TEN YEARS, AND RENEGOTIATE JUST THE FEE, NOT THE FRANCHISE, THAT WOULD COME TO THE COUNCIL AND THEN WE WOULD BE ABLE TO CHANGE THAT. RIGHT. IF WE CHOSE...CHRISTY CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT? WITH THEIR AGREEMENT. I DON'T THINK I THINK LET ME TRY TO CLARIFY THE QUESTION. THERE'S TWO THINGS. THERE'S THE FRANCHISE ITSELF AND THEN THE FEE SEPARATELY. AND SO THE, THE COUNCIL CAN BRING FORTH AN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE FEE AT ANY POINT IN TIME, BUT IT WOULD HAVE [01:20:01] TO BE AGREED UPON BY BOTH PARTIES. CHANGING THE FEE WOULD BE PART OF CHANGING THE ORDINANCE. SO, IT WOULD REQUIRE EXACTLY THE SAME PROCEDURE. HOWEVER, I THINK WHAT STEVE'S POINTING OUT IS OUR ORIGINAL AGREEMENT WITH MIDAMERICAN DID HAVE A FIVE-YEAR SORT OF WE'LL LOOK AT THE FEE. AND YES, I WOULD SAY THAT, THAT CREATED PROBLEMS FOR THE CITY IN THAT PEOPLE FORGET THAT THINGS ARE UP FOR RENEWAL OR YOU KNOW, HAVING TO REDO THAT EVERY FIVE YEARS WHEN YOU THOUGHT IT WAS ON AUTOPILOT CAN BE PROBLEMATIC. I MEAN, IF THAT'S THE WAY THAT YOU WANT TO GO, CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, THAT IS YOUR YOU CAN; I'M GOING TO ASK CHRISTINE TO ANSWER. BUT WE DID ORIGINALLY DO THAT. YES. SO, IF YOU IF YOU WANT TO AMEND THE FEE OR AMEND THE ORDINANCE, YOU KNOW, ALTOGETHER, IT'S THE SAME PROCESS. IT REQUIRES AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. IF THE FRANCHISE FEE IS BEING INCREASED, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A NEW REVENUE PURPOSE STATEMENT IN ADDITION TO THE NEW ORDINANCE. UM. SO, I DON'T KNOW THAT PROCEDURALLY YOU WOULD GAIN, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO REAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IF WE'RE JUST RENEWING THE FEE OR, YOU KNOW, ADJUSTING THE FEE VERSUS IF WE'RE DOING A WHOLE NEW ORDINANCE; IT'S STILL GOING TO REQUIRE THE SAME PROCEDURAL STEPS. THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE UTILITY MAY JUST BE A LITTLE BIT QUICKER. BUT FROM, YOU KNOW, THE COUNCIL'S PERSPECTIVE, THE PROCEDURES ARE GOING TO BE THE SAME. CHRISTINE, I KNOW YOU REPRESENT A NUMBER OF MUNICIPALITIES. HAVE OTHER CITIES DONE IT THAT WAY OR IS IT MORE TRADITIONAL TO DO IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS LANGUAGE? I DIDN'T HEAR THAT QUESTION. CAN YOU SPEAK CLOSER TO THE MIC? SORRY, I KNOW YOU REPRESENT A NUMBER OF CITIES AND MUNICIPALITIES. ARE OTHER CITIES DOING IT THAT WAY, OR ARE THEY TYPICALLY DOING IT THE WAY THAT THIS ONE IS DRAFTED? THE ONLY THING THAT I HAVE SEEN IN TERMS OF, LIKE, A PERIODIC REVIEW OF ORDINANCES IS I WOULD SAY I HAVE HAD A FEW OTHER CITIES THAT WILL HAVE, LIKE, A 10-YEAR PERIOD WHERE EITHER PARTY CAN TERMINATE THE ORDINANCE. UM. AND THAT'S SORT OF A, YOU KNOW, PULL THE PLUG, GET OUT OF JAIL, FREE CARD, THAT'S AVAILABLE TO EITHER PARTY. BUT IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, WE AGREE IN 10 YEARS WE'RE GOING TO REVISIT THE FRANCHISE FEE OR ANYTHING. UM, THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY SORT OF PERIODIC REVIEW THAT I HAVE SEEN BUILT INTO ORDINANCES, WHICH CAN BE HELPFUL, PARTICULARLY IF IT'S A NEW FRANCHISE AND THE CITY IS A LITTLE BIT LEERY ABOUT HOW THINGS ARE GOING TO GO. UM, I HAVE SEEN THAT, BUT I HAVE NOT SEEN, YOU KNOW, PERIODIC REVIEWS OF FRANCHISE FEES OR OTHER TERMS OF THE ORDINANCE. I THINK ONE OTHER QUESTION THAT CAME UP THAT WE HAD WHEN WE SET THIS FOR YOU TO BE HERE TODAY BACK, UM, A MONTH OR SO AGO WHEN WE ASKED FOR YOU TO COME AND ANSWER QUESTIONS, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT COUNCIL HAD WAS ABOUT EXEMPTING PARTICULAR CLASSES OF USERS OR MAKING DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, RESIDENTIAL VERSUS NONRESIDENTIAL AND/OR SAYING THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO CHARGE THIS ENTITY BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE LIKE THEM OR IT'S A SCHOOL OR WHATEVER. AND I JUST WANTED YOU TO PROVIDE A BRIEF OVERVIEW QUICKLY TO THE COUNCIL ON YOUR RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE AND WHAT IS REQUIRED. SURE. SO, UNDER THE FRANCHISE FEE PROVISION IN THE IOWA CODE AND JUST THE FRANCHISE PROVISIONS IN GENERAL, A FRANCHISE IS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE UTILITY. AND THE FRANCHISE FEE IS IMPOSED ON THE GROSS REVENUES OF THE UTILITY. IT CAN BE UP TO 5%, BUT THE CODE IS VERY EXPLICIT. IT SAYS IT APPLIES TO THE GROSS REVENUES OF THE UTILITY FOR SALES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. THEN IT IS UP TO THE UTILITY HOW IT PASSES ON THE FRANCHISE FEE. YOU KNOW, CONCEIVABLY, THE UTILITY COULD JUST INCLUDE THAT AS PART OF THEIR BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND PAY THE FEE DIRECTLY TO THE CITY. UNDER IOWA LAW, IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THE UTILITY CAN PASS THAT FEE DIRECTLY ONTO ITS CUSTOMERS, AND THAT IS GENERALLY WHAT HAPPENS. BUT THE CITY IS IN POSITION OF THE FEE IS APPLIED TO THE UTILITY, NOT TO THE CUSTOMERS. SO, OUR READING OF THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, IT IS A SET RATE THAT IS APPLIED TO THE GROSS REVENUES OF THE UTILITY, AND THEN IT'S UP TO THE UTILITY HOW IT COLLECTS THAT AND REMITS IT TO THE CITY. SO, WE DON'T BELIEVE THE CITY HAS THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE RELIEF TO SPECIFIC CATEGORIES OF CUSTOMERS. THERE IS THE ABILITY, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT FOR THE CITY TO DO A [01:25:01] DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OR URBAN RENEWAL INCENTIVES TO THE PARTICULAR BUSINESSES FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES, BUT THAT WOULD BE TOTALLY SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE FRANCHISE ORDINANCE ITSELF. DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR CHRISTINE ON FRANCHISE FEES OR? I DON'T THINK SO. OKAY. SO, WHAT'S ON FOR TODAY IS BECAUSE, AS WE SAID, IT'S A COMPLEX PROCESS FOR APPROVING A FRANCHISE, WE HAVE NEGOTIATED DRAFT AGREEMENTS WITH MIDAMERICAN AND ALSO, BLACK HILLS ENERGY. BOTH OF THEM ARE AVAILABLE TO YOU TODAY, BUT YOU ARE NOT VOTING ON THEM TODAY. AND SO, I TRIED TO SET OUT KIND OF WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN AND WHAT YOU NEED TO DO AT THIS MEETING IN THE COUNCIL COMMUNICATION. BUT AT THIS POINT, AT COUNCIL TONIGHT, WE'RE BEING, YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO DETERMINE THE RATES FOR BOTH GAS AND ELECTRIC AND THEN PUT THOSE RATES IN THE RESOLUTION. WE'VE LEFT SPACES. AND THEN IF YOU'RE INCREASING THE RATE, YOU NEED TO ALSO DO A NEW REVENUE PURPOSE STATEMENT. SO, YOU'LL SEE THAT FOR ITEMS E, F, G, AND H, THERE IS A PUBLIC, WE'VE PUT ON TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING FOR, UM, THE NEW ORDINANCE AND ALSO A REVENUE PURPOSE STATEMENT REGARDING THE USE OF THE REVENUE FOR BOTH ELECTRIC AND GAS. SO THAT'S WHY THERE'S FOUR OF THEM. SO, YOU NEED TO DECIDE ON THE RATE, AND YOU NEED TO, IF YOU'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT, SET A, YOU KNOW, APPROVE A RESOLUTION SETTING IT FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ONCE YOU'VE DECIDED ON THE RATE. CHRISTINE, ANYTHING ELSE