Council - Regular Meeting

official. You'll call the meeting to order. Join me for the Join me for the pledge of allegiance, please. 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.

Okay, welcome everybody. This is our regular city council meeting for March the 9th of 2026. Um, start with a roll call, please. Weber, yes. Hannah, yes. Moore, yes. Bradder, present. Mayor, present. Olaflin, yes. Applebee, yes. Uh, first I need a motion to approve the agenda as presented. So move. Second. Have a motion in a second. All in favor? I oppose. Passes 70. Next we move to public comment. Um, Shelley, do you want to come up? Hi.

Hi. Thank you guys for having me tonight. My name is Shelley Pratt. I'm the project director for Oh, I'm sorry I didn't state my address, 223 East 4th Street, Waterlue. Um, I know I reside and work in Waterlue, but I do cover this area. I manage a Department of Labor Title 5 grant program that's designed to help older workers who are 55 and older, unemployed, and out of work work looking to get skills to get back into the workforce. I've dealt I've worked in this area before with a couple of agencies. My agencies have to be nonprofits or public agencies and I've helped a few people here in Independence get back on their feet again. I'm reaching out to you guys tonight because you know people everybody knows somebody who could use some help. We pay our volunteers 35 hours a week, 725 an hour to help out those agencies that were so that they can get skills, build their skills to get back into the workforce. I have flyers, I have pamphlets, um, always looking for help to help spread the word. So, I figured I would hit you guys up for that. So, thank you for your time tonight. I have I'm able to speak to anybody at any point in time. I don't want to keep your time because I I'm hoping it goes fast for you tonight.

Um, so, thank you for allowing me the time to speak. Absolutely. Thank you. Okay, that was the only one. So, let's let's move to the consent agenda then. Uh, I need a motion to accept and approve the consent agenda, um, which includes the following. The minutes of the February 23rd, 2006 regular meeting. The request to, um, hunt within city limits for Curtis Cooksley for October 2026 to January 2027 bow hunting season and the Walmart, Inc. Class C retail alcohol license ownership amendment. So second, have a motion and a second. All in favor? I

opposed. Passes 70. Next we move to the financials. I need a motion to approve the claims for payment. So move. Second. I have a motion and a second. All in favor? I

oppose. Passes 70. Next we move to item number seven which is the bank reconciliation. This is for information only. Anybody have any questions regard to that? Hearing none. We move to item number eight which is the revenues and expenses to date. Again this is information only. Anybody have Okay, hearing none, let's move to item number nine. Uh, item number nine is the first reading of an ordinance amendment to chapter 69, parking regulations. I need a motion to approve the first reading of an ordinance amending chapter 69 parking regulations. Some moved.

Second. A motion to second. As you'll recall, at the work session, Dustin Dolanback came in and indicated and discussed the problem that they have in the 200 block of Second Street Northeast. Um based upon that discussion um we prepared an amendment to um chapter 69 um.11 which would have the um the parking uh um it modified the two-hour parking and the overnight parking uh on the so that it's now on the south side only and not on the north side between second and third avenues. Any discussion with regard to this? It's on the north side or

Well, the house is on the north side. The the amendment makes the um parking apply only to the south side, not to the north side. To remove it from the north, we have to we the council discussion was to leave it on the south side, but remove just the north side. And on the north side, didn't we take out those handicap spots? Didn't the handicap spots are removed? They've been removed some time ago, hadn't they? I thought there was blue. There's still one that's that's across from It's painted blue, but I didn't see a sign. It's painted blue. The post office has still got the one or two handicap spots there. Mhm. Okay. But then in front of where we're talking, I think that blue should be painted yellow and Yeah. removed.

Okay. We'll talk about something towards the end of the meeting that will help us with that, but we'll we can clean it up. Okay. Okay. Any further discussion regarding this? Okay. Hearing none, this is a roll call vote then. Hannah, yes. Moore, yes. Persader, yes. Maynor, yes. Olaflin, no. Applebee, yes. Weber, yes. Okay, it passes six to one. Um, does anybody want to make a motion to suspend the statutory rule requiring that an ordinance to be considered and voted on uh for passage has to have two council meetings prior to the meeting at which it's finally passed. Some moved. Second. Okay. Um, this would be a roll call vote and I need six out of seven uh for this to pass. Moore, yes. Yes.

Mayor, yes. No. Applebee, no. Weber, yes. Hannah, yes. Okay, we'll have it on then for the next uh the next regular scheduled meeting for the second reading then. 23rd.

23rd. Okay. Um, let's see. Then we move to item number 10. And item number 10 is a uh a resolution to approve the contract uh and per and performance. Uh it's a motion to approve and authorize the mayor to sign a resolution approving the contract and performance andor payment bonds for the 2026 street rehabilitation project and to authorize the city manager to sign the contract. First, I need a motion. So move second

a motion in a second. This is the um we we previously uh approved the contract from how do you pronounce again? Shake Shake Fry Excavating Company for the total amount of $677,326.90. They've now we approved the bids. Well, we approved the contract, right? We approved the bids. They got the high bid. The the low bid.

The low bid. The bid that was approved. And now we need to have it to the contract's been submitted to us. So now we're voting to approve the contract so that it can be signed and the work can move forward. So any further discussion with regard to that? I I got one question. How much was it that we were charging the residents for all the residents and businesses on those streets? It's $30 a lineal foot. I know it's $30 a foot, but the total dollar value wasn't that like 300 and some thousand. No way it's that much, I would think. I don't have that off the top of my head. Okay. Yeah, it's not it it shouldn't be anywhere close to that that dollar amount. I mean, the the average person is

Pardon. The average person is probably about um between 2500 and and $5,000. Most of them between around 4,000. We don't have that many that would be would come anywhere near that dollar amount. We can certainly check it out for you. Sure. Okay. Any further discussion on that then? Okay. This will be a roll call vote then. Mayor, yes. Olaflin, yes. Applebee, no. Weber, yes. Hannah, yes. Moore, no. Persader, yes.

That passes then five to two. Uh, next move to item number 11. Um there are two motion options, but I'm going to read the first motion um option first and then we'll have discussion and then if if um if we call for a vote on that and then it's not approved, then we can make we can proceed with the making of the second motion. Everybody with me? All right. So the first motion would be an a motion to authorize the mayor to sign a resolution approving the preliminary plat of the survey for Jackson Green 7th edition noting that it complies with the city ordinances with the exception of 175.371c5 which requires a culde-sac not to exceed 500 ft in length which by approval of the attached resolution is extended as shown in the attached preliminary plat but only for this preliminary plat. So that's the motion. I can I have a motion, please?

