Council - Regular Meeting

You can call the meeting to order. Please join me for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay, welcome everybody. This is our city council meeting for Monday, August the 10th, 2026. Start with a roll call, please.

Weber?

Yes.

Anna? Yes. Moore? Yes. Broussard?

Here.

Maynor is excused. O'Loughlin? Yes. Appleby? Here.

Next we move to item number three. I need a motion to approve the agenda as presented. So moved. Second. I have a motion to second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Passes 6-0. Next we move to public comment. Mr. Hertzberg, did you want to come forward? Before you start, just so you are aware, it's limited to five minutes. I'll try not to cut you off in the middle of something, but when I get close, I'll let you know that you're close.

Not a problem. Thank you. My name is John Hertzberg. I am here representing my uncle, Roger Tempest. I know he has communicated with several of you last night or in the past in trying to discuss his non-willingness to be annexed into the city. He has no wish to be part of city limits. He understands there's an annexation discussion of it, but however the vote goes, he would like to propose he is not annexed and how he would go against that. So he asked that I come here to represent him and to listen to what is being said and to speak on his behalf. Are there any questions?

Is there anything to read about that that you are looking at?

We can't do that. This is public comment.

Sorry.

We're not allowed to go back and forth during public comment. Not a problem. It's not on the agenda otherwise. Thank you for coming in. I appreciate it. Thank you.

It is on the agenda.

It is, but you can't discuss it during public comment. You get to do it when the item comes up.

Next, we'll move to item number five. This is the Poppy Proclamation, which I'll now read. Whereas America is the land of freedom, preserved and protected willingly and freely by citizen soldiers, whereas millions who have answered the call to arms have died in the field of battle, whereas a nation at peace must be reminded of the price of war and the debt owed to those who have died in war, whereas the red poppy has been designated as a symbol of sacrifice of lives in all wars and whereas the VFW Ladies' Auxiliary Post 2440 has pledged to remind America annually of this debt through the distribution of the memorial flower. Therefore, I, Brad Bleichner, Mayor of Independence, Buchanan County, Iowa, do hereby proclaim August 27 to the 29th, 2026 as Poppy Days and ask that all citizens pay... A tribute to those that have made the ultimate sacrifice in the name of freedom by wearing and displaying the memorial poppy on these days. And I'm going to sign this now on this day as the mayor. Today is August the 10th. Did you want to get a picture first? I want a copy of this, by the way. Oh, that's fine. No, yes or no?

If you have an extra one.

I have to sign another one, that's all. I think I can probably arrange that.

What days is it going to be? The 27th through the 29th. All right, give me a call. If you want me to do any hours, I'll try to help you out.

Okay. So nice of you to offer it. Sure.

I don't have any cash with me right now. We don't want you standing around not doing anything.

You're welcome.

Yeah, that's right. That's right. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you.

Do I give him?

Okay, just give me a call. Okay.

Thanks. Thanks. Okay, let's move to item number six, which is the oath of officer. Officer Brock Barnhart, do you want to come up? Meet me at the podium, please.

Hi.

Hello.

Welcome.

Thank you. Welcome again.

I only swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States. I swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States. And the Constitution of the State of Iowa. And the Constitution of the State of Iowa. And that I will faithfully and impartially. And that I will faithfully and impartially. To the best of my ability. To the best of my ability. Discharge all duties of the position of patrol officer. Discharge all duties of the position of patrol officer. In the city of Independence. In the city of Independence. As now and hereafter required by law.

As now and hereafter required by law.

Okay. So I need you to sign up here for me. I'm going to put the... 10th day, August. I just need you to sign and...

Sorry.

And then if you...

Yes. Thank you. Yeah, welcome. Welcome. Okay, let's move to item number seven. I need a motion to accept and approve the consent agenda as follows. The minutes of the July 27, 2026 regular meeting. The Pat's Tap Class C Retail Alcohol License Renewal that includes outdoor service and living quarters. With tentative effective date of September 1, 2026 through August 31, 2027. A request to hunt within city limits from Keith Donnelly for the October 1, 2026 to January 10, 2027 bow hunting season. A request to hunt within city limits from Christopher Meyer. For October 1, 2026 to January 10, 2027 bow hunting season, request to hunt within city limits from, is it Curran? Meyer? For the October 1, 2026 to January 10, 2027 bow hunting season, excuse me, and Special event application for Buchanan County Tourism for the Independence Mural Celebration to be held on Tuesday, August the 25th of 2026. Do I have a motion? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Passes 6-0. Next, we move to item number 8. I need a motion to approve the claims for payment. So moved. I have a motion and a second. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Passes 6-0. Next we move to item number 9, which is a bank reconciliation. This is for information only. Does anybody have any questions or comments?

Yeah, I had one question on page 47. Hold on one second. Okay. The Oakwood Cemetery. Okay. So that's showing $566.16 and then 19,131.80. So is our spending money 19,000?

Not necessarily. I'd have to look back because this only captures certain things. I'd have to look back at the donation spreadsheet and what the city hall has received for donations.

So can I get a record of that? How much is in there so we know what we have for spending? Because we want to come up with some, we want to start buying some stones.

In order to spend, you'd have to talk with Bob Beatty for the spending authority because it may not have been budgeted. So just because you see that $19,000 does not mean you can necessarily spend that $19,000.

But we can also do that through a budget amendment if there's something that you guys want to use donated money to pay for it.

But we'd like to know how much it is because we're going to reach out and try to start purchasing some stones, and we want to know how many of those we can purchase. Because the more we buy, hopefully the price we can get down a little bit.

Sure. We can provide that for you.

Thanks.

Okay. Moving to item number 10, and that's revenues and expenses to date. Again, this is information only.

Anybody have any questions with regard to that?

Okay, hearing none, we'll move to item number 11. This is a second reading of the ordinance amendment to code section 1.15, fines and fees schedule. This was first read on July the 27th. So I need a motion to approve the second reading of an ordinance that amends provisions pertaining to section 1.15, fines and fees schedule. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion regarding this? Hearing none, this will be a roll call vote.

Hannah?

Yes.

Moore?

Yes.

Broussarder?

Yes.

O'Loughlin?

Yes.

Appleby? No. Weber?