THAT I'M MISSING, YOU THINK? NO, THAT WOULD BE THE NEXT STEP. ONCE THE COUNCIL DETERMINES THE RATE IT WANTS TO IMPOSE, YOU HAVE TO SET THE PUBLIC HEARING, YOU HAVE TO PUBLISH A NOTICE OF THE ORDINANCE, AND YOU ALSO HAVE TO PUBLISH A NOTICE OF THE REVENUE PURPOSE STATEMENT. THE PURPOSES INCLUDED IN THE REVENUE PURPOSE STATEMENT ARE DIRECTLY FROM IOWA CODE. SO, THE ALLOWABLE USES IN IOWA CODE ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE REVENUE PURPOSE STATEMENT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PROPERTY TAX RELIEF, UM, BECAUSE THE CODE SAYS IF YOU INCLUDE PROPERTY TAX RELIEF AS A STATED PURPOSE, THEN YOU HAVE TO EXPLICITLY SAY HOW MUCH PROPERTY TAX RELIEF YOU ARE GOING TO USE FRANCHISE FEES TO BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, TAKE THE PLACE OF, OF PROPERTY TAXES. SO, BECAUSE IT'S DIFFICULT TO, YOU KNOW, COME UP WITH A SPECIFIC NUMBER, WE GENERALLY, LEAVE THAT OUT AND THEN INCLUDE ALL OF THE OTHER POSSIBLE PURPOSES IN THE REVENUE PURPOSE STATEMENT. MATT, YOU'VE, YOU'VE LOOKED THROUGH THIS, LIKE THIS IS, WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT, LIKE, THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO MOVE ANYTHING OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS IF IT'S IN OUR RIGHT OF WAY, LIKE, JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S ALL STANDARD. I ASSUME IT IS. LIKE, YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN NEGOTIATING THIS FOR A LONG TIME. IT'S JUST WHEN YOU SEE IT, RIGHT, IT'S LIKE, THAT SEEMS LIKE THAT MAYBE SHOULD BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF, BUT I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S NEW. I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT. I DIDN'T SEE THAT LAST ONE. IT WAS PART OF THE NEGOTIATION, BUT THEY'RE PRETTY FIRM ON THAT. BUT I WOULD SAY IT'S VERY RARE, GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF TIME BETWEEN PROJECTS FOR US, THAT WE WOULD BE BACK ON THE SAME LOCATION WITHIN TEN YEARS TO DO A MAJOR RECONSTRUCTION WHERE THEY WOULD HAVE TO RELOCATE. LIKELY, IF THEY'VE ALREADY RELOCATED ONCE, WE COULD BUILD WITHIN THE SAME FOOTPRINTS WITHOUT A SECOND RELOCATION OR MORE LIKELY IS WE WON'T BE THERE IN TEN YEARS. BECAUSE OUR PROJECT SPACING IS MORE LIKE 40 YEARS OR 50 YEARS. SO, BY THAT TIME, THAT WON'T APPLY. UM, YES, UNFORTUNATELY, WHITNEY INCLUDED ME IN ALL OF THESE NEGOTIATIONS AND MANY, MANY VERSIONS OF I BELIEVE IT. IT JUST SEEMS IT GOES BACK TO PREVIOUS TEN YEARS. SO, IT'S LIKE... WHEN YOU SAY THEY'RE FIRM ON THAT, RIGHT, I FEEL LIKE THEY KNOW THAT THEY'LL HAVE TO... YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. IT COULD BE A BIG COST TO US. I'M SURE THEY'VE BEEN BITTEN BY THAT SOMEWHERE. THAT'S WHY IT'S IN THERE. I CAN'T THINK OF ANY SITUATION FOR US WHERE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN ISSUE. YEAH, I JUST WE, WE DON'T SEE THESE TOO OFTEN, BUT WHEN YOU DO... WE'LL HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT UNDERSTANDING, THOUGH, THAT SHOULD THAT HAPPEN, WE'LL HAVE TO INCLUDE AN ADDITIONAL COST IN OUR PROJECT BUDGET SIGNIFICANT COST. TO PAY FOR THOSE COSTS. BUT YEAH. I APPRECIATE IT. YEAH AND WE KNEW THAT THE LANGUAGE, I MEAN, WE, I DON'T KNOW, CHRISTINE, HOW MUCH OF YOUR LIFE YOU'VE DEDICATED TO THIS, IF YOU KNOW OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD. BUT WE HAVE PUSHED BACK AND PUSHED BACK AND PUSHED BACK AND PUSHED BACK AND PUSHED BACK. AND DO WE LOVE THE NEW LANGUAGE? NO. DO I THINK IT IS, WE HAVE PUSHED AS FAR AS WE POSSIBLY CAN? YES. TO BE FAIR, MATT SAID HE COULD LIVE WITH IT [01:30:01] LIKE TWO DRAFTS AGO. AND I WAS HARD NO. SO, WE HAVE, I, I THINK WE HAVE GOTTEN THE BEST DEAL WE POSSIBLY CAN. CHRISTINE HAS WORKED VERY, VERY HARD AND HAS SAID, I THINK WE CAN STILL HAVE WIGGLE ON THIS. I THINK WE COULD PUSH ON THIS. AND SO, I THINK THAT WE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN. YEAH. AND THEY HAVE BEEN VERY, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE STANDARD AGREEMENTS, AND THEY DO NOT WANT TO DEVIATE FROM THEM. AND THEY ABSOLUTLY, YOU KNOW, EVEN SOME OF THE THINGS THEY GAVE ON, YOU KNOW, WE WENT BACK AND FORTH MANY TIMES BEFORE THEY AGREED TO GIVE ON IT. SO, I THINK THAT WE'VE DONE WHAT WE CAN. THAT'S WHAT WE EXPECT AND APPRECIATE. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? OKAY, NOW ZACH, PUBLIC HEARING FOR 5A. OKAY, 5A RESOLUTION 26- 284. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO INITIATE THE RECREATION COMPLEX STORAGE BUILDING BY ISSUING A BID FOR THE PROJECT. DOUG, I KNOW YOU RAISED THE CONCERN ABOUT IT POTENTIALLY NOT BEING ENCLOSED BY THE, BY THE WINTER, JUST SO YOU KNOW THE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: IT'S JUST A DRY STORAGE BUILDING, MASONRY BLOCK CONSTRUCTION, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THE CONCERN WAS OVER WINTER EXPOSURE OR JUST OUR USE OF IT, BUT IT'LL BE OKAY THEN? GOTCH. PERFECT. YEP, IT'LL BE FINE, AND I'LL BE THRILLED IF YEAH, WE GET A CONTRACTOR READY TO GET GOING. AWESOME, THANK YOU. YEAH. ZACH, I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE ON HERE, CORRECT? YEAH, I GOT TWO OTHER RESOLUTIONS HERE, YEAH. OKAY, PERFECT, GO FOR IT. SO 7D RESOLUTION 26-288 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE COUNCIL OF AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND THE CITY OF COUNCIL BLUFFS. THIS IS SIMPLY AN EXPRESSION OF OUR MUTUAL INTEREST AND DEVELOPING THE PIECE OF GROUND CONNECTED WITH THE AIRPORT INTO A PUBLIC PARK, SO UNSURE OF HOW NECESSARILY OWNERSHIP WILL, WILL LAND BUT PROBABLY MORE SO WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE FAA WILL LIKELY HAVE, YOU KNOW, HAVE TO HAVE SOME REQUIREMENTS AND APPROVALS WHICH THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY HAS AGREED TO, TO COORDINATE THOSE, SO UPON THE EXECUTION OF THIS MOU. I JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU AND ANDY FOR HAMMERING THIS OUT. I LOVE THE IDEA; YOU KNOW I'VE BEEN ON THIS. CHRIS HAS HEARD THIS FOR YEARS RIGHT, CHRIS JUST CHUCKLES BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN SOMETHING I'VE BEEN PRETTY ADAMANT ABOUT, AND WE'VE GOT THE APARTMENTS COMING ONLINE, AND IT JUST WOULD BE GREAT TO HAVE PLACES FOR THOSE KIDS TO GO AND DO SOMETHING, SO I KNOW IT'S NOT EASY; THERE ARE A LOT OF HOOPS WHEN YOU START TALKING WITH SOME OF THOSE ENTITIES, JUST THE WHOLE IDEA OF BEING ABLE TO PUT THESE THINGS TOGETHER AND GET TO THIS POINT. I JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU GUYS FOR DOING THAT. AND I FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT HAVE GOTTEN TO LOOK AT IT SO FAR, TAKE THE INITIAL LOOK AT THE CIP IF YOU DIDN'T CATCH IT, I DO HAVE A NUMBER PLUGGED IN THERE FOR THE INITIAL DESIGN AND ENGINEERING FOR THIS SPACE, SO. AWESOME. THANK YOU. OKAY, 7E, RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, JOINT DIRECTION FOR PAYMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIM AMONG THE CITY OF COUNCIL OF UNITED UTILITIES AND CL GEOTECH, SO THIS IS IN CONNECTION WITH THE REC COMPLEX MAINTENANCE YARD IMPROVEMENTS FOLLOWING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROJECT WITHIN THE 30-DAY WINDOW FOLLOWING JUNE 22ND, WE RECEIVED A FORMAL CLAIM FROM TEAL THAT THEY HADN'T BEEN PAID, SO THIS IS ALL PARTIES, YEAH, WOULD LIKE TO SETTLE THIS WITHOUT LITIGATION, SO THAT AGREEMENT KIND OF SPELLS OUT THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE, THE RETAINAGE AND WHAT'S BEING HELD BY THE CITY, SO. THANKS ZACH. THANK YOU. TODAY JAKE IS BACK WITH ANIMAL CONTROL TO UPDATE. YES, BACK FOR MY BI-WEEKLY DISCUSSION OF THE CITY'S WILDLIFE, SO THIS IS JUST CLEANING UP A CODE SECTION, CHANGING IT FROM PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT TO ANIMAL CONTROL. IT DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING SUBSTANTIVE. THAT'S FOR BOTH 6 A.M. FOR 60, CORRECT? ANY QUESTIONS FOR JAKE? ALRIGHT, 6 B, CHRIS. ALRIGHT, 6B ORDINANCE 6697. THIS IS ESSENTIALLY ESTABLISHING THE TIF DISTRICT OVER THE EAST MANAWA SUBDIVISIONS SO THAT AS WE'VE ISSUED BONDS OUT THERE FOR INFRASTRUCTURE, THE DEVELOPMENT AND INCREMENT CREATED CAN GO TO HELP US PAY THAT BACK. ANY QUESTIONS FOR CHRIS ON THIS ONE? NO. GO AHEAD, CHRIS. MY OTHER ITEM WOULD BE 7F. RESOLUTION 26-290. THIS IS A RESOLUTION SEEKING YOUR SUPPORT FOR US [01:35:01] TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR A HUD HEALTHY HOMES PRODUCTION GRANT. THE GRANT WOULD BE 1.5 MILLION DOLLARS AND WOULD BE USED TO ASSIST 70 HOMES OF PEOPLE WITH LOW TO MODERATE INCOME WITH MAKING REPAIRS TO MAKE IT A SELF AND HELP SAFE AND HEALTHY PLACE THEM TO LIVE AT IDEAL PROJECTS WOULD BE PUTTING ON RAMPS, HELPING PEOPLE WITH ELECTRICAL UPGRADES IF SOMEBODY WERE TO BECOME KIND OF ADA INCAPACITATED, MIGHT NEED A WHEELCHAIR TO GET IN THE HOUSE, WE CAN HELP THEM DO DOOR JAMBS, INCREASE THE WIDTHS OF WALLS YOU KNOW, AND THROUGHOUT THE HOUSE. IT'S JUST IT'S A NEW GRANT THAT, THAT WE'RE APPLYING FOR. RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE THE HEALTHY HOME SUPPLEMENTAL GRANT THAT GOES WITH OUR LEAD ABATEMENT PROGRAM. THIS WOULD BE SEPARATE TO THAT FUNDING ALTOGETHER? OUR MATCH WOULD COME THROUGH OUR CDBG ACCOUNT THAT WE RECEIVE EVERY YEAR FROM, FROM HUD. AND THEN SOMEONE IN YOUR DEPARTMENT THEN GOES OUT AND IDENTIFIES WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE OR KEEPS TRACK OF IT, OR SO, WE TAKE APPLICATIONS, SO WE WOULD PROMOTE THIS JUST LIKE OUR OTHER PROGRAMS. IT'S LIKE THE LEAD NICE PAINT ONE AND SO. CORRECT. RIGHT, TAKING APPLICATIONS AND THEN THEY'D HAVE TO INCOME QUALIFY, OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO BE A CERTAIN INCOME THRESHOLD, AND THEN YOU KNOW WE'D WORK WITH FINDING A CONTRACTOR TO HELP DO THE WORK, AND THEN YEAH, OUR TEAM WOULD MANAGE ITS TOTALITY. PERFECT. THANK YOU. THERE ARE NO NUMBERS, JUST SO PEOPLE KNOW, BECAUSE WHAT IT'S 80 PERCENT, RIGHT? CORRECT 80 PERCENT OF LOWER MODERATE INCOME. DO WE KNOW WHAT THAT NUMBER IS? SO, A FAMILY OF FOUR, YOU'RE TALKING NINETY-FOUR THOUSAND. OKAY. YOU KNOW, YOU CAN MAKE UP TO. THAT'S HOUSEHOLD INCOME? CORRECT. SO, 70 HOMES, AND WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS ONE; THIS WOULD BE A HUGE LIFT FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND SOMETHING THAT ALLOWS US JUST SOME EXTRA FUNDING CAPACITY. REALLY KIND OF HELP OUT. I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THE RAMPS; WE GET A LOT OF REQUESTS LIKE RAMPS IN THE HOMES, AND THOSE ARE EXPENSIVE, AND SO THIS WOULD BE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO NOW HELP INDIVIDUALS WHO NEED THOSE RAMPS TO GET THEIR HOUSE. GREAT. THANK YOU, CHRIS. DANIELLE 7A. OKAY, 7A AND 7B ARE JUST THE NEXT OR FINAL STEP IN THE BOND ISSUANCE PROCESS. THE 7A IS FOR THE TAX-EXEMPT ISSUANCE FOR 6.450 MILLION IN GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FOR THE FY27 CIP, AND THEN B IS FOR THE TAXABLE ISSUANCE OF 2.98 MILLION OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS. LIKE I SAID, IT'S THE FINAL STEP BEFORE WE ACTUALLY GET THE FINAL BOND PROCEEDS IN SEPTEMBER. ANY QUESTIONS FOR DANIELLE ON THAT ONE? HARD TO GO BACK NOW, ISN'T IT, DANIELLE? YES, CAN'T GO BACK NOW, SORRY. OKAY, AND THEN I ALSO HAVE C. YEP. THIS IS FOR TYPICAL PROCESS. TWICE A YEAR WE CERTIFY LIENS FOR WATER, SEWER, AND SOLID WASTE TO BE ASSESSED AS LIENS ON THE PROPERTIES AT THE COUNTY, SO THIS IS JUST THE TYPICAL PROCESS; THESE ARE PRELIMINARY NUMBERS; THE AMOUNTS THAT WE ACTUALLY WILL SEND TO THE COUNTY AS A LIEN WILL BE LESS BECAUSE WE STILL ALLOW PEOPLE TO MAKE PAYMENTS UP UNTIL THE 1ST OF SEPTEMBER. FANTASTIC. THANK YOU, DANIELLE. THANKS. 7G IS THE ABOLISHING OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF POSITION AS PROMISED, AS WE HIRED THE TWO FOR A CHRISTMAS POSITION I AM LETTING THAT POSITION GO SO WE CAN COVER THOSE SALARIES. ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT ONE? OKAY. 7H INDIAN CREEK STUDY. SO, THIS RESOLUTION IS AN ENGINEERING AGREEMENT WITH A JEO CONSULTING GROUP. THEY HAVE ALSO PARTNERED WITH HGM ASSOCIATES AND CONFLUENCE TO DO THIS STUDY FOR US. THIS IS NOT JUST A, A STUDY OF THE CHANNEL; IT'S MORE ABOUT HOW DO WE REPAIR, REPLACE THIS IMPORTANT INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE CITY. IT'S A SIGNIFICANT COST; IT'S NEARLY A HUNDRED YEARS OLD AT THIS POINT. SO, IT'S A, IT'S AN AGING PIECE OF INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE HAVE TO ADDRESS. THIS WILL IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES TO GET OTHER SOLUTIONS OR OTHER BENEFITS FROM THAT REPLACEMENT IF THEY EXIST. HELP US IDENTIFY WHAT TO REPLACE FIRST, WHERE ARE BETTER OPPORTUNITIES? MAYBE THERE'S ANOTHER PROJECT THAT WE CAN COORDINATE WITH IT, OR MAYBE A DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE THAT COULD GO ALONG WITH INDIAN CREEK REPLACEMENT TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS. ALL THOSE THINGS WILL BE LOOKED AT AS PART OF THIS STUDY. SO, IT'S A, IT'S A REALLY GOOD EFFORT FOR US TO DEVELOP A PLAN SO THAT WE CAN START BUILDING PROJECTS, AND THOSE WILL THEN BE PUT IN THE CIP FOR FUTURE YEARS. IS THIS SOMETHING? HAVE WE EVER ASKED IOWA WEST TO LOOK AT SOMETHING LIKE THIS FUN, HELP FUNDING THIS? JUST BECAUSE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT ALL THE THINGS YOU JUST TALKED ABOUT WITH THE BENEFITS, THAT SEEMS [01:40:01] TO FIT IN SOME OF THEIR QUALIFICATIONS FOR THEIR GRANTS, MAYBE I'M WRONG, BUT THAT'S YEAH. WELL, THE WAY YOU SAID IT MADE ME THINK OF SOME OF THIS COULD FIT INTO THAT, AND, AND PROBABLY NOT THE WHOLE THING BUT MAYBE A PORTION OF IT BEING LIKE I THINK WE'VE HAD OTHER PLANS FOR PART OF IT ACTUALLY HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THERE. THERE ARE PREVIOUS EFFORTS THAT INCLUDED PIECES OF INDIAN CREEK. RIGHT. YEAH. OBVIOUSLY THAT ELEVATE CB 2050 HAS A DOWNTOWN COMPONENT. A PORTION OF THIS CHANNEL GOES THROUGH THE DOWNTOWN, I'M SURE, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE INPUT FROM THOSE THAT EFFORT AND INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY, BUT THERE HAS NOT BEEN AN APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO IOWA WEST. TO PAY FOR THIS STUFF. BUT WE MAY KNOW MORE WITH THIS STUDY ABOUT WHERE WE COULD POSSIBLY DO SOME OF THOSE THINGS, LIKE BEHIND THE 100 BLOCK. THAT IS