So moved. Is there a second? Second. Second.

Okay, I've got a motion and a second. Um the um this is the project that's at the at the near the corner of Enterprise Drive in 6th Avenue Southwest. Um it's old construction that's doing the project. Um before I say anything else, I want to say that I want this project approved. I just have concerns and I stated the concerns to the planning and zoning commission at the time that we did it. Um they approved it um uh to recommend it to um be submitted to the board to the council by a 3 to2 vote. the um if you look in your packet itself, there's an there is a um on page 61 and 62, there is actually a a um an a letter from me to the planning uh the planning and zoning commission setting forth my reasons for why I had concerns about it. Um the there's two major areas that I have concerns with. One of them is that uh the the ordinance 175.371c5 which is the one that's in effect and there's also a letter in the in there from our city attorney regarding this as well but it requires it not to exceed 500 ft. We also um have approved sudus and if you look in your packet um the section regarding pseudus for um culdeacs and I want and I'll read this to you because it it does not um recommend this. It merely states that it's an option. So it's a guidance document. The length of the culdeac determines how many people are impacted by maintenance operations, traffic accidents, and other incidences that may stop traffic flow. Many Iowa cities limit the length of the culdesac to 500 to 600 feet. Studies indicate that the longer the culdesac, the higher the vehicular

speeds along it. The 2018 edition of the international fire code recommends length of the culde-sac beet uh sorry the length of the culde-sac be less than 750 ft unless additional steps are taken blah blah blah blah blah. So there there is not a Sudus requ uh there is not a Sudus recommendation. Uh we do have an ordinance ourselves. I believe that the the the currently that the the culde-sac that's planned is about approximately 700 ft between would say between 650 and 700 would be a I don't have it exact on the exact number. The other issue that that was of a concern to me is we've been trying for several years now to um get a grant to allow us to put the trail running along Enterprise Drive from 150 all the way to that intersection at the 6th Avenue. Um the way that the plans are currently drawn, they have four driveways that would be as you approach 6th Avenue. Now, uh there to be fair there, um the developer and um Brian Crawford have responses to these and I I I want to state them to you as fairly as I possibly can. with regard to the the issue the issue of why they don't have the the road running straight through um entering on Enterprise and exiting on um they're of the opinion that people will come to the stop sign at 6th when you're on Enterprise and rather than stopping at that stop sign they'll cut through the development and go through the development come to 6th Avenue where there will be another stop sign and then they'll they'll turn from there and they're they believe that at least they expressed at the planning and zoning committee meeting that that was an important they thought that that was a

reason why a through was not necessary because if you had a through you'd have um extra traffic on the culdeac because you'd have people that would be trying to get through that trying to bypass the stop sign. This isn't a traffic signal this is a stop sign. The the other issue with the the issue of the um the four the four um properties that would be close that would be on enterprise that would be you'd have to cross the trail in order to get to and from the residents themselves. Um my understanding is is that their intention is to build the houses in such a manner as as the garage would be on the side of the house as opposed to in the front of the house. So that you'll be a when they pull in to the garage, when they be pulling out of the garage, they would be able to comes in a forward direction um to the trail itself before they make their left or right turn as opposed to and um in that way they're not it's it's not somebody backing over the trail. It's somebody that would be going forward over the trail. Plus, I think there was also some discussion about the possibility when you look at the the preliminary plat it it it doesn't have the the driveways. It has the driveways more in front of the properties. I think the idea was that they would try to move them more to the side um more more to the west side of the sorry more to the east side of the um the property line the property itself closer to the line with the house next to them. So that that would um um help alleviate some of the problem as well because one of the other concerns that we had was that the house that's closest to 6th Avenue um the house itself would be um the driveway if it was in the center of that would be too close according to the code the codes to to be um to the intersection itself. there's a certain setback requirement from the

intersection itself and it would be too close if it was if in the middle there. Um I I I think there was also a a comment that was made at planning and zoning that when we went to when we adopted Sudus that that automatically rescended the prior ordinance that we had in effect and there's an there's a cover there's a coverage opinion in the packet from our city attorney saying that that's incorrect that it would not um it wouldn't supersede

it would not supersede it especially Since the pudus requirement um is as a guideline doesn't even make a recommendation that it be um up to 750. They're just telling you what the the fire international fire is and they're also telling you what other people have done. There's a lot of other cities that um have more you know something greater than than the 500 that we have. There's a lot of other cities that have 500 or 600 that they use just like the guidance document says. Um now certainly another thing that's been argued is that there are others um culde-sacs within the city limits that are way in excess of 500 ft and they've been allowed to do it in the past and so there should be allowed to do it in in the present time. And my response to that is just because you make a mistake before and and somebody allows something doesn't mean that you have to continue to make the same mistake over and over again. Now, um I want to make sure that everybody understands that that um the council has a lot of leeway with regard to approving um a preliminary plat. And if they if a council believes that the um the preliminary plat should be approved as it is or even with you know as the motion states with without the um without the section involving the not not agreeing that they've met with the requirements of this of the the 500 ft but saying that they could um well best way to put it is you have the authority based upon the um arc our existing code sections to do something else rather than follow the code if you feel that following the code is not appropriate. Um I'm not a fan of that. I believe that the law is the law, but you have the ability to do that and you have the ability to say I want to approve the plan as it is. There will be a second motion. And the second motion would be to send it not to deny this completely,

but it would be to send this back to planning and zoning and to allow the planning and zoning to meet with the contractor and the engineer again and have them make something that's more compliant. So that's that's the two motions and that's what we're dealing with. So further discussion.

Yeah, I would encourage everyone to vote no with the four driveways. The same mistake was made on 6th Avenue and three houses have driveways that go on to 6th Avenue. Periodically, there's near accidents when people are backing out of their driveways onto Sixth and that's a busy one, but it's not that much less busy on Enterprise. Matt, would you say there's about 2,000 on both of them cars and your vehicle traffic per day? Yeah, it's in the 2,000 range. Yeah. and it's going to go across a trail that we're going to pay to put in.