Yes. That passes 5-1. I'm going to assume that if I asked for shortened... suspending the statutory time, but you would not agree to that. Is that right? Correct. Okay. I don't want to waste the time doing it because without Councilmember Maynard here, we would need six out of six, and since you're going to vote no on it, there's no point in doing that, so we're going to forego that. Okay. Thank you. Next, we'll move to item number 12, which is a first reading of an ordinance amendment to Chapter 69 parking regulations. I need a motion to approve... The first reading of an ordinance amending the provisions chapter 69 parking regulations. So moved. Can I get a second as well? Second. Okay. We talked about this at the August 3rd work session. There are two issues here. One is creating a no parking area on the east side of 5th Avenue northeast from the from 5th Avenue northeast and 2nd Street intersection as you come toward first street. And the second part of it is to create a no parking area on both sides of the street on 17th street southeast and that would be Is there a time limit on that? I forgot. Yeah, there is.

So the one for Fifth Avenue, I want to back up. The one for Fifth Avenue starts from the south curb of Second Street Northeast and extends 50 feet to the south. That is to encompass that first parking stall that we discussed during the work session. It would be the southeast corner of that intersection. That first stall then would be a no parking area. The other piece of this ordinance is 17th Street Southeast, both sides. It starts from the west curb of what is locally known as Wastewater Treatment Road, extends 1,000 feet to the west, and that parking prohibition expires on July 1 of 27, absent prior action from the council.

Okay, can we separate these two out? Because I don't, I agree with one and not the other.

They're both part of that one ordinance.

So can we change that? So it's not, it wasn't like this.

The reason that we put them together is because they're both within Chapter 69 parking regulations.

I get why you might do that, but they're two different roads, two different situations, and they should be separate.

I would say it's up to the council what they would like us to do.

Is there one of these in particular that you're opposed to versus the other one?

Yeah, the one I told you on the Blackboard House and the Quick Start.

I believe at this point we can just move forward voting and see how we go with that.

That is exactly what I was going to suggest. See how the vote turns out, and if the vote does not pass, then we can look at separating and bringing it up at another time.

Okay, so if you're not in favor of both sections of it, you would vote no then?

Yeah.

Okay. We'll have a roll call vote then.

O'Loughlin.

Yes.

Appleby. No. Weber.

Yes.

Hanna.

Yes.

Moore. Yes. Broussard.

Yes. Okay. That passes 5-1 then. All right. We'll move to item number. Oh, wait a minute. I'm going to forego, again, the suspending rule because we already know the answer to that. So we'll move to item number 13, which is a first reading of an ordinance amendment to section 66.03, which is the load limits upon certain streets. A motion to approve the first reading of an ordinance that amends the provisions of Chapter 66.03, load limits upon certain streets. Do I have a motion? So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. We talked about this again at the work session on August 3rd. This is to revise the six-ton weight limit from the area of the wastewater treatment plant back 620 feet. The original code section, ordinance section, says 1,250 feet. So we'd be reducing that weight restriction from 1,250 feet to 620 feet. I got a motion already. So discussion with regard to this, further discussion since we talked about it already.

Isn't this kind of a moot point? There's no scales out there. How would we...

So the way that that would work from an enforcement perspective is if the police department sees a vehicle that they believe is in excess of six tons, they could stop and ticket that vehicle.

DOT can. It can affect our license. So we can.

Is there further discussion with regard to this?

We are departing from... No?

If there's no further discussion, then this would be a roll call vote.

Hannah?

Yes.

Moore? Yes. Broussard? Yes. Maynard? Yes. O'Loughlin?

Yes.

Appleby? Yes. Weber?

Yes. Okay. Would any of you oppose suspending the statutory rule so that this can be heard today as opposed to in two further sessions?

Yeah, I would oppose that.

Okay. We won't go through that. Move to item number 14, then. This is a first reading of an ordinance amendment to chapter, excuse me, to section 24.04, airport board powers and duties. I need a motion to approve the first reading of an ordinance amending the provisions of chapter, sorry, of section 24.04. airport board powers and duties. Do I have a motion? So moved. Second. A motion and a second. We talked about this at the August 3rd work session. What we're proposing here or what an admin is proposing is that we remove the subpart 4 from this particular ordinance to put us in a position where we're actually do the code section is then consistent with what our actual practice is. I have a motion and a second on this already. Is there further discussion on this topic? Hearing none, this will be a roll call vote then.

O'Loughlin? Yes. Appleby? Yes. Weber?

Yes.

Hanna?

Yes.

Moore?

Yes.

Broussard?

Yes. Okay. Passes 6-0. Again, would anybody then... I would make a motion to... Do the third and final reading.

Second.

Okay, this would require all six of you to... Well, hold on.

So the motion that they made was to do the third and final reading. The motion needs to be to suspend the statutory rule.

Suspend the second and do the third and final reading. They have to be two separate things.

So you have to first suspend the statutory rule and then come back.

Okay, so the motion that's in front of you is to suspend the statutory rule requiring that an ordinance be considered and voted on for passage at two council meetings prior to the meeting in which it's finally passed. So I have a motion and a second with regard to that. Because Council Member Maynard's not here, it would take all six of you in order to do that. So this is a roll call vote.

Appleby, no. Weber?

Yes.

Anna?

Yes.

Moore? Yes. Broussard? Yes. O'Laughlin? Yes.

Okay, so that fails. Move to item number 15, which is a first reading of an ordinance. Is this the right one? International Code? Chapter 155. Okay, so I need a motion to approve the first reading of an ordinance amending the provisions to Chapter 155, International Building Code. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. We talked about this at the work session. As everybody is probably aware, the code sections on all of the next, I don't know, approximately ten different ordinances all deal with issues that we're not in compliance with. Our ordinances are different than what the international building code or the uniform plumbing code or the international mechanical code. So in order to keep our rating with the city that we have, we need to amend our ordinances so that it's consistent with what those require.

So we currently have version 2018 of all of these codes and we need to upgrade those, update those to version 2018. 24. Thank you, Matt. I couldn't remember if it was one or four that we went to. 24. In order to keep our rating with the insurance services group, the rating that we previously had was a class four, and they would have de-rated us to a class nine if we did not do this. So we want to try to keep our citizens' costs down as much as we can by making sure that their insurance rates stay as low as they can. This is one way that we can facilitate that.

And we do need to do all these one at a time? We need to do these one at a time. There's no way we can lump them together? They're all different chapters of the code, so they all have to be... And it's something that's pretty much mandatory.

We need to do to keep our rating, as you said, so... And we also had, during the work session, there was discussion about fence permits and then the 10-foot setback requirement for water discharges. The fence permits we put, as the council asked us to during the work session, that has been put back in, so fences will still be permitted, the same as they are today. And then the 10-foot setback required for water discharges, we've added excluding roof drainage from that. So if it's a gutter, for example, that doesn't apply to that.

