City Council - Regular Meeting

Shaner? Aye. Here. Scott?

Here.

Berenstein? Here. Bertrand?

Here.

Rayford?

Here. Please stand for a moment of silent prayer followed by the Pledge of Plead.

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.

There are no proclamations and there are no interviews, so we'll go right to the consent agenda. Items 2 through 10C constitute a consent agenda. Items will pass unanimously unless a separate roll call vote is requested by a council member. If you want to speak on an item, please come up at the time I read it and state your name for the record. If you want to speak on an item not on the agenda, please come up under citizen concerns. I'll move the consent agenda. Second. 2 is a reading of the June 5th, July 9th, 16th and 2026 Council City Council minutes. 3 is a motion reappointing Chris Courtney to the Human Rights Commission for a three year term. 4 is a motion accepting the annual evaluation of the Arts Center director by the Board of Trustees. Just one comment.

The evaluation wasn't attached to my materials. Are we approving the evaluation or just accepting what the Board of Trustees did?

There should have been a hard copy.

It wouldn't open for me.

Oh, like a physical?

Yes. So if we're just acknowledging the Board of Trustees review of Todd, then I'm fine with the motion. If we're actually accepting that and approving it, then I'd like to defer this just because I'd like to see the evaluation.

It would be nice in the future if those were sent out separately.

You want me to send those separate? I can do that. Did everyone have trouble opening it?

I never had. I saw it either, but I haven't seen the last few.

Would you like a hard copy provided?

Please. Thank you. You're going to move to defer. I'll second that.

Scott?

Aye.

Berenstein? Aye. Bertrand?

Aye.

Rayford?

Aye.

Shainer? Aye.

Five are actions relating to grants. A is a resolution authorizing the police department to accept funds from the Office of the National Drug Control Policy for operational use at the Tri-State Drug Task Force. B is a resolution authorizing the fire rescue to submit an application for the Emergency Management Performance Grant for the purchase of an unmanned aircraft system to improve emergency management capabilities for emergency incidents. Go ahead, Bob. Chief, who do you got that can run one of these and what's that going to cost us to make sure they trained right? And I don't want you to become like the police department where you can't have enough of these. How many do you think you need right now so we know going forward?

Ryan Collins, Fire Chief. We do have one already. We do have four pilots already. So the one that we currently have is about 12 years old, and that was purchased through the state. So this one's going to be replacing that one. That one, the old one, does not have the remote ID, which is required. This is just kind of upgrading the equipment that we have.

But you've got four pilots already. Yep. One's going to be enough to meet your needs. One drone.

One drone. Yes. So right now, we looked at purchasing two. But based on the cost, we're just going to keep it at one for right now.

And do you have flexibility to either loan out or lease out or offer it for service to police department, other agencies, other groups?

If it's part of a mutual aid, yes. So like the idea for our regional hazmat team, we can use it to do reconnaissance while our members are getting the protective gear on, which can take a half hour, 45 minutes. We can place this equipment downrange and get kind of a recon to to figure out what we're gonna be doing with it. So it's gonna be a time saving, but we can also use it for any river emergencies, those types of things.

Okay, thanks. While you're there, are your people okay from that fire today, anybody? Yes, yep, everybody's good. Good, thank you. Thank you. Six are actions relating to street closures. A is a resolution temporary closing a section of 4th Street on August 5th for the Farmers Market Planted and Plated event. B is a resolution temporary closing West 8th Street and Market Street on August 22nd for the Sounds of the West 7th Street event. Seven are actions relating to agreements and contracts. A is a resolution approving a consulting services agreement with JEO Consulting for the Orleans Avenue Water Main Improvement Project.

So on 7A, B, and C, I have a couple of comments. On A and B in particular, can we, Gordon, please attach a map of the project. I know we've asked a couple times before, and I didn't see maps attached to A and B.

Okay, Gordon Ferris, City Engineer, I apologize for that. I thought they were attached. I can send that to you. That'd be great. Thank you.

I'm going to read B, but B is a resolution approving consulting services agreement with DGR Engineering. Hang on, Gordon. For the 11th Street Bridge Reconstruction Bridge Deck Replacement Project. Were they the engineers on this?