There's got to be a better way. I'm all for housing, but that's that's not the better way to do it. And it's we lost the farm to market road status on 6th Avenue when those houses those uh houses were built that accessing 6th Avenue. So, my vote would be no on it. Other comments? Some something else I was wondering is where where the culde-sac is there and you have I'm sorry. Um and you have lot nine. Why can't that road just continue instead of having the culde-sac? Why can't it continue through lot 9 to six? Well, that that's what that's what my position was because

and that's what I'm leaning towards too. I mean I'm not a big I'm not a big fan I mean I've lived on culde-sacs. I'm I'm just not a big fan of culde-sac and I I'm I'm more in favor of through but that's not it isn't my decision at all. I'm trying to give both sides of this so everybody can fully understand the issues and make sure that we're doing what you know the the purpose of of allowing the council the council flexibility is to make sure that they're doing what's in the best interest of all of the community and not just um repeating a mistake. Yeah. And and another another reason I would I would be in favor of that aspect is you have two different entries for fire access and stuff. Well, safety.

That's that's a big concern of mine when you have a culde-sac. Now, granted, there are not especially with that many residents on it. Well, there's only there's only 20 there's only 20 homes in this development that's planned. um if this were had a lot more homes on on because these are are larger lots, there are less homes than than than could be. So, um that's a positive for for allow allowing the culde-sac, but I I um there certainly the international fire um is for that's international. I mean, it's it's not just Iowa. It's not even right. I mean, it's the international fire code. That's what IFC means.

Yeah. So it's not it's not they're not taking into consideration whether it's rural or whether it's urban or whether it's other other types of things that when they give you their guideline that's the guideline for everybody under the fire code. So um that's something to that's something to consider. Um could we have Blake talk about the closeac issue with the fire trucks and

Blake? Yeah. So I was at the planning and zoning meeting. Um uh we've been kind of involved with this ever since the start of it. Um one of the things that we had suggested to um Ron and Brian was additional hydrants because the original plan only had one at the end. Um that's more of an issue for us because we have to go clear to the end of the cul culdeac to hit the hydrant and then come back to where the house is. Um so the only thing we had asked was that they add hydrants to it and they had added an additional two hydrants. Um, as far as everything else, the road's wide enough. There's the bulb at the end of it. Um, it's big enough for us to turn around. Um, when I went out and drove by it, there's very little concerns as far as culde-sac on our end. Um, Steve G has several culde-sacs that have more housing on it um than than what this is proposed and we have no issues out there either. Um,

so obviously if it's approved with the firet trucks, the ambulance isn't going to have any issues. Correct.

Just to be just to be fair about the Steve G project, you and I talked at the very beginning when there was there there was a lot of complaints about the accessibility for getting people in and out and the concerns about if there were because there were limited drive there were limited roads in there at the time the first people were in there. This is 2022 time period and we had a lot of people that were complaining about the fact that they bought these houses and they were not expecting that they they were you know that they were going to be in a situation where potentially there's something that's clogging the road or there's a fire in in the one area and they're not allowed to get that they're not able to get out and I I remember specifically you and I talking about that at the time as a concern

and I think that was back when Spruce Drive was culach and so you had a substantial amount of more residents there. Absolutely. I agree 100%.

And I think with this is a culde-sac only my personal opinion if if you advertise it as a culde-sac you want a quiet road that doesn't have through traffic. I think the potential that that's a marketing for a realer or someone else that um aspect of it that with there only being 20 houses total in this lot. I don't know how many for sure. I think it's 16 on the or on the inside or is it 14 on the inside? I can't remember. 14 on the inside. That that is um less of a concern as opposed to Steve G's addition that had Spruce Drive and the several other culde-sacs that went on to that. So

yeah, once those other roads were built, the concerns the concerns vanished there. Well, to to a great extent, I mean, people still will right always have something to talk about. But so I have two comment. One's a question, one's a comment. There is. So, we have the trail crosses a driveway and people use that driveway. Anywhere else in town, you're responsible for the sidewalk that you would drive over. How do we How does that compare with a trail as opposed to a sidewalk that runs through a residential side uh driveway? What do you mean by responsible? What do you

pay? Should there be trouble? Should it break? Should it crack because of having a vehicle on it rather than people in bicycles? So, the way that that works in the rest of the city is the the trail is the city's trail. So, we would work in partnership with that property owner, I would think, to look at what those repairs need to be. If it's the trail section itself, there are plenty of places in the city where we clear snow from those trails that that cross private property. Um, the one on 6th Avenue Southwest down there in front of Scott Crawford's is an example that I can think of where, you know, the trail crosses his driveway that goes into his property, but we clear that. Sure. So, I guess that's not my question. My question is from the way to vehicles, things like that, if it starts to break, crack, heave, um

my expectation would be that we would pay for those repairs to the trail section itself. Now, the the the the you know, the driveway that's outside of that trail, we would not pay for. Absolutely. But if I I could address that. It's the mayor's meeting decision. So, I just want to make sure all council have spoken and then I'll give you a chance to say something. Sure. So that's where my question comes in is and I want to know about who's financially responsible number one because obviously they're using in a manner that would be different than a trail. Um number two, what I was going to say my statement is this is four driveways. Well, it's actually four on on um Enterprise. It's two more on on So it's six. It's a total of six.

That's independence math, but that's six driveways. Really? We have how many? It'd be over a thousand other driveways in town that cross sidewalks that people used to walk and ride their bikes on, walk their children in strollers. I don't see that there's a problem at all with people with having these trails go across the sidewalk or excuse me, having this trail go across the driveways. Yeah, I'm more I was more concerned about a safety issue than I was anything else. Well, safety I guess I'm attributing it to run over people. What safety are you talking about? Running over people. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. We do it all over town. There's driveways at just about every house goes across the sidewalk. Understood. So, I'm just saying I I have no problem with that whatsoever. But, you know, when you say that, if they go over our sidewalk, we pay for the sidewalk.

I know that's why the start of my question was how does that attribute itself to trail because it's a trail and it's a trail that the city owns and the city maintains. I could see us being responsible for that. Now, from a purely code perspective, I would expect that our code says that resident is responsible for it, but I can't I can't imagine that we would enforce I can't imagine that we would do that when like I said, I mean, we paid to put the trail in, the city paid to put the trail in. We wanted a wider trail there. There may be some sort of cost sharing that could happen where we had the resident pay for what a 4ft sidewalk would cost or a 5ft sidewalk and we pay the additional. Should that scenario come up, we would look at it in that case. To my knowledge, I don't know that it has. I don't either. I just part of my question is I just wanted to make sure that that was clearly drawn out. So the homeowner wasn't responsible for that entire should there be a problem.