And if there's other questions regarding each one of these as we go along, we can certainly discuss that. But is there discussion with regard to the amending with regard to the International Building Code? If there's no discussion regarding that, this would be a roll call vote.

Hannah?

Yes.

Moore?

Yes.

Persauder?

Yes.

Laughlin?

Yes.

Appleby? Yes. Weber?

Yes. That passes 6-0. Now, is there anybody that would object to suspending the statutory rule to allow this to be considered and voted on for passage at the present time without waiting for the two council meetings?

I would object.

Okay, so there's no point in doing that then. Would that, rather than having to ask this question each time, will your answer be the same?

That would always be the answer.

Okay, very good. Thank you. Okay, so that's passed 6-0. We next move to item number 16, which is...

Shouldn't they always? There'd be an exception if there was some sense of urgency for an E, but there's not.

Understood. Okay, item number 16, a motion to approve the first reading of an ordinance amending the provisions to chapter 156 of the Uniform Plumbing Code. So moved. Second. The motion is second. Is there discussion regarding this particular code section? Hearing none, this will be a roll call vote also.

O'Loughlin?

Yes.

Appleby? Yes. Weber?

Yes.

Hanna? Yes. Moore?

Yes.

Persauder?

Yay. That also passes 6-0. Next, we move to item number 17. This is a motion to approve the first reading of an ordinance amending provisions to Chapter 157 International Mechanical Code. So moved. Second. The motion is seconded. Anybody have any further discussion regarding this particular code section? Hearing none, this would also be a roll call vote.

Hannah?

Yes.

Moore?

Yes.

Broussarder?

Yes.

Laughlin? Yes. Appleby? Yes. Weber?

Yes.

That also passes 6-0. Next one. Question, Mayor? Yes. In regards to this, it was brought up, you know, that since nothing is urgent, my question, I would have... Is, has our insurance company allowed us like a 60-day grace, a 30- or 60-day grace window or not? Because if they have not allowed us that, then it is urgent.

From the March 24th letter that they sent us, they told us they would give us up to six months if we were working through the process. Okay. They asked us for an update, I want to say at the beginning of July. Okay. roughly around there, and I emailed them back with the schedule of what it would take if it went through all three readings at three consecutive council meetings, and we got no response back to that, so I'm going to assume that no response is acceptance, and that they're okay with that. Okay, because, I mean, that could make a difference on voting. It could, yes, but I think you're fine if the council would like to wait.

So if this was March that the letter came and gave us six months, September would be up, so... Which, the beginning of September would be the third and final reading. Gotcha. Okay, sounds good. Okay, let's move to item number... We're going to make it by about seven days, I think, when it's all said and done. Okay. I'm on number 18. Motion to first reading of an ordinance amending the provisions to Chapter 158 of the International Fuel Gas Code. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion regarding this? Hearing none, that's a roll call vote.

O'Loughlin? Yes. Appleby? Yes. Weber? Yes. Anna? Yes. Moore? Yes. Sauter? Yes.

That also passes 6-0. Next, I move to item number 19. I need a motion to approve the first reading of an ordinance amending provisions of Chapter 159 of the International Fire Code. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion with regard to this? Hearing none, this will be a roll call vote also.

Anna?

Yes.

Moore? Yes. Persauder? Yes. O'Loughlin? Yes. Appleby? Yes. Weber?

Yes. It also passes 6-0. Next, we move to item number 20. We need a motion to approve the first reading of an ordinance amending the provisions of Chapter 161 of the National Electric Code. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion regarding this? Hearing none, roll call vote, please.

O'Loughlin? Yes. Appleby? Yes. Weber?

Yes.

Anna? Yes. Yes.

It also passes 6-0. Next we move to item number 21. We need a motion to approve the first reading of an order and amending the provisions to chapter 162 of the International Residential Code. So moved.

Second.

I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion regarding this? Hearing none, this will be a roll call vote.

Anna? Yes. Moore? Yes. Persauder? Yes. O'Loughlin? Yes. Appleby? Yes. Weber?

Yes. That passes 6-0 also. Next, we move to item number 22. This is a motion to approve the first reading of an ordinance amending the provisions to Chapter 163 of the International Property Maintenance Code. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? If none, this is a roll call vote.

O'Loughlin?

Yes.

Appleby? Yes. Weber?

Yes.

Hanna? Yes. Moore? Yes. Schotter?

Yes. That also passes 6-0. Next, I move to item number 23. I need a motion to approve a first reading of an ordinance amending the provisions of Chapter 164 of the International Existing Building Code. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. If there's any further discussion, this would be a roll call vote also.

Hannah? Yes. Moore? Yes. Broussarder? Yes. Laughlin? Yes. Appleby? Yes. Weber?

Yes. It also passes 6-0. Move to item number 24, a motion to approve the first reading of an ordinance amending the provisions to Chapter 165 of the International Energy Conservation Code. So moved. Second. The motion is second. If there's no further discussion, we'll move to a roll call vote.

O'Loughlin? Yes. Appleby? Yes. Weber?

Yes.

Hanna? Yes. Moore? Yes. Broussard?

Yes. Also passes 6-0. Move to item number 25. I need a motion to approve the first reading of an ordinance amending the provisions to chapter 166 of the International Swimming Pool and Spa Code. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. If there's no further discussion, this would also be a roll call vote.

Hannah? Yes. Moore? Yes. Broussarder? Yes. O'Loughlin? Yes. Appleby? Yes. Weber?

Yes. That also passes 6-0. Next we move to item number 26. Pursuant to the agenda, I'll now convene a public hearing on the proposal to enter into a sewer revenue loan and disbursement agreement. So moved. We're now in public comment. Public hearing. Sorry, public hearing.

I did not receive any comments on this.

Okay, since there's no further comments in writing or verbally with regard to this, we'll move forward with closing the public hearing at this time. So moved. So next we'll move to item number 27. This is a motion to approve and authorize the mayor to sign a resolution taking additional action on the proposal to enter into the sewer revenue loan and disbursement agreement. Do you need a motion? So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. Further discussion with regard to this? This is one of the steps necessary with regard to the funding of the wastewater treatment plant. Hearing none, this would be a roll call vote.

Sorry, what are you on?

I am on number 27. 27.

Okay. O' Laughlin?

Yes.

Appleby? No. Weber?

Yes.

Hanna?

Yes.

Moore?

Yes.

Sautter?