THE GOAL. YEAH RIGHT. OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. OKAY, THIS COULD ULTIMATELY IDENTIFY FUTURE PROJECTS THAT MAYBE WOULD BE GOOD APPLICANTS. OR GRANTS. GREAT. OR A GRANT PROGRAM. YES. AWESOME. SO, IT'S MORE THAN JUST THAT INFRASTRUCTURE BECAUSE I ALWAYS THINK OF IT LIKE ALONG NORTH BROADWAY AND IT'S ALL THAT CONCRETE AND EVERYTHING AND IT'S BEEN THERE A LONG TIME BUT THERE ARE LIKE YOU SAY THERE'S OTHER AREAS THAT MAYBE YOU COULD DO DIFFERENT THINGS WITH IT. THAT'S PART OF IT IS: DO WE PUT IT BACK EXACTLY LIKE IT IS OR DOES IT LOOK DIFFERENT. GOT IT. EITHER WAY IT'S GOING TO BE REPLACED, BUT HOW WE DO THAT IS WHAT WE WANT TO INVESTIGATE THROUGH THIS EFFORT. WE'RE ALSO GOING TO LOOK AT FUNDING AS PART OF THIS SO THAT IF THERE'S OTHER WAYS TO FUND IT, BECAUSE AGAIN IT COMES WITH A BIG PRICE TAG. YEAH. IS THERE A WAY TO IDENTIFY FEDERAL OR STATE FUNDING THAT COULD SUPPORT THIS? WE'RE SETTING ASIDE MONEY IN THE CIP FOR THIS EFFORT, BUT IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO COVER A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE COST, SO HOW DO WE IDENTIFY THAT GAP AND MAYBE FIND SOME OTHER SOURCES. AWESOME, THANK YOU. IT'S, IT'S A REALLY LONG-RANGE PLAN, AND SO THIS IS STEP ONE, MANY YEARS TO COME WITH FUTURE PROJECT DESIGNS AND THEN ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION. THANKS. THANKS, MATT. CHIEF DAVIS, SORRY THERE'S TWO OF THEM NOW. GOOD EVENING, RESOLUTION 26-293 IS AUTHORIZING OR WOULD AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF A GRANT AGREEMENT TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FROM HEIGHT OF A HIGH INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREA AND IT'S THE FBI SAFE STREETS TASK FORCE. THIS IS AN INITIATIVE THAT GOES BACK TO THE 90S, BASICALLY ADDRESSING STREET GANGS, STREET LEVEL VIOLENCE AS IT RELATES TO THE TRAFFIC AND/OR TRAFFICKING OF NARCOTICS. THERE ARE FUNDS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED ROUTINELY, I THINK FOR AT LEAST THE TEN LAST TEN YEARS OR PLUS. IT COVERS VEHICLE EXPENSES, PHONE EXPENSES, OVERTIME REIMBURSEMENTS FOR THE OVERLAP THAT OUR DETECTIVES HAVE WITH, WITH AN INVESTIGATIONS THAT SUPPORT SAFE STREETS, SAFE STREET INITIATIVES. ANY QUESTIONS FOR CHIEF? ALRIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS ON THE APPLICATIONS, PERMITS, AND CANCELLATIONS? OKAY, SEEING NONE, I WILL TAKE A MOTION TO GO INTO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION. SO, MOVED. SECOND. AMY? JUST WANT TO CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD THAT THESE EXECUTIVE SESSIONS ARE BOTH FOR PEN ALL RIGHT,IF YOU ARE ABLE, [1) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE] PLEASE STAND AND SAY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. GO AHEAD AND CALL THE [2) CALL TO ORDER] MEETING TO ORDER. LET THE RECORD SHOW ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE PRESENT, UM, [3) CITIZENS REQUEST TO BE HEARD] FIRST UP IS A CITIZEN'S REQUEST TO BE HEARD. THIS IS YOUR TIME TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL IF YOU HAVE ANY ITEMS TO DISCUSS THAT ARE NOT ON THE AGENDA FOR THIS EVENING. FAIR ENOUGH, I THINK I WILL PASS. FAIR ENOUGH. ALL RIGHT, SEEING NO OTHER CITIZENS IN THE GALLERY, IS THERE A MOTION FOR THE [4) CONSENT AGENDA] CONSENT AGENDA? I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE REMOVAL OF 4E, 4F, 4G, AND 4H. SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? JUST WANT TO MOVE. WE NEED TO VOTE ON THESE SEPARATELY, SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE MOVING. FAIR ENOUGH. ALL RIGHT, SO CAN WE HEARING NO OTHER DISCUSSION, MADAM CLERK, WILL YOU ROLL CALL THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDAS? YEAH. COLE BUTTON? AYE. JOE DISALVO? AYE. STEVE GORMAN? AYE. DOUG REW? [01:45:01] AYE. ROGER SANDAU? AYE. ALL RIGHT, AND MOTION PASSES. AND NOW WE'RE GOING [4.E) Resolution 26-280 Resolution setting a Public Hearing  for September 14, 2026 at 7:00 p.m.; on adoption of a proposed Revenue Purpose Statement regarding the use of revenue from a proposed Electric Franchise fee increase] TO TAKE UP ITEM 4E. RESOLUTION 26-228 REMOVE FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT FIRST PAGE. PART TWO. PART TWO. OH, OKAY. MOTION TO AMEND 4E, RESOLUTION 26-280 TO REFLECT A FRANCHISE FEE RATE OF IS THIS ONE? I'M GONNA SAY 2.5 AND MAKE THE CONFORMING CHANGES NECESSARY THROUGHOUT THE REFLECT, TO REFLECT THAT RIGHT. OR THE 1.25 IS WHAT THEY SAID. WELL, THAT'D BE 2.5. SECOND. IS THERE DISCUSSION? WE'RE GONNA DO THE DISCUSSION FIRST? YEAH, WE'RE GONNA YEAH, WE'RE DOING THIS BEFORE. WE DO. WE MADE THE MOTION. WE MESSED UP. WELL, WE USED TO DO THE DISCUSSION AFTER, SO. RIGHT. RIGHT. WE'RE HERE NOW, AND WE'RE GONNA FUMBLE OUR WAY THROUGH THESE. YEAH. THAT'S OKAY, AS LONG AS THE RECORD IS CLEAR WHAT WE'RE AMENDING, WHAT WE'RE YEAH. YEAH, WE WE WERE, WE'VE CHANGED IT IN THE COUNCIL. YEAH, YEAH, YOU'RE RIGHT. YEAH. SO. THERE WE GO. DISCUSSION COUNCIL. HOLD ON. YOU HAVE A MOTION. YOU HAVE A MOTION ON 4E TO RAISE THE FRANCHISE FEE TO 2.25. 2.5. 2.50. CORRECT. SO, A HALF-PERCENT INCREASE. YEAH, SO FROM 2 TO 2.5. AND JUST SO, WE'RE CLEAR, THIS IS THE ELECTRIC FRANCHISE FEE, NOT THE GAS? CORRECT. THIS ONE SO. THAT'S ON F? E. E.E IS ELECTRIC. E AND F ARE BOTH... F WOULD BE GAS. NO, F IS ALSO ELECTRIC. G WOULD BE GAS. G AND H ARE GAS. E AND F ARE ELECTRIC. SOUNDS GOOD. SO, WE STARTED THIS CONVERSATION A FEW WEEKS BACK. A FEW MONTHS BACK ABOUT THE INCREASE OF THE FRANCHISE FEE AT THAT POINT IN TIME IT WAS REQUESTED TO TABLE IT UNTIL TODAY'S DATE SO THE COUNCIL COULD GET MORE INFORMATION. TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT IT. UM, I DON'T COUNCIL IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? I DON'T REALLY THINK. I SEE THESE FRANCHISE FEES ARE REGRESSIVE OR RECESSIVE. IT'S GOING TO, ULTIMATELY, GO BACK TO THE CONSUMERS, AND SO I, I REALLY DON'T SUPPORT BUMPING IT UP. I'LL HAVE A HARD TIME WITH THAT. I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE STILL SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN EVERYBODY ELSE. I THINK, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT WOULD YOU SAY FOR THE NUMBERS? MAYBE, I MEAN, THIS IS GONNA AFFECT THE AVERAGE RESIDENT VERY MINIMALLY. RIGHT, IF THE, IF THE AVERAGE ELECTRIC BILL IS BETWEEN A HUNDRED AND A HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS A MONTH, THEN, WELL A 1% INCREASE WOULD BE A DOLLAR TO A DOLLAR FIFTY, A HALF PERCENT INCREASE 50 CENTS TO 75 CENTS SO MINIMAL FOR THE AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL USER. SO THAT, THAT'S, AND, AND TO BE FAIR THE NUMBERS WE HAVE IS 2.5 IS WELL LESS THAN CEDAR RAPIDS, DES MOINES, DUBUQUE, MARION, SIOUX CITY, WATERLOO. THERE'S ONLY A FEW OTHER CITIES THAT ARE LESS THAN YES, HOW MANY ARE LESS THAN US? ANKENY, IOWA CITY, AND WEST . LET'S PULL THE EMAIL BACK UP, BUT THERE'S ONLY LIKE TWO OR THREE. YEAH, THREE THAT IT WOULD BE LESS THAN 2.5. I WOULD, I WOULD JUST SAY I AGREE IT'S A MARGINAL INCREASE TO THE PEOPLE, BUT I THINK SEVERAL MARGINAL ONES ADD UP, AND I GUESS I JUST DON'T SEE, I, I WOULD PREFER TO KEEP IT AT TWO, LIKE