Yeah. And then my comment about I don't see a problem at all with having a driveway go across that trail. Trails and trails and sidewalks are treated very differently in code and so be a little bit more on the safety issue because a lot of people won't be walking in front of my house, but they might be on the trail more. So, we would hope that they'd be on the trail. That's why we're having them built. Yeah. So, there is a slight difference and

and they'll also be riding their bikes on the on the trail as well, which which they wouldn't necessarily be on the sidewalks as well throughout the city. Um other other comments from the council itself something I just want to piggyback on what I said before on a fire safety is say there's a a major fire on lot two you have all those other residents on there going down to the culde-sac they have no escape route. No that's that's a that's a concern of that's that's a concern major concern for me. I I don't want to be too wobbly on this, but that's a concern you'd have in any in any culde-sac. Um, it's not just true. It's not just culde-sacs, though, gentlemen.

We had a US Marshall apprehension that took place here last summer, and there was six blocks where people were kept out of and couldn't go home because it was dangerous. So, absolutely. I mean, there's little give and take that needs to be taken place here. And this isn't I mean, I have a hard time attributing this just to fire and take out a culde-sac because somebody has to wait until it's safe to travel by. probably on your street. Chances are you aren't going to be able to get in. Yeah. It'll be like one day for a while. It wouldn't even be a day. I mean, you're looking probably hours. And I think it'd be understandable. I think you could park one block away or whatever you had to for your neighbor's house to burn. I mean, I don't think this is a big concern. I I brought it up to get discussion and that's we're having discussion and that's the good thing.

Yeah. Getting different opinions out there. Anybody else? I mean, the only thing is like even if we they they ended it without a culde-sac and if it's still a dead end and there's no more road path there, they'd be bajan through dirt and gravel because we wouldn't have a culde-sac. We'd have a dead end. No, it'd be a through street there. If if they if if they didn't do the culde-sac, it'd be a street. So, they can connect completely up. They could connect to they'd be connecting to sixth there if you did if you did through street. And why do you guys choose COAC over a road? Yeah, if I can address the council first. Could you could you do me a favor? Um yeah,

I don't want to cut you off and stuff, but but I'd like you to answer the questions that the council has for you about their concerns about the issues. Um I I think I'd love to do that unless unless you think I've I've not fairly provided the same information that you provided to us at the at the planning and zoning meeting itself. Yeah. Yeah, if I could address councelor Pris. Why don't you answer her question first cuz she's the one that asked the question. Yeah, one too. Actually, I asked first. Yeah. Can you explain, Brian, what what precautions have been taken taken or whether we're talking about heavier rebar or gridding, you know, to protect that trail?

Yeah. Primarily has to do all of the trails that we've designed here in Independence where we anticipate there's going to be a driveway or we know that there's going to be a driveway. uh there is a different design standard that we build that section of the trail to and it's has to do with concrete thickness. Um so they're they're all thicker in the segment that's going to be impacted by that driveway whether it be uh the trail that is on 6th Avenue Southwest uh or the one on First Street West. So each of those driveways on First Street West, for example, the school, the um you can go right down the line. All of the many driveways that are there, uh they're all thicker than just the regular trail is that's out in front of the school, for example, where there is no driveway.

Thank you. Yes, you're welcome. You answer Deb's question then. Did you repeat the question for me? She wanted to know why you why you selected a culde-sac as street.

Okay. Thank you. Um, when Ron and Janice came to us, they had kind of a vision for this development, uh, for single family homes, low density, you know, kids out in the yard, you know, that kind of thing, without all the fences and things like that. And the culde-sac really lends itself very well to that type of neighborhood. And he did look at concepts that pushed that street through to six. And I think out of their and you guys can correct me if I'm wrong, but but their out of their desire uh for their vision for the development and the safety of the kids that are going to inhabit that development, uh they they felt like it was a more safe option to do the culde-sac. And as far as the city has standards talking about culde-sac lengths and speeds and those kinds of things, I just wanted to to say that of the 20 lots that the mayor mentioned, only 14 of those actually are accessed by that culde-sac. So you're talking 14 units that would be accessed rather than all 20. So relatively low volume. Uh we do have some curve linear geometry that is intended to slow down traffic. Uh one of the other guidelines that we use within Sudaz has to do with traffic calming and the curb linear geometry accomplishes that nicely.

Anybody else have any questions? Anybody else have any other questions? So if we sent this back to planning and zoning the only options is either to put the call sack there or the road there. Is that this body? Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. This body can make any recommendations they would like to about this plat back to planning and zoning as far as what they would like to see on the plat. Whether that's the continuation of the road, whether that's modification, whatever the council would like to see.

What else would there be though? Well, I mean there there could be other ways that this could be designed in terms of of the roads coming in off of Enterprise and you know and you know depending upon what where you where you put your through street and depending upon if you have a second a second street that would cover those four houses along along Enterprise so that they wouldn't be they would actually you know go to the street as opposed to as opposed to um going to Enterprise itself. I mean there's there's other design features that could be done. I'm not saying that it needs to be completely overhauled or anything and I'm not, you know, again, I I want to see this development built. I just want to do it in a way that I feel is that that alleviates my concerns about that we're doing what's in the community the community's best interest.

Ultimately, you have to remember too ultimately you have to remember too that any you know any conditions you guys put on it, you can send it back to planning and zoning. Ron and Janice can also say we don't want to do those and they can stop or or so remember that too. I mean that's a valid point

or it can go back to planning and zoning and they could have a conversation with the s and the s could then say no we don't want to do that but we'll do this and then if if if planning and zoning remember planning and zoning approved at 3 to2 if they were missing two members at the time that they voted otherwise it may or may not have actually come to the council. But if it goes back to planning and zoning and planning and zoning determines that they think that there are things that could be done better or differently that would alleviate some of the concerns, then planning and zoning would meet with the then decide what what what fixes we can or cannot make and then they'd make a recommendation to come back to us with whatever they they're they're recommending at that point. They're recommended this, right?

Yes. This was passed by a 3 to2 vote. It was recommended for approval by the body and Ron and Janice have spent considerable time looking at this piece of land. How long have you owned this land? 15 years. Yeah. So, they've they've looked at several different options and this this is the one that they've chosen to bring forward through planning and zoning and and to you as a deciding body. The thing I would say is that if we're going to have a trail and then we're we're trying to connect up the city and then we put a trail that where it just goes into culdeac and it kind of loops them back. the trip. We have one that goes through the property. The trail the trail we're talking about doesn't run along this this culde-sac at all. No, it just runs along the north side of Enterprise Drive over to the corner of Sixth and Enterprise. Okay.