Yes. That passes 5-1. Next we move to resolutions item number 28. I need a motion to approve and authorize the mayor to sign a resolution approving the standardized extra duty police services agreement template and authorizing the city manager to execute these agreements as needed.

So moved.

Second. Okay, we talked about this at the August 3rd work session, and actually we had Officer Bose at the time come up and discuss it as well. Does anybody have any further discussion with regard to this? Hearing none, this will be a roll call vote.

Appleby? Yes. Weber?

Yes.

Hanna?

Yes.

Moore? Yes. Broussard? Yes. O'Loughlin? Yes.

That passes 6-0. Next, move to item number 29. I need a motion to authorize the mayor to sign a resolution establishing a time and place for a public hearing on August the 24th of 2026 at 5.30 p.m. for the consideration of a rezoning request for from R2 residential to C1 commercial within the city of Independence, Buchanan County, Iowa. So moved. Second. I have a motion to second.

We talked about this. No, we didn't talk about this.

This came before the planning and zoning hearing on August the 4th by a vote of 5-0. They recommended to the council that they consider this, but... The process here is we have to set a public hearing first before we can have further discussion or further action taken upon it. So we've got the date of that. Is there further discussion with regard to the setting of a date for a public hearing?

This is for the senior center property. Why are we doing this for this county, though?

It's not county. It's in the city limits. I know. So our zoning applies to it. The county has requested it because they want to do something different with the signage, and in order to do that, they need to meet this zoning district works better for them. And it fits within there being that it's a senior center and somewhat of a commercial use.

So we'll have further discussion on this once we complete the public hearing itself. Is there a motion and a second? This will be a roll call vote then.

Weber?

Yes.

Anna?

Yes.

Moore? Yes. Persauder? Yes. Laughlin? Yes. Appleby? Yes.

It passes 6-0. Next, we move to item number 30. I need a motion to approve and authorize the mayor to sign a resolution approving the lot combination agreement and to add the recording fees to the previously approved claims listing.

So moved. Second. Second.

Again, this is something that went before planning and zoning on August the 4th. Planning and zoning voted 5-0 to request that council consider this and approve it.

Yeah, go ahead, Matt. So this is a combination of two pieces of property that the county owns. There's a, on the northeast corner of the senior center, there's a wing that goes there back to the east. That actually crosses a lot line and goes onto a separate piece of property. So this combination agreement brings both of them together and makes it one piece of property so that they're in compliance with our requirements.

Further discussion regarding that? Hearing none, this is a roll call vote.

Hannah?

Yes.

Moore? Yes. Broussard? Yes. O'Loughlin? Yes. Appleby? Yes. Weber?

Yes. That passes 6-0. Next, we move to item number 31. I need a motion to approve and authorize the mayor to sign a resolution that approves the plan of survey. So moved.

Second.

I have a motion and a second. Again, this is something that Planning and Zoning on August 4th voted 5-0 to recommend that this be sent to council for approval. William Downs owns a piece of property, and there's a small portion of the neighboring property which, according to the Plata survey, is not on his property, even though he's been taking care of it. Is that correct? Matt, can you do that?

Yes, it's a little piece. It's a row of shrubs that he's been maintaining for the last 20 years. And due to another situation with the fence going up on there, his neighbors, they had a survey done, found out that that piece that he thought was his all this time was not his. So he hired Crawford to actually do the class survey you have in front of you. It will create a new parcel, and then it just straightens out who owns what.

And the neighbor is in favor of this?

Ms. McGraw, she agreed to sell him this new parcel. It was approved by planning a zoning contingent on this being approved and the deed being transferred to Mr. Downs. And also on the lot combination agreement, bringing them back together? Yes. But you don't have tonight in your packets because you can't have them. But there is a lot combination already in place that's went through planning and zoning under those contingencies. So once we have the deed in place and Mr. Downs owns that property, then we will bring the lot combination agreement to you all to finalize it. Yep.

Further discussion? Thanks, Pat. Hearing none, this will be a roll call vote.

Moore.

Yes.

Broussarder.

Yes.

Laughlin. Yes. Appleby. Yes. Weber.

Yes.

Hanna.

Yes. This passes 6-0. Next, we move to item number 32, a motion to approve and authorize the mayor to sign a resolution preliminarily approving a pre-annexation agreement. and application for voluntary annexation, preliminarily approving the annexation of the city and the Tempest parcels and setting the public hearing for October 12, 2026 at 5.30 p.m. Do you motion first?

This is just set the hearing on it?

Well, the way that... It's a combination of things, but really what this resolution does is it tells the staff to continue moving forward with the process, and then it establishes a public hearing. There are notices that need to happen. Consultations with Buchanan County and the school district need to take place. There's several different entities that need to be notified about it, and then there's a public hearing that has to be held all before the city council can make a final decision on whether or not to annex this property. Okay.

So you're not voting to annex the property. All you're doing is voting to allow the process to continue and allow the public. To move forward. To continue the process, right.

With a yay vote on this, would we be voting to accept the pre-annexation agreement?

No. Okay. You'd be voting to preliminarily approve it pending further discussion in a public hearing.

My suggestion would be if there's modifications you'd like to make to the pre-annexation agreement, now is the time to discuss those.

I would say that the cattle goats pasturing is out. I mean, they want to be in the city limits. One second, Mike. Did I get a motion?

I don't have a motion.

I don't think a motion. We haven't had a motion.

I will make the motion to get the ball rolling for discussion. Second.

Okay, we've got a motion. A second. Go ahead, Mike, now. I would like to see... the pasturing of cattle and goats out of there since they want to be within the city limits and by code that's not allowed.

I agree with Mike and I think that in addition to what Mike said I think there should be an annual request as all of the residents do with anything in the city as far as bow hunting is concerned.

This is not voluntary. It's involuntary as part of it so we shouldn't be labeling it as that. That's one part.

The city attorney is the one who drafted these documents and this is a voluntary annexation with a less than 20% involuntary annexation.

So that's involuntary then?

That is not an involuntary annexation. Involuntary annexation under state code is where the entire property is involuntary.

Okay, so under that it's not.

Semantics a little bit, that's where the code reads.

So the developer for this area is also the person who's writing this up for the city?

No, Doug is the one who wrote it up, our city attorney. Brian Eddy is the developer who is also reviewing it on the behalf of his, you know, on behalf of his.

And it's also where the mayor of her town works is the one that wants to develop?

I'm sorry?

Is that where you work is where he wants, the person that owns this wants to develop it?