STEVE SAID. I THINK THAT WOULD BE BEST. I THINK YOU KNOW WE HAVE A LOT OF LOWER-INCOME RESIDENTS WHO ARE REALLY TRYING TO PINCH THEIR PENNIES AND MAKE EVERY DOLLAR COUNT, SO I THINK, LIKE JILL, LIKE THEY SAID, I THINK THIS WOULD GET PASSED ON TO CONSUMERS, AND EVEN SMALL INCREASES OVER TIME ADD UP, SO I WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE KEEPING IT AT TWO, AT TWO PERCENT. MY RECOMMENDATION THE LAST TIME WE MET WAS TO LEAVE IT AT TWO PERCENT, AND I STILL LEAVE THAT MOTION AT TWO PERCENT, BUT I DO HONOR, OBVIOUSLY, THE WISHES OF THE COUNCIL. WELL, IN THE BEGINNING, JILL, DIDN'T YOU WANT TO JUMP IT TO THREE AT ONE POINT? UH, NO NOT, UH 2.75 OR 3? ONE [01:50:04] OF THEM. YEAH, IT WAS, AND THEN ONCE WE LOOKED AT REMOVING THE CAP FROM OUR LARGEST PERSON, THAT'S AT THAT POINT IN TIME I DECIDED I DID NOT WANT TO; I DON'T THINK THAT THE AVERAGE CITIZEN SHOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR ANYTHING ADDITIONAL ONCE WE REMOVE THAT GAP AND WE'RE ABLE TO RECOGNIZE THE FULL FRANCHISE FEE FROM ALL OF OUR PARTNERS THAT ARE PAYING THEM. SHOULD WE HAVE THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE CHANGE, PERHAPS TO THE YEAH. TO, TO THE HOW IT'S WORDED AND WHAT MAY HAPPEN IF THE COST THAT MAY NOW, BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT ARE BEING MADE HERE, SOME OF THE COSTS THAT MAY BE INCURRED BY US, BY HAPPEN TO POSSIBLY MOVE INFRASTRUCTURE THINGS OF THAT NATURE. CORRECT. SO THAT, SO WITH WHAT'S BEING CHANGED, LIKE YOU SAID, THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S GONNA BE A COST TO TAXPAYERS. SO, WE'RE GONNA INCUR THAT COST, WHICH THIS WILL GO TOWARDS THAT, LIKE THIS IS, AND HONESTLY, LIKE I SAID, FIFTY CENTS ISN'T OR SEVENTY-FIVE CENTS ISN'T CRAZY. I UNDERSTAND YOUR THOUGHT, YOUR CONCEPT, AND I KNOW OTHER PEOPLE ARE ON FIXED BUDGETS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT IT'S AS WE AS I ASKED MATT COX THIS AFTERNOON, RIGHT, THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT GONNA MOVE IT. IS GONNA BE A COST TO THE TAXPAYERS. SO THAT'S ONLY IN THE FIRST TEN YEARS AFTER. NO, IT GOES BACK AND GOES BACK TEN YEARS TOO. SO, IF WE DO ANYTHING, I MEAN, THERE'S, THERE'S GOING TO BE A TIME AND THAT IT'S GOING TO BE A BIG HIT, AND THIS IS, AS I SAID, I'M NOT ASKING TO BUMP IT TO 7.5 LIKE DES MOINES IS OR 5% LIKE MARION IS. IT'S A HALF A PERCENT, AND IF WE STAY AT 2% FOREVER, IT'S LIKE EARLIER TODAY WHEN I DISCUSSED 25 YEARS, LIKE IT'S BEEN A 2% A LONG TIME. I DON'T THINK JUMPING IT TO TEN IS RIGHT, OR SEVEN AND A HALF. A HALF PERCENT, I DON'T THINK IS OUT OF LINE, AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I'M AT WHERE I'M AT. YOU KNOW, WHEN I LOOKED AT THIS AND LOOKED AT A LOT OF THE OTHER CITIES, AND I APPRECIATE YOU PUTTING THIS TOGETHER , MIMI. CORRECT. I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, IOWA CITY IS LOWER; WEST DES MOINES IS LOWER, AND IF WE DID INCREASE THIS, ANKENY IS LOWER; WE'RE IN A VERY DIFFERENT SITUATION, I THINK, THAN THOSE THREE CITIES IN TERMS OF GROWTH AND IN TERMS OF WHAT'S HAPPENING WITHIN THE CITIES. I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA CAUSE THESE FEES ARE GONNA GET PASSED ALONG NO MATTER WHAT. WE KNOW THAT. I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF IT GETTING PASSED ON TO ANYBODY, BUT CAN WE MAYBE TALK ABOUT THE CAP A LITTLE BIT AND THE EFFECT THAT THAT'S GONNA HAVE ON THIS? WOULD YOU MIND MAYBE SPEAKING TO THAT A LITTLE BIT, MIMI? SURE, AND FIRST OF ALL, I DON'T WANT TO TAKE CREDIT AWAY FROM WHITNEY CAUSE SHE PUT THIS TOGETHER. YES, THANK YOU. BUT THIS ORDINANCE WILL REPEAL THE CAP ON HIGH-VOLUME USERS AS WELL, WHICH WILL ADD MONEY TO THE CITY'S BUDGET BECAUSE CURRENTLY APPROXIMATELY THREE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS A MONTH IS, UM, CAPPED, AND, AND NOT COLLECTED, AND, AND IT WILL BE COLLECTED ONCE WE REPEAL THAT CAP BECAUSE THAT, WE HAVE GOT AN OUTSIDE COUNCIL'S OPINION THAT THAT CAP IS UNLAWFUL. WE ALSO AGREE THAT IT'S UNLAWFUL, AND JUST SORT OF BELT-AND-SUSPENDERS APPROACH GOT THAT OUTSIDE COUNCIL'S, UM, OPINION AS WELL. SO, BECAUSE THAT'S UNLAWFUL, WE HAVE TO REPEAL THAT CAP, AND THERE ARE SOME OTHER CHANGES WITHIN THE ORDINANCE AS WELL, YOU KNOW LIKE COUNCILMAN SANDAU SAID, IN NEGOTIATING THIS THERE WERE SOME THINGS THAT MIDAM THEY WANTED THE CITY TO START PAYING FOR SOME THINGS THAT THEY THAT WE DID NOT PAY FOR BEFORE IN TERMS OF LIKE RELOCATION OF UTILITIES AND COST OF THAT NATURE. SO, I ASKED DANIELLE JUST TO PROVIDE SOME INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT WE'VE RECEIVED FOR GAS AND ELECTRIC FRANCHISEES TOGETHER. SO LAST YEAR WE RECEIVED 2.3, JUST OVER 2.3 MILLION DOLLARS IN FRANCHISEES, AND I'M NOT SURE WHO PROVIDED THIS SHEET, BUT STAYING AT THE 2% IT WE WOULD BE RECEIVING 6.1 MILLION DOLLARS, SO WE'RE LOOKING AT OVER FOUR MILLION DOLLARS AND LEAVING IT AT TWO PERCENT. WHICH IS A SIZABLE NUMBER. WELL, IF VERY SIZABLE NUMBER. WE, IF WE REDUCE THAT CAP, THEY'RE GONNA BE PAYING MORE, WHICH THEY'RE GONNA PASS ON TO THE CONSUMERS, AND SO TO ME THAT OH GO AHEAD. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, SO MIDAM CAN LEGALLY PASS IF YOU INCREASE [01:55:02] THIS; THEY CAN PASS THAT ON; THEY'LL JUST PUT IT DIRECTLY ON THE BILL IF THEY WANT TO, BUT THE CAP IS FOR HIGH-VOLUME USERS. RIGHT. SO, THEY CAN'T PASS THAT'S NOT; THEY CANNOT PASS THAT ON. CORRECT. OKAY. SO, IF WE LEAVE IT AT TWO, WE'LL RECEIVE JUST OVER FOUR MILLION DOLLARS MORE PER YEAR IN REVENUE. FROM THE HIGHER VOLUME. FROM THE HIGHER VOLUME USERS. YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S FUNNY BECAUSE I'VE SAID THIS ABOUT MAYBE SOME OTHER THINGS; THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW, IT SEEMS LIKE BETWEEN THE CAP, US LOOKING AT THE FRANCHISE FEES, OR WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE, COMPARING IT TO OTHER CITIES, WHAT DOES IT DO TO THE TAXPAYER? WE KNOW THERE'S SOME CERTAIN CHANGES HAPPENING. WE JUST TALKED ABOUT WITH THE, WITH THE CAP, I GUESS I, I'D REALLY LIKE TO MAYBE PLAY IT A LITTLE SAFER AND JUST SAY, LET'S JUST SEE WHERE WE END UP AT THE END OF THE YEAR OR WHEN THIS GETS DONE AND THEN MAYBE BECAUSE WE CAN LOOK AT THE FRANCHISE FEES AT ANY YEAR, RIGHT? THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT STUDY SESSION WHERE WE COULD MODIFY A FRANCHISE FEE AT ANY POINT DURING THE YEAR FIVE, YEAR TEN WITH WHATEVER. YEAH. OH, WAS THAT IT? COULD BE FIVE YEARS? NO, NO, I'M SAYING, FOR EXAMPLE, YEAR FIVE, YEAR TEN, YEAR NINETEEN, WE COULD COME BACK AND SAY, HEY, SOMETHING CHANGED SO. THAT'S NOT THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT. NO, I UNDERSTAND WE CAN GO BACK ANYTIME WITH THE FRANCHISE. IT WOULD BE HEAVY LIFT. NO, SHE'S SAYING WE CAN'T; THAT'S WHAT I'M TELLING YOU. IT, IT'S YES AND NO. SO, YOU HAVE TO GET MIDAM TO AGREE TO RENEGOTIATE. RIGHT. RIGHT NOW, FOR INSTANCE, WE'RE NOT AT THE END, BUT WE WANTED TO RENEGOTIATE TO REMOVE THAT CAP AND SO RIGHT. THEY'RE KIND OF DRAGGING THEIR FEET A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE THEY, THEY DON'T, THE AGREEMENT IS NOT EXPIRED, SO YOU HAVE TO INCENTIVIZE THEM BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO AGREE TO RENEGOTIATE. WE CAN'T JUST GO AND BUMP TO 2.5 IN FIVE YEARS IF WE WANT TO? NO. WHAT CHRISTINE SAID IS IT MIGHT BE EASIER IF YOU'RE SIMPLY CHANGING THE PERCENTAGE BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE A LOT OF STAKE IN THE GAME WITH THE PERCENTAGE AMOUNT. RIGHT. BUT WHAT GENERALLY IS HAPPENING IS YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE TERMS OVERALL AND THEY WANT TO LOOK AT THE TERMS OVERALL IF THEY'RE GONNA AGREE TO, TO RENEGOTIATE AT AN EARLIER STAGE; THEY'RE GONNA DO LIKE THEY DID WITH US NOW AND SAY, OKAY, GIVE US A FEW THINGS IN RETURN. GIVE US TWO OTHER THINGS. LIKE THEY WANT US TO MOVE, MOVE THE UTILITIES THAT WEREN'T IN THE CONTRACT BEFORE. RIGHT. SO IF YOU'RE GONNA RENEGOTIATE IT LATER, THEY'RE GONNA PULL SOMETHING LATER. THEY'RE GONNA WANT SOMETHING. EXACTLY, IT'S A NEGOTIATION. ANY TIME YOU OPEN THE CONTRACT. YEAH. IT'S A NEGOTIATION. SO THAT, LIKE I SAID, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK IT'S OUT OF LINE TO INCREASE A HALF A PERCENT. I JUST, I DON'T THINK IT'S CRAZY; AGAIN, THERE'S ONLY ONE, TWO, THREE CITIES THAT WOULD BE LOWER THAN US. THREE IN THE LARGE CITIES THAT WE COMPARE: ANKENY, CEDAR RAPIDS, COUNCIL BLUFFS, DES MOINES, DUBUQUE, IOWA CITY, MARION, SIOUX CITY, WATERLOO, AND WEST DES MOINES. YEAH, I KIND OF SEE IT AS A, A THOUGH IT'S A, IT IS A SMALL INCREMENTAL CHANGE FOR US. NOW MY THOUGHT WAS JUST THAT WOULD HELP US TO NOT HAVE TO MESS THAT AGAIN IN FIVE YEARS OR IN TEN YEARS. BECAUSE THEN THEY COULD ADD SOMETHING ELSE TO THE OTHER SIDE OF IT, IF THAT MAKES SENSE, RIGHT? I FEEL LIKE WE'RE, BY DOING, AGAIN IN IT BY MAKING A SLIGHT CHANGE IT, IT WOULD HELP IN THE LONG RUN TO HOPEFULLY HAVE A NUMBER THAT WE CAN RIDE WITH FOR THE 25 YEARS OR WHAT HAVE YOU SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO GIVE UP, AND AGAIN, WE DON'T; IT'S HARD BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THAT CHANGE IS GONNA POSSIBLY COST US ON THE MOVEMENT OF THINGS SHOULD ONE, I, I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING WITH THE CAP, RIGHT? WE, WE DON'T, WE'RE GONNA BRING IN A LOT MORE, BUT COSTS OF ANYTHING IS NOT GOING DOWN. NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, THE COST OF ANYTHING IS NOT GOING TO GO DOWN, AND I, LIKE I SAID, I UNDERSTAND IF I WAS SAYING FIVE PERCENT, I THINK I WOULD BE LIKE, YEAH, YOU GUYS ARE, YOU GUYS MIGHT BE RIGHT, BUT IT'S, I THINK, IT'S MINIMAL. I THINK THE BIG JUMP FROM WHAT YOU SAY COLLECTING NOW TO WHAT WE'RE GONNA COLLECT IS, YOU KNOW, FOUR MILLION ADDITIONAL DOLLARS. THAT'S GOOD, BUT AGAIN THE COST OF EVERYTHING IS NOT STAYING THE SAME; IT'S DEFINITELY NOT GOING DOWN. SO THAT'S WHAT I SAID. LIKE I SAID, IT'S, THE HALF PERCENT TO ME IS, IS VERY MINIMAL. AGAIN, COMPARING TO OTHER CITIES AS WELL. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SO, THE MOTION IS TO AMEND RESOLUTION 26- 280 TO REFLECT A RATE OF 2.5%. [02:00:02] MADAM CLERK, WILL YOU DO A ROLL CALL? JOE DISALVO? AYE. STEVE GORMAN? NAY. DOUG REW? AYE. ROGER SANDAU? AYE. COLE BUTTON? NAY. SO, WE HAVE 3. 3-2. THE AMENDMENT CARRIES. BOTTOM OF FIRST PAGE, GENTLEMEN. UM-HMM. MOTION TO APPROVE AS AMENDED? YEAH, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. JOE, YOU'RE THE SECOND? YEAH. SECOND YEAH. MADAM CLERK, ROLL CALL. ROGER SANDAU? AYE. COLE BUTTON? NAY. JOE DISALVO? AYE. STEVE GORMAN? NAY. DOUG REW? AYE. WE'LL NOW TAKE UP ITEM 4F, [4.F) Resolution 26-281 Resolution setting a public hearing on proposed Ordinance granting MidAmerican Energy company an Electric Franchise and imposing franchise fees] RESOLUTION 26-281. THIS IS THE SAME THING, RIGHT? NOPE. CORRECT. THIS IS A REVENUE PURPOSE STATEMENT THIS CORRESPONDS WITH SO YOU'LL YEAH, YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I MEAN; IT'S THE SAME. YEAH. I'VE MOVED TO AMEND 4F 26-281 TO REFLECT FRANCHISE FEE RATE OF 2.5 PERCENT CONSISTENT WITH THE RESOLUTION 26-280 AS AMENDED. SORRY. IS THERE A DISCUSSION? REFER TO PREVIOUS CALL. OKAY. MOTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION 26-280 AROUND TO REFLECT THE RATE OF 2.5 PERCENT. MADAM CLERK, ROLL CALL, PLEASE. DOUG REW? AYE. ROGER SANDAU? AYE. COLE BUTTON? NAY. JOE DISALVO? AYE. STEVE GORMAN? NAY. WE HAVE A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AS AMENDED? MOTION TO APPROVE AS AMENDED. SECOND. MADAM CLERK, ROLL CALL. ROGER SANDAU? AYE. COLE BUTTON? NAY. JOE DISALVO? AYE. STEVE GORMAN? NAY. DOUG REW? AYE. OKAY, AND NOW WE ARE TAKING UP [4.G) Resolution 26-282 Resolution setting a Public Hearing on proposed Ordinance granting Black Hills/Iowa Gas Utility Company, LLC d/b/a Black Hills Energy a natural gas franchise and imposing franchise fees    ] ITEM 4G, RESOLATION 20, EXCUSE ME, RESOLUTION 26- 282, THIS IS FOR THE GAS FRANCHISE FEE. AND ON THIS ONE, EVEN IF YOU WANT TO KEEP IT AT 2, WE STILL NEED TO AMEND TO INCLUDE YEAH. A PERCENTAGE NUMBER. I MOVE TO AMEND ITEM 4G RESOLUTION NUMBER 26- 282 TO REFLECT GAS FRANCHISE FEE RATE OF 2% AND MAKE ANY CONFORMING CHANGES NECESSARY THROUGHOUT TO REFLECT THAT RATE. SECOND. IS THERE A DISCUSSION? THIS WOULD JUST KEEP IT AT 2%. THIS WOULD KEEP GAS AT 2%, AND THE REASON I DIFFER FROM ONE TO THE OTHER IS WE'VE HAD THE CONVERSATION WAYS BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS KIND OF OFF AND ON FOR A WHILE WITH THE, HOW THE GAS WOULD MORE GREATLY AFFECT, I GUESS, THE POPULATION AS A WHOLE WHEREAS THE ELECTRICAL WOULD MORE GREATLY AFFECT INDUSTRIAL USERS, THINGS LIKE THAT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION FROM THE COUNCIL? SO, WE'D HAVE TWO DIFFERENT- YOU HAVE A TWO AND A HALF, AND THEN THE TWO IS WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED RIGHT NOW. TWO AND A HALF ON ELECTRIC, TWO PERCENT ON GAS. TWO ON GAS. YES. NOW MIMI, YOU KIND OF TALKED ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT: $100 AGAIN WE'RE TALKING $0.50, $0.75 ROUGHLY ON A BILL, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE THINKING? I DIDN'T I'M SORRY. SEARCH UP THE AVERAGE GAS BILL, AND I COULD TRY TO DO THAT IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO, BUT ASSUMING IT IS A HUNDRED DOLLARS, THEN IT WOULD BE THE SAME CALCULATION. RIGHT. YEAH. SO, WE'D BE LOOKING AT $0.50 OFF A 100. I FULLY ADMIT I DO NOT KNOW MY GAS BILL. WHAT THE AVERAGE BILL IS. FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING WHEN WE DISCUSSED IT TO COUNCILMAN DISALVO'S POINT, I THINK THERE WAS AN APPETITE TO KEEP THE GAS BECAUSE OF HIGH GAS PRICES IN THE WINTERTIME. CORRECT. THAT THEY AFFECT EVERYBODY, WHEREAS IN THE SUMMERTIME SOME PEOPLE MIGHT CHOOSE TO TURN THE AIR ON OR NOT CHOOSE TO TURN THEIR AIR ON, BUT IN THE WINTERTIME GAS IS WHAT POWERS MOST PEOPLE'S HEAT. HEAT, CORRECT. YOU CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT ELECTRICITY; YOU CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT HEAT; YOU FREEZE YOUR WATER. YEAH, EVERYONE HERE IS GETTING SOMETHING. MUCH MORE DAMAGING. THAT WAS THE DISCUSSION, CORRECT? ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT, SO THERE'S A MOTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION 26-282 TO REFLECT A 2%. MADAM CLERK, ROLL CALL, PLEASE. [02:05:01] COLE BUTTON? AYE. JOE DISALVO? AYE. STEVE GORMAN? AYE. DOUG REW? AYE. ROGER SANDAU? AYE. MOTION CARRIES. MOTION TO APPROVE AS AMENDED. SECOND. IS THERE A DISCUSI N? MADAM CLERK. JOE DISALVO? AYE. STEVE GORMAN? AYE. DOUG REW? AYE. ROGER SANDAU? AYE. COLE BUTTON? AYE. MOTION CARRIES. NOW WE'RE [4.H) Resolution 26-283 Resolution setting a Public Hearing on a proposed Revenue Purpose Statement regarding revenues from a proposed natural gas franchise fee increase from Black Hills/Iowa Gas Utility Company, LLC d/b/a Black Hills Energy.] GONNA TAKE OUT ITEM 4H RESOLUTION 26-283. IS THERE A MOTION? I MOVE TO AMEND ITEM 4H RESOLUTION NUMBER 26-283 TO REFLECT GAS FRANCHISE FEE RATE OF 2% CONSISTENT WITH RESOLUTION NUMBER 26-282 AS AMENDED. SECOND. IS THERE A DISCUSSION? SO, YOU CAN JUST KEEP IT AT 2% LIKE IT HAS BEEN BEFORE. THIS IS NOT INCREASING OR DECREASING; IT'S JUST KEEPING IT THE SAME. ALL RIGHT, THE MOTION IS TO AMEND RESOLUTION 26-283 TO REFLECT A 2%. MADAM CLERK, ROLL CALL. STEVE GORMAN? AYE. DOUG REW? AYE. ROGER SANDAU? AYE. COLE BUTTON? AYE. JOE DISALVO? AYE. MOTION CARRIES. JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, WHY ARE WE ROLL CALLING ALL OF THEM? BECAUSE THEY WERE PULLED OUT CONSENT AGENDA. THAT'S WHAT THE INSTRUCTION SAYS. I KNOW THAT'S WHAT THE INSTRUCTIONS SAID. JUST BECAUSE IT WAS PULLED OUT OF ROLL CALL AND WE HAVE ONE FINAL BECAUSE MIMI SAID SO. YEAH. WE NEED ONE FINAL. OH, AND THEN MOTION TO APPROVE AS AMENDED. THANK YOU. SECOND. SORRY. ALRIGHT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MADAM CLERK, ROLL CALL. DOUG REW? AYE. ROGER SANDAU? AYE. COLE BUTTON? AYE. JOE DISALVO? AYE. STEVE GORMAN? AYE. ALL RIGHT, MOTION CARRIES. [5.A) Resolution 26-284 Resolution authorizing the Mayor to initiate the Recreation Complex Storage Building, Project R27-03 by issuing a bid for the project.] ON TO PUBLIC HEARINGS. WE HAVE ONE PUBLIC HEARING THIS EVENING. THAT'S RESOLUTION 26-284 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO INITIATE A RECREATION COMPLEX STORAGE BUILDING PROJECT R2703 BY ISSUING BIDS FOR THIS PROJECT. IS PROOF OF PUBLICATION ON RECORD? YES, IT IS. ANY WRITTEN PROTESTS RECEIVED? NONE RECEIVED. ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON THIS MATTER? COUNCIL, ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS MATTER? SEEING NONE, I WILL TAKE A MOTION. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. MADAM CLERK. [6.A) Ordinance 6696 Ordinance to amend Chapter 4.20 Animal Control of the 2025 Council Bluffs Municipal Code by amending Section 4.20.083 "Potentially Dangerous Dog Designation", Section 4.20.084 "Dangerous Dog Designation" and Section 4.12.110 "Regulation of Keeping of Dangerous Animals". ] ORDINANCE 6696, AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 4.2 ANIMAL CONTROL. MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. IS THERE A DISCUSSION? NO. THIS IS JUST LANGUAGE CORRECT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. [6.B) Ordinance 6697 Ordinance providing that general property taxes levied and collected each year on certain property located within the East Manawa Drive Housing Urban Renewal Area, in the City of Council Bluffs, County of Pottawattamie, State of Iowa, by and for the benefit of the State of Iowa, City of Council Bluffs, County of Pottawattamie, Lewis Central Community School District, and other taxing districts, be paid to a special fund for payment of principal and interest on loans, monies advanced to and indebtedness, including bonds issued or to be issued, incurred by the City in connection with the East Manawa Drive Housing Urban Renewal Area (2026 parcels).] ORDINANCE 6696, AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR EAST MANAWA DRIVE HOUSING URBAN RENEWAL AREA. MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. IS THERE A DISCUSSION? I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, THINK YOU SAID 6696, AND WE'RE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 6697 NOW RIGHT. YES 6697. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEN NONE; IS THERE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ORDINANCE 6698, AN [6.C) Ordinance 6698 Ordinance to amend Chapter 4.20 Animal Control of the 2025 Council Bluffs Municipal Code by repealing 4.20.090 “Keeping of Dangerous Animals Prohibited” and amending and retitling Section 4.20.100 to now be known as “Keeping of Dangerous Animals Prohibited; Exceptions”. ] ORDINANCE AMENDING 4.2O ANIMAL CONTROL. IS THERE A DISCUSSION? MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. I KNOW WE GOT TO GET INTO OH, I'M SORRY. NO, IT'S FINE; WE'RE ALL LEARNING. WE'RE GETTING LEARNING, EXACTLY. IS THERE A DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. [7.A) Resolutions 26-285A and Resolution 26-285B A) Resolution Appointing UMB Bank, N.A. of West Des Moines, Iowa to Serve as Paying Agent, Bond Registrar, and Transfer Agent, Approving the Payment Agent and Bond Registrar and Transfer Agent Agreement and Authorizing the Execution of the Agreement. B) Resolution authorizing and providing for the issuance of $6,450,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2026A, and amending the levy of taxes to pay the Bonds; Approval of the Tax Exemption Certificate and Continuing Disclosure Certificate. ] RESOLUTIONS 26-285 A AND 26- 285 B. IS THERE A DISCUSSION? NOPE. SEEING NONE, I'LL TAKE A MOTION. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. RESOLUTIONS TO 26-286 [7.B) Resolutions 26-286A and Resolution 26-286B A) Resolution Appointing Paying Agent, Bond Registrar, and Transfer Agent, Approving the Paying Agent and Bond Registrar and Transfer Agent Agreement and Authorizing the Execution of the Agreement B) Resolution authorizing and providing for the issuance of $2,980,000 Taxable General Obligation Bonds Series 2026B, and amending the levy of taxes to pay the Bonds; Approval of the Continuing Disclosure Certificate] A AND RESOLUTION 26-286 B. IS THERE A DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, I'LL TAKE A MOTION? MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. [7.C) Resolution 26-287 Resolution certifying the FY2026 water, sewer, and refuse collection lien schedule for nonpayment to the County Treasurer to be assessed against the owner’s property.] RESOLUTION 26-287 CERTIFYING THAT FY 26 WATER, SEWER, AND REFUGE COLLECTION LIENS. MOTION TO APPROVE. SORRY, CLARIFICATION: IT SAYS IT WAS SUPPOSED TO SAY REFUGE RIGHT? THIS IS AND REFUSE COLLECTION LIENS. REFUSE COLLECTION. YEAH. REFUSE? OH, I'M SORRY. YAP. I THOUGHT I WAS SEEING.. REFUSE. I WAS LIKE, WAIT, WE'RE REFUSING. ALL RIGHT, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SO, I HAD A MOTION FROM ROGER, WHO SECONDED? YEAH, I BELIEVE I DID. IT WAS JOE. YEAH, PAY YOUR BILLS. [02:10:03] ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I MIGHT BE ON THE LIST NOW. I KNOW YOU WERE ON THE LIST LAST TIME. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. RESOLUTION [7.D) Resolution 26-288 Resolution approving and authorizing execution of a memorandum of understanding between the Council Bluffs Airport Authority and the City of Council Bluffs.] APPROVED. RESOLUTION 26- 288 APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN MOU FROM THE COUNCIL BLUFFS AIRPORT AUTHORITY. IS THERE A DISCUSSION? I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE, THANK ZACH AND ANDY BILLER FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER; IT'S DESPERATELY NEEDED TO GET SOMETHING DONE WITH A PARK ON THE EAST SIDE OF COUNCIL BLUFFS, SO APPRECIATE THEM GETTING THIS TOGETHER SO THAT WE CAN GET STARTED. I SECOND THAT. I MET WITH ANDY, I THINK MY SIXTH WEEK IN OFFICE, AND WE STARTED KICKING AROUND THIS IDEA, AND I'M VERY EXCITED TO SHARE THE CONCEPT DRAWINGS AND KIND OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, SO. GREAT. GREAT THINGS COMING OUT THAT WAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. AH? DID I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND? MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. SECOND. VOTES? LET'S HOLD DISCUSSION FIRST. I KNOW, IT'S LIKE WAIT A MINUTE, I DON'T KNOW. IT'S MESSY. JO, CAN YOU AMEND YOUR MINUTES? GOT IT. [7.E) Resolution 26-289 Resolution authorizing a settlement agreement, joint direction for payment, and release of claim among the City of Council Bluffs, United Utilities, LLC, and Thiele Geotech, Inc.] OKAY, THE RESOLUTION 26-289 AUTHORIZING A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. IS THERE A DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, I'LL TAKE A MOTION. YEAH, WE HAVE A MOTION. SECOND. YOU GOT THAT, JODY? GOT IT. ALL RIGHT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. RESOLUTION [7.F) Resolution 26-290 Resolution authorizing the Mayor to submit a HUD Healthy Homes Production Grant Program application and execute any related contracts with HUD upon award of funds.] 26-290. GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION. IS THERE A DISCUSSION? THIS IS A GRANT TO HELP PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY WITH THEY HAVE CERTAIN NEEDS SIMILAR TO OUR LEAD, LEAD BASED PAINT PROGRAM, GOOD USE OF FEDERAL DOLLARS IN OUR CBDG FUNDS. PERFECT. MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. RESOLUTION 26- [7.G) Resolution 26-291 Resolution abolishing the Chief of Staff position within the Mayor's office] 291. RESOLUTION ABOLISHING CHIEF OF STAFF POSITION. IS THERE A DISCUSSION? THIS IS, WE REQUIRE THIS WHEN WE GAVE TWO NEW POSITIONS TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SO THE NET COST TO THE TAXPAYER IS ZERO. CORRECT. IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND? SURE. ALL RIGHT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. RESOLUTION 26- [7.H) Resolution 26-292 Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement with JEO Consulting Group, Inc. for the Indian Creek Channel Rehabilitation Study. Project #PW27-06 ] 292 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH JEO CONSULTING GROUP. IS THERE A DISCUSSION? JUST WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS THIS AFTERNOON. THIS STUDY IS GOING TO LOOK AT NOT JUST INFRASTRUCTURE OR THE STRUCTURE OF THE CREEK BED ITSELF BUT ALSO MAYBE SOME OF THE OTHER PLANS THAT COULD POSSIBLY GO AROUND THAT, SO I THINK IT'S A GREAT TIME TO DO THIS, THAT'S GETTING TO ITS LIFESPAN, AND WHAT ARE SOME OTHER THINGS THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO AS WE'RE GOING TO THE 2050 PLAN. THESE ARE ALL TOGETHER, SO I THINK IT'S A GREAT, GREAT IDEA. AND IT IS A STUDY. IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE SET IN STONE, BUT THAT'S A MAJOR PIECE OF INFRASTRUCTURE THROUGH THE CENTER OF OUR TOWN, AND IT'S BEEN NEEDED TO BE LOOKED AT FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, SO I'M GLAD TO SEE THIS. YEAH, THIS IS HUGE BY MATT COX AND HIS WHOLE TEAM. A LOT OF THINGS COULD COME FROM THIS. SO, IT'S, IT'S NOT JUST, THERE'S NO DOLLARS ALLOCATED TO FIX ANYTHING RIGHT NOW. THIS IS GONNA TELL US HOW, WHY, WHEN, WHERE AND THEN, AND DIFFERENT THINGS TO DO WITH THE NEGATIVES AND THE POSITIVES GOING FORWARD TO. CORRECT. IT'S VERY NEEDED. YEAH, I THINK IT'S GONNA SUPER IMPORTANT. IMPORTANT STUDIES, SO THAT'S THE PUBLIC TO PAY ATTENTION AND HAVE INPUT SO. YEAH. ABSOLUTELY. AGAIN, KUDOS TO MATT COX AND HIS TEAM. IS THERE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND? SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. RESOLUTION [7.I) Resolution 26-293 Resolution authorizing execution of a grant agreement for the Council Bluffs Police Department through the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) Federal Greater Omaha Safe Streets Task Force (GOSSTF). ] 26-293. APPROVING AUTHORIZING A GRANT APPLICANT AGREEMENT. IS THERE A DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, I'LL TAKE A MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. APPLICATIONS [8.A) Liquor Licenses1. Bluff Stop, 701 16th Ave2. Broadway - Mega Saver, 3540 W Broadway3. CB Farmer's Market (Winetime), 100 Pearl St4. Council Bluffs Travel Center, 3210 S 7th St5. Hooters, 2910 23rd Ave6. Hy-Vee Fast & Fresh #1, 21 S 25th St7. Lipstix, 1501 N 16th St8. Napoli’s Italian Restaurant, 157 W Broadway9. Primo’s Mexican Restaurant, 930 5th Ave10. The Landing - A&A Mobile Bar, 6865 Gifford Rd11. Village Inn, 1906 Rue St ] [8.B) Retail Cigarette/Tobacco/Nicotine/Vapor Permit - 1 (NEW)] [8.C) Device Retailer Permit - 1 (NEW)] [8.D) Special Event Permit Application1. Creekside Church Celebration 9/6/2026 (Fireworks) 2. EMA Preparedness Fair 9/17/2026 (Road Closure)] FOR PERMITS AND CANCELLATIONS, LIQUOR LICENSES ONE THROUGH ELEVEN, CIGARETTE PERMITS AND SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS. MOTION TO APPROVE 8A 1 THROUGH 11 B, C AND D. SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. MADAM CLERK, IS THERE ANY OTHER CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEMS? I HAVE NONE. ANY OTHER BUSINESS? [10) OTHER BUSINESS] ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER BUSINESS? TWO CALL-OUTS FOR THE CITIZENS [02:15:01] HERE: IF YOU ARE OUT THERE WATCHING THE PIER, LINCOLN PIER IS GOING TO BE OPENING WEDNESDAY. THE GATES COME DOWN AT 1 P.M. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A COMMUNITY EVENT FROM 5 TO 7 WITH AN ACOUSTIC GUITAR PLAYER, AND THERE WILL BE TWO FOOD TRUCKS: THE TASTY TREAT FOOD TRUCK AND THE KONA ICE FOOD TRUCK THAT ARE GOING TO BE PARKED DOWN BY, DOWN BY THE PAVILION, SO YOU'LL PARK DOWN THERE AND THEN WALK OVER TO THE PIER AND THEN THIS COMING FRIDAY IS CHIEF'S SHOWING BELL RINGING AND CEREMONY OVER AT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. SO THOSE ARE TWO GREAT COMMUNITY EVENTS, AND WE HOPE TO SEE EVERYBODY OUT THERE. AND ALSO, TOMORROW NIGHT AT THE LIBRARY 5 TO 5 TO 7 FOR THE 2050 DOWNTOWN COMPREHENSIVE. THANK YOU SO MUCH APPRECIATE THAT. STEVE'S RIGHT. ALL RIGHT, SEEING NONE I'LL TAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. SO, MOVED. SECOND. AND WE ARE ADJOURNED. WE HAD A VOTE ON THAT MOTION? OH, SORRY. AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. WE DON'T NEED A DISCUSSION. NOW WE ARE ADJOURNED. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.