At the moment. And then the intention is for it to continue north on along 6th Avenue Southwest to tie into that existing trail that's already there down to Lover's Lane. Brian, a couple points. Sure. uh First Street West, there's only one residential property that c the trail would cross um next to the a block south block east of the Pizza Hut property. The rest of them are all commercial. Commercial. Yeah. They're even more busy than a single family residential. Yeah. So, you're absolutely right. It's a great point. The other trails that are that are out there, you know, you're talking about commercial uh with a lot more in and out than than these residential ones. with 2,000 cars going through there a day. That's that's my point.

Yeah. And and that's a valid concern. And when 6th Avenue was built with driveways going on out onto it, that violated the the agreement they had with the farm to market road situation. So then we lost money on that that I can't speak to. Yeah. And it was why I'm saying let's not repeat the same mistake twice. Couldn't you put a frontage road and have those the backyards of those houses the four houses? That's what I was trying to suggest.

There actually wouldn't be room there depthwise to have constructable if you look at the facing um because they they looked at that also and some of those lots if you look at the north end those depths are getting to the point where they're only 120 ft deep. And so if we were to take another 60 ft out of that north south stretch for a frontage road you you'd lose those lots. It wouldn't work because of the loc natural feature there the the drainage ditch that's there. But to your point, the driveways and people backing out, uh, I think I don't want to speak for Ron and Janice, but they said at the planning and zoning meeting that they're certainly willing to build those houses custom so that those people back out of a side garage and then they're they're coming out instead of ever having to back out onto that road, they'd be pulling out frontways. And that could be a condition of this approval if uh if this body so so chooses that that the lots that are along the two streets sixth and uh enterprise uh they that those would have to be built in such a manner that that the driveways would be forward out rather than back out driveways. It

does nothing to alleviate my concern about driving over coming out over the trail. Okay. Okay. Um, the other thing that that we talked about at planning and zoning that hasn't been discussed is we looked at whether there was another option for another another street and you can't go through to the development that you live in, Mike, because there's houses that have already been built there. And I believe that um that Brian indicated that we can't go toward um Walmart because there even though there's property that's back behind this project um before you get to Walmart's property, Walmart has some type of a of a condition that doesn't allow it to be more than a certain height. At least that's what you represented to at the at the meeting. And as a result of that height restriction, um residential homes could not be built on it. Um, I've never I don't know about the restriction itself, but I mean, I'll take you I'll take your word for it that that it that it it does that. So, that's another So, we did we did consider other options to see if there was another way that we could have um two two, you know, two ex two entrances, two exits, whatever you want to call it. So, it's not just one, which is always a concern with the with the culde-sac it. So, any anybody else have any other questions for Brian

on on the uh trail and the driveways going over? I don't have a problem with that because No, you are you have a question for Brian or you have a question to add comment? Well, I I was going to ask a question after I had a comment. Go ahead then.

Um I don't have a problem with that because your probability of somebody walking on the trail at the exact moment somebody does back out or cars, that's a low percentage. But in the development, that option is always there when the people build there to have backing out of their garage onto a pad or something and then going out forward. You know, that option is always there, which if I were to build a house there, I think I would want that option so I'm driving out into the traffic and not backing into the traffic because you have a lot better visibility. But it's however they want to do that. But I have no problem with, you know, it crossing the driveways crossing over at all. Well, in this case, you're you're looking at the builder, too. So, the the end builder, uh, you know, the guy that's actually going to build the homes and the driveways, he's he's here.

And and my only question my question to you is those four properties that do face, uh, Enterprise, that frontage in front of a garage would be plenty big enough to have a backup swing, wouldn't it? Absolutely. Yeah. I I mean of what I drove by and anticipated, you know, trying to visually anticipate, I thought there'd be enough room and, you know, Yeah, you're absolutely right. And he did that on purpose. Those are those are extra wide lots and you guys can see that just by looking at the geometry on the plat. Anything else, Brian? Okay. Thank you, Bri. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Any other comments with respect to the motions itself?

Okay. Hearing none, let me go let me go back to the motion itself and read it to you again. This is a motion that is that is currently um pending with a a motion and a second. The motion is to approve and authorize the mayor to sign a resolution approving the preliminary plat of the survey for Jackson Green, 7th edition, noting that it complies with the city ordinances with the exception of 175.371C5, which requires that a culde-sac not exceed 500 ft in length, which by approval of the attached resolutions is extended as shown on the attached preliminary plat, but only for this preliminary plat. In other words, we're not trying to make an ex we're not trying to establish a precedent here. We're saying that if it's if you are approving this with with the five with the exceeding 500 ft, you're only approving it as to this particular project and not any other one that might come up ever again in the city. So, you're not locking yourself in if you were to vote yes on this. Okay. So, this is anything else.

Okay. Then, so a yes vote is for only 500 ft, not 750. Yes. Is for what you're seeing? No. The yes vote is to approve this as it's presented to you. Yeah. Okay. As it's presented. Okay. Okay. All right. So, this is a roll call vote then. Olaflin, no. Applebee, yes. Weber, yes. Hannah, yes. Moore, yes. Bradder, yes. Maynor, no. Okay, it still passes. 52.

Okay. Next we move to um just one second. Let me get to the right page here. Okay. The next uh next item is item number 12. Uh this is a motion to approve and author No. Yeah. The motion to approve and authorize the mayor to sign a resolution appointing Bill Lake to the planning and zoning commission. So move second.

I have a motion to second. Um Stephanie Sailor um has been on the um planning and zoning commission for a couple of years. Um she's as you know she's left Robertson and Eddie and she's um going to be leave going to be moving out of town or spending a lot more time out of town. So she's submitted her resignation. Um Bill Lake was previously on planning and zoning. Um I was under the impression that he had been on for for like 10 years or something. It only been on for a few years. So, I felt kind of bad that I took him off and therefore I want to put him back on since he he wasn't a long I was trying to get new blood in there, but I shouldn't I shouldn't have taken him off. So, that's why I'm I'm recommending that we um approve um putting him back on the on the on the planning and zoning commission.

We got no say on how many meetings they attend, but it looks like something like just this situation kind of created something because of fall. There's seven on there. Is that right? There's seven on there and only five showed up. So, like you said, that vote could have went either way. And I've sat down at some of those planning and zoning meetings and I think they're always short people at the meeting. I'm sorry. Did I get the Did I apologize? Did I get the motion itself? Yes. Yes. And I got the second and Okay, go ahead. Go ahead. I know we can't do anything about it, but we put somebody on there. Well, I know. I expect that they attend the majority of the meetings and

Yeah. I know that my that that um I was on planning and zoning before I was elected to um to mayor and I I know that that um Bill Lake was one that that did attend regularly. He was he was there all the time. He hardly I don't even know if he ever missed a meeting. So I don't think that that is just going to apply to him. And Matt, the two correct me if I'm wrong, the two members that were absent at this particular meeting, one was had an excuse because of a medical situation and the other one was out of town on I don't know what you want to call it. winter Florida winter winter rising. Yeah, charging. Yeah. So, thanks. Thank you.