I do not. From time to time I will handle the project for Robert Sinetti. I'm not an employee of Robert Sinetti and I'm not handling this and I'm not handling anything about this on his behalf or even on behalf of the city. I'm just Presenting it to everybody.

I make a comment on that, Mayor? Yep. And the mayor has no yes or no vote whatsoever. So therefore, there is no conflict of interest because he has no voting power. He has no conflict at all. Matt's handling this. He just has to bring it up. But he has no voting power whatsoever, so therefore there is no conflict. And if there was a conflict and he had voting power, then that person would just remove themselves and excuse themselves. They would abstain from voting. But I can't abstain from something because I don't have a vote.

This is phase one of forcing him to...

I don't think we should move forward with this. This guy was not in the city limits when this was developed around him. And we did him wrong many years ago.

How did we do that?

When they developed this area, they actually took the water well away from him, his own property. So for that reason, we actually approved him to have water unlimited for life as a restitution. Now, this is just a gentleman's agreement. Now, because he's part of our city, he's getting annexed in against his will. So he did us a favor not suing us years ago. I think it's time to return the favor and not do this to him. He doesn't want to be a part of the city. He didn't ask to have the develop around him. He said, okay, you want to do your thing and develop over a year? Just leave me out of it. Then that didn't turn out that way. Now he's getting surrounded by us, and now we're going to make his property part of our city.

He's 87 years old and doesn't want to be annexed in.

It's not right. He did us the favor of not suing our city, and now we need to return the favor.

Isn't there something, Matt, where you can't have an island? The City Development Board will not approve an annexation that creates an island. So if you do not want to move forward with this because Mr. Tempest's property will be part of that, then that also means that Mr. Eddy's property will not be annexed into the city and cannot be annexed into the city.

This guy could have very well have gotten against our city, and he got a gentleman's agreement just to not do us wrong. We need to return the favor. That's the answer.

You're repeating yourself, so let's...

I can.

You can, but I can also call you out of order as well. You know, I have no problem with you speaking. I have no problem with you speaking. Just don't keep repeating yourself over and over and over. We got the message.

I'll remember that.

I'll remember it too. Trust me. Mike, in answer to your thing, the reason that it's set up the way that it's set up, I understand. I'm just trying to explain it to you. The reason why it's in the annexation agreement is because they're not going to be able to do all of this at one time. So if you take the part of it that's farthest away, that's the current use for it, so you're not changing the use. The current use has those things in it. There's nothing that you're giving that they don't already have while they're in the county.

But if they're annexed into the city, they're no longer A1. I understand that. They will come in as A1. They'll come in, but they have to accept that.

That was part of the pre-annexation agreement was that the zoning applied would be A1 when they come into the city. And then at some point in the near future, when he wants to develop, he would have to come in and rezone whichever piece he's developing. Then that piece would no longer be allowed to have animals or hunting on it without permission.

I would move that we don't allow the A1 status.

There's a motion and a second on the table right now. That would need to be voted on. And if somebody else would like to make a subsequent motion saying they want to make modifications to the pre-annexation agreement, you could do that.

The reason why... the group that's asking to be annexed in wants to do it the way that they're proposing it is because it's not going to happen for several years. They want to continue to get the income that they have from the rental of that for the use by the people that own the animals.

But with the limited size of that pasture, and I've rented pasture myself in the past, there's not that much income from that.

That was his... That was his rationale for why he wanted it in there. I would respectfully disagree and decline.

Okay, I understand. I wanted you to have the facts, that's all. Well, I knew the impetus behind it. Okay.

Did you have something you wanted to read?

No, I just think it might be a little bit more complicated because of the zoning side of things. Any land that's annexed in must become A1. So to your point, I don't think you could just have a motion and have it doubled.

So the city attorney would disagree with you. He has stated that when you do a pre-annexation agreement, you can specify what level of zoning you would like to have. As long as the city council agrees to that, it can come in as a different zoning district. But this is coming in as A1, which is what a regular annexation would do anyway without that being in the pre-annexation agreement.

I don't understand. If he wants to make it residential, why would it come in as A1 and not R?

because it would become residential once he was ready to build. Agricultural until such time as he's ready to build.

But he'd get all the benefits of the residential classification. We'll still have the ag designation.

So he's got two distinct parcels. One of the parcels he's going to work on immediately. That would be residential. So that parcel would be zoned resident, the R1.

He would likely take the 40 acres that's being part of this discussion and split that. Part of it then would be annexed, and part of it would be rezoned at that time, and also a preliminary plan for development, all those different things that have to occur. This is just the first step in the process, and this, again, really is just telling the staff whether you want us to continue moving forward with this or not, because there's a lot more steps to this.

John, do you have something to read? No.

Do you have a question for Maria?

For John, or for what?

No, he's already... You wanted to talk when he was up earlier?

During public comment, you had a question.

Yeah, I just asked if he had something he was possibly going to read, but... What I said earlier.

Okay.

Okay, so is there further discussion with regard to the motion that's pending?

Yeah. In regards to the animal part, I have a... I have mixed emotion on this as far as the animal part. If it goes forward and gets annexed in as A1 agricultural, however, if that happens, nothing can be built as far as residential goes on there until it becomes residential zoning. And at that time, then the animal part would fall out because then you would not have residential. However, I see Mike's... and Mr. Persauder's point on allowing animals within city limits, but this is dealing with, it's not like it's already in the city limits at this time. So it's kind of a gray area.

Realistically it is within the city limits, it's just not zoned that way.

Yeah, it's not zoned that way, but the city gets no money off of it. At this time, we don't get any money out of that. The county does because it's county. The county does, not the city. It's not in the city limits right now. So it is not in the city limits at this time.

But informally surrounded by the city limits.

So we're taking taxes from the county.

I'm sorry?

We're taking taxes from the county because right now he's paying taxes to the county.

He will still pay taxes to the county. It will just be a different rate.

It's kind of a gray area right now for me on that. When you guys said that there was an intention, the intention, I completely understand you don't just develop the entire thing. There's two parcels in question. Is it the east parcel or the west parcel that would be...

The eastern parcel is the one that we're talking about tonight as part of this annexation.

And has it been indicated that that... So that portion there would be the first to be developed as well?

A portion of it of some sort. We don't have, that's a question Mr. Hattie would have to answer as far as what it is he wants to develop of that piece.

So would that create an island as well?

No, not if it's annexed. If you annex the entire 40 acres in, no. Because then it can remain agriculture. Because we're getting two things convoluted here. Annexation is one thing. Zoning is another thing. Right. So the annexation just brings it into the city. Right. Then the zoning has to come into play whenever he decides which property or how much of the property he wants to develop. He could do five acres of it. He could do all 40. It's just up to him on what he decides he wants to develop.