Any other further discussion regarding this? Okay. This would be a roll call vote then. Weber. Yes. Hannah, yes. Moore, yes. Yes. Maynor, yes. Olaflin, yes. Applebee, yes. That passes 70. Next, we move to item number 13. Um, this is a motion to set a public hearing for March 23, 2026 at 5:30 p.m. for consideration of a reszoning request from A1 agriculture to R R3 residential within the city of Independence, Buchanan County, Iowa. So move second.

Okay. So this has already come through planning and zoning but all but uh at a March 3rd meeting. Um, but all we're trying this is the project itself is over. Um, it's one that Steve G's building. Hindsight being what it is, I should have included a map in there. Um, I was looking for it. The uh, typically I do I didn't this time. I'm sorry. So, this is the end of Pine Drive. U, there's a two 2 I don't remember how many acres it is. It's right around two acres. 1.9 1.9 1.93. Yeah. So, there's two 1.93 acres of ground down there that Steve wants to reszone from A1 to R3. uh I believe with the intentions of trying to sell the property. So,

okay. So, anyway, this is just to set the hearing. This isn't to approve anything anyway. So, I don't think we need unless anybody else has further discussion with regard to setting or not setting a public hearing. Okay, then this will be a roll call vote then. Hannah, yes. Moore, yes. Yes. Mayor, yes. Olaflin, yes. Applebee, no. Weber, yes. Okay, it's approved. uh 61. Yeah. So that hearing will be on the 23rd, March 23rd. Then and we'll start sending notice out to the surrounding property owners about the resing request. Also in that meeting, please I will. Thank you.

Okay. Next, uh we move to item number 14. Um this is a motion to extend the 28e agreement to align with the two AMR contract completion date of uh date of October 31, 2026. I need a motion first. So move and I need a second. Second.

Okay. We talked about this at a planning at a um work session and the the issue um here is that we've got um we have a contract with uh the city and with the hospital for ambulance services. And that that agreement is going to um end on so we believe it runs through June 30th, 2026. The only date that's in the document is actually May 27th, 2021 and it was a 5-year term, but we think it's that it's effective through the end of this fiscal year basically. So June 30, 2026 would be when it expires.

That's what we've budgeted for in terms of the expenditure to pay the the bill. So, so as you know, the the levy passed, so the c the c the county will be taking over all of the costs with regard to the AMR services um as a result of the payment from the levy. So, the the actual contract with AMR does not expire until October 31st of 2026. 2026. Mhm.

So there's a time period between the time that the um between the time that the ambulance commission which consists of myself as the mayor of independence, the um a member of the the board of supervisors and the CEO of the hospital. So that board there uh meets regularly to talk to the AMR people about you know the timeliness of things the the number of of um different um transfers from the hospital the other all the other different things. So if I if we didn't if we don't extend the agreement that we have u with them then at that point um the commission will no longer exist. And if the commission no longer exists, then we no longer have an obligation to make a payment to the hospital for the time period between the time that the con that the um 2080 agreement ends, which you think is in

we think it's June 30th. So I want to make sure that I understood what you said. So the the agreement with AMR is between the hospital and AMR, correct? Not between the parties of the 28. We make we make our payments to the hospital. We did not make our payments to AMR. So should we decide not to continue this until the 31st of October, the hospital would then be required to make up that difference? Well, the hospital andor the andor the county the county has that discussion happened with those guys that you know discussion has not happened but with those guys the um the the county has hired has hired personnel to you know they've hired the um ambulance

the ambulance director. They're in the process of meeting and and hiring a a firm to handle the the billing issue the billing issues themselves. Um the county is basically and they're looking I believe that they're looking to um to purchase ambulances and and staff and all the other things that they need to do prior to the inception of the you know the county taking over from AMR because AMR the notice to AMR has to go out by May 1st um or the contract extends for two more years automatically. So my understanding is is that the county will give the notice prior to May 1st and then AMR will know that their contract is expiring on October 31st. And then so the question for us is is um if we do nothing then the the um the commission or the board of for the ambulance services will expire and there's no obligation for anyone other than the hospital perhaps and whatever agreement they reach with the county to pay for that service. We wouldn't be responsible any further. So if we don't have a vote on it, the city would be done with it by June.

Correct. As of June 30th. Yeah. And the contract is only with technically the hospital and the county and the city both chipped in to help with it. But the contract is only with the hospital, not with the county or So there's there's two separate contracts in play here. a contract with AMR that provides service is with AMR and the hospital. That's one contract. Okay.

And then the other contract that exists is the advisory board that the mayor's been talking about. That is the 280E that exists between the county, the hospital, and the city. That 280E expires June 30th of 2026. So, there's some months there that would need service or need somebody's got to figure out what to do with that, whether it's the hospital and the county um or just simply the hospital. If the county would drop out bow out also, right? If the city decides to continue with that, it comes at a cost of about $58,000. The as our share, that's our share. The hidden agenda here is we all live in Buchanan County, so we pay county taxes. Correct.

Part of our county taxes go to fund the hospital. So, we're paying three times. Yeah. We pay the city tax and the county tax. Our residents pay pay the city tax, which is our share. They pay the county tax, which is the county county share, and they pay the hospital share from their tax return. I think we pay all three entities. I think it's just been nice to know where the hospital is standing was on that before we voted on it or didn't vote or whatever. There um I've had I have had communications with the hospital in the past. They want to know what our position is going to be in relation to this

in relation to this. they they um have expressed in the past um an interest in taking part of our share or something of that along those lines knowing that we probably shouldn't have been involved in this to begin with, but we are. Well, we don't want to be without ambulance service for that four months. No, we we would still have the ambulance service. The ambulance service is there's no contract through through October 31st. It's got to get paid. It does. It just doesn't get paid for the hospital contract. We don't know that right now. That's what I'm asking about. We don't know that the contract is signed by

No, we did say that before that it our contract ends and that the hospital is responsible and the hospital is going to carry that from then till the new contract begins. So, they are going to pay it and it will be paid. It's just going to be paid by the hospital because we did a 5-year agreement with them as a city council to pay it and our five-year contract is added in, but it will be paid and it's going to be paid by the hospital. It's not going to the handling of service doesn't go away. We don't know that for positive in order well but but if the hospital didn't they would be in breach of that contract but we would not not not the city but the hospital I shouldn't say they would be

I mean probably we set made that agreement we probably thought that when the 5 years was up we was just going to renew their contract if anybody said that those meetings and stuff back oh when we talked about that when when we all had to pony up because uh area ambulance pulled out remember that was the plan to get a a county owned. There's also talk of a city one, too. So, I mean, that's just, you know, I'm just I understand doing the right thing. I don't think you need to worry about whether AMR is going to get paid because AMR is going to get paid through the end of the contract term. Mhm.