And at that time, then, he has to come to the city council for getting a zoning change.

Right. And a preliminary plat approval.

Preliminary plat approval and all that other stuff that takes a year or so to get all that accomplished. All of those different development pieces, yes.

So the eastern 40 acres are what we're... That's what's in this annexation this evening, yes. So what about the western part then where the homestead is? That would remain in county?

The eastern part is where the homestead is at. The western part is the empty field. Excuse me, yeah. Yeah, the western part would remain in county at this point. He has plans to do that in the future. He's just not doing that right now because when we bring that one in, then that also encompasses because it creates another island, which then means Best Cobb and the other residence that's up there and plus the school district where the stadium is at. All of that's got to come in when that piece comes in. That's a bigger lift than what this one is. And so he chose to start with just this piece.

So as I read the agreement, it's a voluntary annexation if we agree to go against our current ordinances for livestock and hunting. But if we choose to not allow those two things, then that would nullify this agreement that we're voting on.

The first step in the agreement. We wouldn't be, well, no. You can, no, you could approve, you could do a motion to approve the annexation subject to removal of those two items from the pre-annexation agreement because the pre-annexation agreement is yet another piece of this that is not, it's just an agreement between the developer and the city about what he's going to do with his property. Gotcha. So you could do that if you want to.

I don't like the fact that that's put into the pre-annexation agreement when we have two ordinances on hand right now that don't necessarily limit livestock, so yes, but hunting can still be done. We just did it tonight where we had three individuals who asked for permission and were granted it.

On the consent agenda even?

Yeah, on the consent agenda even. So I don't know why we would tie that privilege into an annexation agreement. That's all I understand.

That's a question for this body to decide, for sure.

I would make a motion that we strike. Hold on. I can't take another motion. There's already one motion on the floor. Okay. Yep. I understand.

So further discussion on this. So call the question. Two options. Are you going to go to the vote? If there's no discussion. I call the question if there's no more discussion. Okay. So question, do you want to, the original motion, was your motion right, Ralph? So you can withdraw your motion or we can vote. Let's see how the vote goes and we can come back at it on a different motion. Okay, so it is a roll call vote and what you're voting on is to preliminarily approve the pre-annexation agreement and to set the public hearing for further discussion on this for October the 12th of 2026. That's the motion in front of you, okay? Roll call.

Persauder?

No.

Maynard or Zapson? O'Loughlin?

No.

Appleby? No. Weber?

No.

Hanna? No. Moore?

No. Okay, so that motion fails.

So now Mike can make his motion if you'd like to.

Do you have another motion, Mike? I do. I make a motion that we accept it contingent upon striking the... Pasturing of cattle and goats and bow hunting.

From the pre-annexation agreement. Correct.

Can I add to Mike's motion? And require annual permission for bow hunting on that piece as well that's inside the settlement. Should it be annexed?

So, Mike, is that verbal okay? Because shaking your head don't count. Yeah. Yes, I do.

I agree with that. Okay. Do you have the motion or something?

So I want to make it clear, we're going to strike items 3C, which is the pasturing of cattle and or goats so long as the subject property is zoned agricultural upon applicant's successful rezoning, blah, blah, blah. It would strike that entire section, that entire paragraph. It would also strike section 3D, which is the for bowhounding purposes piece. So both of those would be removed from the pre-annexation agreement. So the pre-annexation agreement use of an annexed parcel would be for enrollment in the FSA CRP program or for agricultural row cropping purposes. Only those two items. Just want to make sure we're clear about what's being taken out.

So we'd still be going after it to take voluntarily?

Yep. It would still be an 80-20 annexation, yes, where Mr. Tempest's property would be brought in with it.

Man, would you guys do this to your dad or your grandpa?

You don't think this is a conflict, Dennis Rose, that our mayor works there?

I don't have a conflict of interest. I'm not an employee. I don't even have an open file.

Did you even disclose that, though, to the city council?

Everybody here knows that previously I assisted the Robertson Eddy firm. I've never been an employee. I've only been an independent contractor who helped them with specific projects. And you did earlier in this meeting. I did what?

No, I said that information.

He didn't disclose it. No, he did.

He did say it.

Who all owns this land besides Brian Eddy?

He's got another partner, but I don't remember his name. Chad Rennebaum. It must be an M. I don't know.

There's Amy Sloan, his successor trustee, and Chad Rennebaum and Brian Eddy. Those are the three that I know of that are involved in it. Those are the three that signed the documents.

Okay, so we've got a motion that Mike's made. Is there a second to Mike's motion? Second. Okay, further discussion with regard to that motion then.

This, again, is only to set the hearing with these adjustments. It doesn't mean it's going to happen or anything at this time. Actually, it's only to move forward and have a hearing.

It directs the staff to continue moving forward, which means then we need to meet with Buchanan County, we need to meet with the school district to have those conversations with them. We've got notices that we have to send out. It puts a lot of things in motion to set up the city council's ability to then have a final vote, a final decision on whether or not to move forward with it.

And that's why I exactly asked the question, so you could define it more clearly for everybody to understand.

And the October 12th meeting will be the public hearing aspect of it, and then subsequently after that would be the final decision for the council to decide.

Do we know if BESCOP and whoever else has that one guidance out there, are they willing to sign a voluntary? That's a separate issue.

As far as I know, Deb, that guy is not. He's not volunteering.

Because I'm just thinking they could start building from that way.

I don't know anything, frankly, so I couldn't tell you. From what I understood, no. I think there's, like, one guy, he's not volunteering, and then, like, the best cop, I don't know. Because last I knew, you were talking to him.

The other part.

Didn't get a response.

We're not talking about the best cop anymore right now. I've had several conversations with the best cop.

Did you talk to the owner or whatever? Because I knew you reached out to him.

I've had several conversations with him. That's not part of the discussion. It's not for the motion. This motion is on the other parcel. This isn't on the motion that involves best cop.

But I'm just wondering, for Brian, instead of starting to build by Roger's place, if he can start at the other end and leave Roger alone for a while.

It still creates an island. It would still create an island. So I can walk through that with you. So if Brian decided to annex the western 40 acres. If you do this one here, it's going to block it off.

This would be an entire island.

He would be required to bring everything else in. The city development board would say you can't create an island. You have to annex all. You have to bring all of this.

The other part of this that Matt did not mention is that this would then, the pre-annexation agreement that was signed by the partnership itself would then have to be prepared again with the corrections, with those things stricken, they would have to agree to those changes that council is proposing here. Otherwise, there is no annexation agreement in order to go forward at all.

You're saying Brian Eddy's got to agree to it.

He's got to agree to these changes.

That doesn't change Roger's situation.

If he doesn't agree to this, then it's just squash. It stops everything.

And how does the resident benefit from this?

Which resident?

An involuntary resident, Mr.

But you could make the argument that Roger's already been getting the benefit of living next to the city for the last 10 years because we clear the street in front of him, we maintain the street in front of him that he uses to access his home.

And what way would he benefit from the annexation?

I can't say that there is a direct benefit from the annexation. I would, again, say that he's already gotten the benefit because the city takes care of the street, we clear the street, we do everything for the property that he uses to access his property.

The benefit would be he'd have to pay more taxes.

That guy really can't afford it. Yes.

Yeah.

Come on up.

You discussed and get the benefits of that one road that goes by that house, correct? That's your point. You made it. It's a paved road, correct? Did he ask for that road to be paved?

No.

Iowa's not anything he requested. He had the road already. Is there anything you've seen there he requires that road to be plowed, snow plowed? Does he have a requirement for that?

Well, another benefit is with that road in front of him, that was a farm to market road. It didn't cost him anything. It was a dead end, actually.

I'm just explaining. The reason that I said what I said was because that is how the City Development Board looks at these things when they look at whether or not to include properties that are surrounded by cities.

I understand. But you said he increased. He got benefits. He got increased traffic because it was a dead end. He didn't require that before. I mean, you say benefit, and we've heard that several times. I just want to make a point of it. It's not a benefit that he asked for. It's not something he considers a benefit. You may call it a benefit in your eyes, but it is not a benefit to him. I'm not calling it a benefit in my eyes at all.

I have a lot of empathy with Roger.

What did you mean then when you said just a second ago benefit?

I'm explaining how the City Development Board will look at this. That's all I'm explaining. Okay.

And so what city development?

That is a state-level board that oversees annexations for cities across the state of Iowa.

Okay, so if you move forward with the annexation and evaluation of it, the board would see it as that. Is that what you're trying to say?

Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So do you want to mention that?

We can't hear you. We're not.

It's explained in the pre-annexation agreement. There is a roll-in on the property taxes, which is what we're allowed to do by law. For Roger, specifically. Yes, that brings it in so that Roger pays... His taxes would escalate over five years. It's not a day one, you have to pay all of the taxes due to the city. That is within the annexation agreement. I can't remember exactly where it's at.

No, it's probably because it'd be legal, right?

It's prorated over a period of time, correct? Hold on. It's the city's choice whether you bring everybody in day one and they have to pay everything or whether you allow up to five years for those taxes to roll on over five years. In an effort to try to help Mr. Tempest, the way that this was structured was so that it rolls on over five years so that he doesn't have to pay all these taxes on day one.

Okay.

To give him time to adjust to it. So the way that it's written is for the first and second years, he pays 25%. The document says 75%. That's because it's telling you how much is being not charged. So for the first and second years, he would pay 25% of the regular taxes. Third and fourth, he would pay 40%. Fifth and sixth, he would pay 55%. Seventh and eighth, he would pay 70%. Ninth and tenth, he would pay 85%. And then in year 11, that is when he would be actually paying.

And how much is it? valuation cost to him from going from that in dollars per year at this rate. I don't have those numbers for you.

I don't have those numbers for you tonight.

Matt, when you were using those numbers, were you talking years or every six months? This is how it's written in the documents.

Years. First and second years. So it's 12 years before he pays 100%. It's 10 as it's written. In the 11th year. 11th year he would pay 100%. 11th year he doesn't. Right. Which I was thinking it was five, but the city attorney has written this document as through 10 years.

Okay, so do you want to read Mike's motion?

Okay, so what I am attempting to do is to accept the pre-annexation agreement striking The animal portion and the hunting requirement. And then I'm assuming the rest of it stays the same?

It should say preliminarily approved, not approving it.

I'm writing on the back of my paper. I don't have what was originally done.

And Susie, just for ease, it's striking 3C and 3D from the... provided agreement.

And that can be done just tonight?

The council can make the motion that way, then it goes back to Mr. Heddy and his group to determine whether or not they want to accept that. They can either re-sign the agreement with those two pieces removed and we move forward, or we stop and they come back to discuss what they want to do.

And then depending upon the response from them, and whatever else they're working on in the meantime, then that would have to take place before the October 12 public hearing. All of that other paperwork and other things would take place. Because there's nothing that's being finite in terms of approval. It's just a preliminary, just so that the paperwork can be processed until you reach the point where the public hearing takes place. They make you jump through a lot of hurdles in order to happen, and we have to follow each and every one of them specifically.

And that's why there's a lot of hurdles for you to jump through, so you make sure you do it correctly. Absolutely.

You don't want to get halfway through it and then have it fail. Say, oh, I forgot all about that. Right. So everybody understands what the motion is at this point in time? Anybody have any questions about the motion itself that you're going to be voting on? Okay. Go ahead. We'll call that then.

Weber. Weber.

Yes.

Hannah?

No.

Moore?

Yes.

Persauder?

Yes.

O'Loughlin? Yes. Appleby? No.

Okay, it passes six to two. Sorry, four to two. Four to two. Four to two coming up to a total of six. How about that? All right, so...

So it passes four to two?

It passes four to two.

So the next steps on this just so everybody knows.

Why does it pass when all the things would fail out of here, I see?

Because the majority voted in favor. Four people voted for it, two voted against. It's a simple majority. If you're thinking about the second reading aspect, that requires a super majority, which means six out of the seven board members have to vote positive, whether they're present or not. So if one is not present, then everybody who's present has to vote in favor of it.

Because the non-present person is considered a no vote.

Okay.

Correct. For the supermajority. On the supermajority. Okay, moving on then to item number 33. Motion to authorize the city.

If I could real quick, I just want to make sure that everybody's clear on next steps on this then. Because of the motion passed four to two, Staff will continue moving forward. We will go back to Brian Eddy and say, this is what the council said. You basically have the choice. You either accept this and we move on, or you don't, and then we'd have to have a discussion with council about what could be done related to that, if that's what he wants to do. But I'll reach out to him tomorrow to have that discussion.

The other thing that could happen is there could be further negotiation with regard to that. And if there was further negotiation, then it would have to come back to council before it could actually be. Right. Because council has to preliminarily approve it before we can get the public hearing.