I think the the issue is do we want to we want to extend the 280 agreement for this for this um commission that we have and and obligate ourselves to another $60,000 for the time period between when this contract expires because the contract itself doesn't have an extension time period or anything else. It has a it's a solid five years. the 280

the 280 agreement has a has a solid five-year agreement. There's no if you don't um you don't give notice by a particular date that it extends automatically. There's no automatic extensions. If we're going to if we're going to continue to pay, we would have to enter into a new 2080 agreement. And this and that's what this motion itself is to um to actually extend the 2080 agreement. So, a yes vote on on this would be a vote to extend the agreement so that we're going to enter into new contract contractual negotiations with the county and the and the and the uh hospital to extend the time period through um October 31st of 26. A no vote on this would mean that we're not going to extend it and it's up to the county and the hospital to work out the arrangements themselves because we would not be involved in any further. So,

so if we go with a no vote, we do not need a a motion after that, then I don't believe or a a yes vote to let it terminate. The no vote will automatically terminate it. The 2080 will automatically terminate at the conclusion of its term. There is no ex there's no automatic extender in the 2080. So, if you if you vote no, this runs through the end of it and it's done. Okay. I was just stating that for clarification purpose. Sure. Okay. Any further discussion on that? Well, this is says staff recommends a motion to extend the 28 agreement to align with the AMR contract. So, that still eliminates us from paying those extra four months, right?

Yeah. If you vote yes, then we have to pay the extra $60,000 to continue along. We wrote the motion that way on purpose because the motion should be in the affirmative rather than the negative. All right. Further discussion. Okay, let's do a roll call vote then. Moore, no. No. Mayor, no. Olaflin, no. Applebee, no. Weber, no. Anna, no. Okay, it's it's it's defeated. Um 70 then. All right, let's move then to um

screw us over. Let's move to item number 15 then, which is the uh I need a motion to approve the proposal for professional engineering services for fair Graham to conduct the Pines's first and third edition storm water study and to authorize the city manager to sign the proposal. I need a motion first. So move second. Okay. We've had the discussion about this um at our um it's a special meeting that Yeah, it was talked about there and at the session.

Okay. We we talked about at the special meeting on February 10th of 2026 and we also um had um somebody from Fair Graham come to on March 2nd uh to the work session to discuss it further. The total cost of their study is the $16,900. Um the um the fair Graham has indicated that in addition to the study that they're doing itself that they that they will be also when they're here in person um look at the area to the north of there to make sure that we're not contributing to the cause the problem there with the basin that we have that's going in at um um in the Pines's first and third edition storm water cell. So, um, any further any discussion regarding this?

I drove down there twice during the heavy rain. In fact, one of the constituents down that area call and it didn't come it didn't approach the houses. I mean, it was within 6 8 ft. That was it. And it was significantly heavy rain. So, so it was in backyards at six or eight feet or not? Yeah, it's in the backyards though. Yeah. But from the pile of dirt that allow didn't allow it to I don't think it's completed yet. Is it? No, it's not. Right. I think I think grading and exc you know excavation's not right. So when they do this, will they notify the property owners that are going to be out there doing this? So the property owners

We will ask them to. I can ask them to. Yeah. I I think due to the situation that existed there with water in those backyards and everything, I think we owe it to the citizens to go ahead and invest on this 169 to make sure, you know, if there does end up being a problem, will we at least try to find out?

Okay. Yeah. Did you have something else? I was just going to say that that the the the homeowners to the north are part of this in the in the but the primary part of this is is is the is the par is the basin itself and whether the banks running into the basin from north and south are are are going to be sufficient or whether we're going to have a potential problem where the the water will where the basin won't act won't hand won't handle the water we were hoping it would and figure out what that 30 in is doing if Right. Exactly. We want to verify that the basin is going to work as it was designed. Other discussion. Okay. That's a roll call vote then. Perser. Yes. Mayor, yes. Olaflin, yes. Applebee, yes. Weber,

yes. Anna, yes. Moore, yes. Okay, that passes 70. Next, we move to item number 16. Um, okay. Okay. I need a motion to approve the $8,500 revised proposal uh for MEP services, which is a mechanical, electrical, plumbing uh for the garden for the Martin Gardener um architecture and to authorize the city manager to sign the contract. So move second.

Okay. We talked about this at the um uh the work session on March the second. um uh representative from Martin Gardner was here to talk about the fire station and um the um u you know getting some spec more specifics as to mechanical um electrical and plumbing so we'll have a better idea with regard to design issues themselves. Um discussion or comments regarding that if we're going to put it on a bond vote or not because if we're not there really no reason to fund to go to this. We'll have to have it done either way whether we do it now or we do it in a year. Whether we do 26 or 27, we'll have to do it.

But that's only if we decide to fund it, right? For the fire like Well, this is this is part of the design process. So, I mean, the only way that this would the only way this money would be effectively not spent in in a fiscal manner, I guess, is if we were to not do the project at all. We know we've got to do the project at some point and having it designed and going through this process now is is always going to be cheaper than what it is in two or three years. I just meant like I didn't know that we were guaranteed going forward and that was kind of something we were discussing in the bond. I don't know that we're not we haven't the council hasn't made a decision on the construction aspect yet. This is just the design piece to show for how much. So what

it'll show us what we what's needed, what it's going to cost, and how it can be set up. just not knowing what the the waste water, the the sewer, the electrical that we have in there now, what state that's in or what it can deliver will also affect the bid on what we have to do with should the new building go on. Okay. So, that's what they're trying to learn is what do we really have here that can be built on and what can't be what we might need to do in order to give an accurate ballot figure. Any further discussion? Okay. Roll call vote then. Mayor, yes. Olaflin, yes. Applebee, yes. Weber, yes. Hannah, yes. Moore, yes. Yes.

That passes 70. Next, item number 17. I need a motion to approve and authorize the city manager to sign a vehicle purchase and transfer agreement with Blackhawk County. Motion first. Some moved. Second.

A motion and a second. Um, if you'll recall, we talked about this at our work session on March 2nd and um the discussions on your pack in your packet on page 187 in terms of the the costs and I think that um um Chief Laauo um came up and discussed the specifics in terms of how the financial part of it was going to work and why it was a you know why in his opinion it was a good um thing for us to do. Um other discussion with regard to that. The only thing I saw when I was going through it was on item in the condition of sale um

I got to find it again. I'm sorry. It said the county rather than Blackhawk County. I just want to make sure that that was uh as a condition of sale the county agrees to be nice to have Blackhawk County purchasing but it's under three purchase price. What's that? Right. It's under three purchase price. the city agrees to sell the vehicle to the county. Yeah. So, at the top of the document where it says this vehicle purchase and transfer agreement in parentheses agreement is made and entered into by between Blackhawk County, Iowa, a political subdivision of the state of Iowa. Then in parentheses, it says county. So, that would be anywhere from then on where it references the word county. It's referencing Blackhawk County. My bad. It's all right. I read a lot of contracts. Further discussion hearing? None. This is a roll call vote about them. Olaflin, yes. Applebee,

yes. Weber, yes. Hannah, yes. Moore, yes. Persider, yes. Mayor, abstain. Okay, that passes um 60 with one abstension. Uh let's move then to reports. Um we've got the um police department monthly report in the packet. Um, anybody have any uh questions or anything with regard that we want to address to Chief Lao regarding the the monthly report? No questions, but it was a very busy month. Seems to be three 354 incidents.

I was hoping you wouldn't miss that opportunity. Um, any anything else with regard to the report you want me to ask? anything else or um Chief Laauo, do you have anything? Chief Laauo, is there anything else that you other than what's in the report itself that you want to that you have to report that you like to report on tonight to the council? Uh, nothing tonight. Okay. Thanks, Chief. Thank you. Thanks, Chief. Next, we'll move to item number 19, which is a fire department monthly report. Um, same question. Anybody have any questions with regard to the report calculations and numbers? Anything else that would go to Blake? It's just weird seeing all these grass fires in February, son. That's great.

Anything else for for him? Um Blake, did you have anything else other than the report that report to for tonight? No thanks. Thank you, Chief. Thanks, Chief. Uh next move to item number 20, which is the building department monthly report. Any um any questions with regard to those for Matt? Nothing. Okay, then we've moved to item number two. Thank you, Matt. We moved Oh, Matt, is there anything else that you wanted to report on that we haven't talked about? Uh, no, ma'am.

Okay, thank you. Next, we'll move to the ILPT report. Anybody have any questions that we can send to the ILPT about their report? Okay. Uh, then let's move to the council members. Um, in case anybody has any reports or statuses on anything, we'll start with um with Brett. Uh, no, there I'm good. Deb, uh, Saturday we had our cemetery meeting and so we'll need to get with Bob about um trying to get the rock for three different areas out there we want.

Yeah. and uh some discussion with the cleanup if he wants our group to help clean up or if we can get some high school kids or however we want to do that. And then also we wanted to get with you about any kind of grants that we can go for. Sure. Thank you. Nothing at this time, sir. Good. Mayor, thank you. Just like neither one of them are here, but Brett or Laura, they put on a very good open house at the airport Saturday. Steve, great cooking as always. But yeah, it was a really good turnout. A lot of people there. It was nice. Nothing there. No. Um I don't have anything to give.

The only thing I have for the council I was going to talk to you guys about we so in the fiscal year 27 budget that we're working on that we're getting ready to wrap up on, we had included uh money in there for streets to purchase a uh the diamond grinder to go on the front of a skid steer. With the events that are coming this summer, I'd like to accelerate that a little bit and go ahead and purchase it now. Um, we're planning to use road use tax dollars to pay for it anyway, and we've got plenty in reserves to pay for it. So, it wouldn't require anything other than a simple when we do the budget amendment for the last budget amendment for 26, we would include it in there rather than having it in the 27 budget. And that's purely because I want to give Bradsh and the streets guys the amount of time needed to do the work that needs to be done on First Street West. and that piece of equipment is going to be very critical for that. So, if the council doesn't have any objections to that, I'm going to go ahead and do that. I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page. It's a budgeted expense in 27 anyway, and it's coming out of reserves, so doesn't really matter.

Brad, I I did forget one thing. Uh, according to the county board of supervisors this morning, the new tax statement is supposed to have been hitting the post office today. So, citizens will be getting the county and tax, free property tax in the mail by the end of this week. And just remember one thing, those are are numbers that the state requires us to send out and they're not 100% accurate, but it's required to be set.

So, with that, couple things. the tax notice. You want to make sure that you read the very bottom of the tax notice, but it because it it it includes an automatic 10% increase in your valuation when it's doing those numbers at the bottom because in the first year that it examines the price or the the value or the tax levy on, it's basing that on a $100,000 value. And then the very next year, it's basing it on $110,000 value. So, right off the bat, even if we held the tax rate exactly the same, it would show an increase even though we were not increasing taxes because the valuations are increasing. Correct.

Um, the other thing I will say is that when I was at De Moines last week for the um local leaders day, we got very positive feedback from our from the people that we met with about the things that we're presenting as city managers. One of the things that's been universally very well accepted throughout every per every body, the the governor's office, the House, and the Senate, is some modifications to that notice, including completely it's a complete rework what we've pro what we've proposed that would actually show you more clearly where each dollar of your taxes goes. But that will not appear on this one. It will not. It's it takes legislative changes at the state level before we can make those changes for that notice. might be lucky to have it by next year. 2030

2030. I mean, if they if it's something that goes through and gets tagged onto a tax bill that gets enacted right away, it could be as soon as next year, but it's more likely spring of 28. Yeah. The count the county said it's uh the bill that they have to spend to mail them out is just taxpayer money wasted because the paper is no good. I realize that. That's okay. But I don't know that there's a lot we can do about it because county issue and and there's also the state legislative aspect of it. So when our city would be

So the county is responsible for pulling all the cities, schools, hospital, whoever has public hearings, they're responsible for pulling it and sending it out. So, it might be three pages of information for everybody countywide of when the proposed property tax levy is for everybody within the county. So, the city does not actually mail anything, but we are required to publish it in the paper, which it was in the paper last Wednesday. Mhm. Thank you, Susie. And that's the max levy or the budgeted levy? It's it's the the old max levy. The one that's the the true final full budget is scheduled to be later.

Yeah. So, that's another issue with that notice is it's noticing what the maximum amount is that we could charge, not what we're actually going to do. Correct. Anything else? I'm good. I need a motion to adjurnn then. So, move. Second. The motion to second. All in favor? It stand.