Correct.

All right, item number 33 is a motion to authorize the city manager to dispose of the surplus canine kennel and deposit any generated proceeds into the canine fund for future use. Any to motion? So moved. Check. A motion and a second. OK, Matt, do you want to cover that or? Questions?

What's that kennel worth?

We don't know, to be honest.

or whatever somebody wants to pay.

When we say kennel, I want to make clear too, feel free to come up, Chief. When we say kennel, A lot of people's connotation of that word is going to be like a little 42 by 36 inch. That's not what I'm talking about. This is an actual building that's probably a 10 by 10 building that half of it is the kennel. With a run in and a run out. And half of it's the run. Right. So it's sizable. That's the reason why we're asking for the city council to approve disposal of it.

So it must probably move pretty easy?

It takes a flatbed truck.

Yes. Looking back to when we purchased that, it was like around $4,800. And then you take that and then you take adding into heating and cooling into it. But like Matt said, ultimately the worth value is what someone's going to pay for it. It's a used kennel or a used building now at this point that's had another animal in it. It's just a matter of if it's going to work for somebody else's property and the way that they have things set up to have that work for them.

What height is it? I couldn't tell you. I mean, you could walk inside of it. Yes, it's a pretty big... You can think of it like a garden shed.

I mean, could it be used for a shed?

And they have to have forklifts to lift it up on a flatbed? Or they drag it on. Or you drag it on a flatbed.

The thought process here was if the council approves of disposing of the property, then we would list it on a site like we did with some of the parks and rec stuff.

And that's up in the street department.

It was at a treatment plant, and I know Brad and Travis had talked about moving it to the street department to store it there. Yeah. What?

Is it still at the treatment plant?

Is it still at the treatment plant? But the thought process was to move it to the streets department to get it out of the way of the construction projects.

So when somebody brings a dog into the city, where are them dogs going now?

That's the city pound, which is the streets department. There's a bay of the streets department building that is what operates as the city pound.

Yeah, it was constructed for that purpose, and we have that.

So we'll still be doing that? Yes.

And everything else, and we're up to code on that.

This was only bought for housing the canine when we had the police canine. And it was actually at the officer's house when that was happening.

Do you have a certain date that you're going to have it open until and then it goes to the highest bidder on such a date?

That's how the auction would work, yes. It would function that way. Just for clarification. I can't remember the name of the company that we used when we did the GovDeals. GovDeals, I think, is the website that we used when we did the stuff for the Parks and Rec Department. So we would use the same site to house this one and do this auction.

And you would be looking at that mid-September as a close date or something?

I mean, what do you have in mind? Whenever we can get to it, depending on what the council tells us to do tonight. Okay. As soon as possible. I mean, I'd want to get it done as soon as we can.

Right. Thanks. Thank you, Chief. Okay, so further discussion with regard to this? Hearing none, roll call vote.

O'Loughlin?

Yes.

Appleby? Yes. Weber? Yes. Hanna?

Yes.

Moore? Yes. Broussard?

Yes. That passes 6-0. Next, we move to item number 34. We need a motion to approve the commercial restoration rehab grant application with WAPC Realty in the amount of $3,842.13. So moved. Second. The motion is second. Okay, so the... As you'll recall, Heather Fedderspiel had submitted this previously to us for the brick work outside. That has not yet been done. The work has not yet been done. So we haven't paid for anything. We haven't done anything. So what she wants to do now is she wants to also replace the windows. And this is, I guess the first one is many francs that we're dealing with. So what she's trying to do is, the question is, is this a new one such that she can't do it? Or is this one where she's just adding in a second one? She's increasing the second one, which is still within the limits that we have. So this isn't exceeding the limits of what we have for the restoration funds rehab. It's merely adding something new to what was originally submitted. Does that, Matt, does that?

It's basically piggybacking two storefronts on the same building. Two projects, right?

There's two separate projects. This would be two separate applications for the same building. So in all, you'd have four... four projects, for lack of a better way of putting it, with two pieces of property. What I would say is that I think when you read the policy that's been put in place, the commercial rehab policy, it does state in there that they can only have one every 12 months, I want to say. But at the same time, this is the council's decision. The council can do what the council wants to do.

Has she done two of them already?

She's applied for them, but they have not been paid. That's the mayor's point is that they have not been paid. She has not started the work. She's only applied and been approved for the first part of it. So there's a couple of other ways you can look at it.

Sorry, do you know why she waited?

Pardon me? I don't know why she waited to do this. I don't know. I mean, I think when she initially was looking at it, she was looking at the exterior of the building and the tuck pointing was the priority. And then as she got into kind of looking at that further, decided that she should do the windows as well. That happens when you do a remodeling project and it grows. Every remodeling project I've ever done in my life has grown. So it never is what I thought it would be.

We want to look a nicer downtown.

Even the original one and then we're adding a new one.

Right. We're adding to the original one.

Not today with our discussion. They said we had to have five properties to do that.

No, no, that's a whole different thing. This is the one the city runs. What you were thinking about was the community development block grant stuff that we did where we had the facades. That was a whole different thing. That had Fed money in it and a whole bunch of different pieces to it. This is purely a city of independence grant program.

See, we can't. We can't do the, like we did for the restoration of all the ones on the... From Second Avenue to the east. Because right at Second Avenue is where the floodplain comes in. So we can't get a grant from the state or the federal or anybody else to do these. So the only way we're ever going to get these fixed is if the homeowner does it themselves or if we get involved, if the city does the commercial restoration rehab grant, which we have the money available for... So the question is, do you want to approve this for the 38-42-13 to allow her to do both?

We're not out nothing unless she does it, if we approve it. It's within guidelines.

If she doesn't do it, we don't pay.

Yeah, so we want downtown to look nicer, so I'd make a motion that we approve it. I already have a motion.

I already have the motion. I'm behind. Okay, so further discussion on this? Okay, then disappear or we all call vote then.

Appleby? Yes. Weber? Yes. Hanna? Yes. Moore? Yes. Broussard? Yes. Laughlin?

Yes. That passes 6-0. Item number 35 is the second building. This one's the one at 121 First Street East, which is... Isn't it the gymnasium one that's next door to the dance? Dance. Dance. Okay, so did I do the motion already? I don't have a motion. Okay.

I make that motion.

Second. Literally same situation as the other one. Except this is $5,000 and the other one was the 38, 42, 13. Yeah, because the one side limit of $5,000 kicks in because of the value of the work. So is there further discussion regarding this one then? Hearing none, this will be a roll call vote also.