No. They were a consultant to the engineer. HGM was the engineer record for that. So why would they not be the ones overseeing the construction? They subbed out all the survey and such to DGR. and they didn't have any interest in doing the inspection.

He has a resolution approving a consulting services agreement with McClure Engineering for the sulfuric acid building rehabilitation project in connection with the water facility chemical improvement.

So as it relates to A, B, and C, I'm fine approving these agreements in the consent agreement. But Teresa, I would like to see us analyze a number of our departments, including engineering. We spend hundreds, if not millions of dollars a year on outside consultants, and I don't question their capabilities and their skill sets, but I'd like to see if we can reevaluate both engineering, probably the legal department, and determine whether we should bring more attorneys in rather than deciphering the ability of other outside firms, legal firms, and other departments. So if we could take a look at that, it would be great.

We are actually currently in the process of doing that. So that will start here in the next couple of weeks and work through hopefully by December we'll have kind of a list of items that we can bring to council for options.

Perfect. Thank you. So we're tracking.

We're tracking.

Eight acts authorizing payments. A is a resolution approving funds transfer for June. B is a motion approving claims, total expenses and receipts for June. C is a resolution approving change order number five and authorizing payment to Barcon for the South Mulberry Street Improvement Project.

Mayor, just a quick question on that one. So are the change orders because we didn't know that this work was coming up and so it's after that, after it's completed or... I'm sorry, what was that again? For the change order, I just saw that I have understanding. It looks like the work was completed, but so then the change orders is because this wasn't, we didn't know what this was before or know the work, the amount of work prior to the completion.

Gordon, can I just ask you, I know what he's asking. Can you explain how a change order works? On a project.

So change orders for our projects, anything up to 10% can be approved administratively by myself and staff.

Any overage?

Anything over 10% then we have to ask council for.

But I think what he's asking is this, did the scope of the work change or was this an adjustment based upon quantities?

Overall the scope did change a little bit, but for this one. It's the quantities once we've added it all up at the end We said okay. We didn't put as much concrete in we didn't do as much of this so we can scale it back

B is resolution authorizing payment to McGinnis Roofing and Sheet Metal for the Fire Training Center Roof Replacement Project. Nine are applications for alcohol license and 10 are board's commission and committee minutes. Anyone to be heard on any of those items? Voting electronically today, folks. Passes 5-0, recommendations of planning and zoning. 11, motion acknowledging the Board of Adjustment Actions from July 14th. I'll move that. Second. We got backup in case you weren't here today?

Yeah, in case you get a little unruly.

Is there a second? Oh, I thought I did. You did. Yep, I did.

I have it.

Councilman Berenstein, I think you hit your button and then hit it one more time. Thank you very much.

Passes 5-0-12. Hearing an ordinance vacating a portion of Amanda Street. The petitioner is John Fitch. P&Z recommends approval. I'll move that. Second. Public hearing is now open. Got anything for the good of the order?

Andrew Gleiser, Planning and Zoning Chair. No, that passed on a 5-0 vote.

Anyone to be heard? Seeing none, the hearing is closed. That's 5-0. Anybody opposed to waiving the statutory rule? I'll move second and third. We've got to move to waive the statutory rule first. Move to waive the rules. Second.

Berenstein?

Aye.

Bertrand? Aye. Rayford?

Aye.

Shaner? Aye. Scott?

Aye. I'll move second and third.

Bertrand? Aye. Rayford? Aye. Shaner? Aye. Scott?

Aye.

Berenstein?

Aye. 13 is a hearing and ordinance vacating a portion of the north-south alley adjacent to 3111 and 3113 Marshall Avenue and 714 South Alice Street. The petitioner is Aaron Edwardson. P&Z recommends approval. I'll move it. Second. Public hearing is now open. Hearing is closed. Passes 5-0. Is anybody opposed to waiving the statutory rule? Move it. Second.

Bertrand?

Aye.

Rayford?

Aye.

Shaner? Aye. Scott?

Aye.

Berenstein? Aye.

Move second and third. Second.

Rayford?

Aye.

Shaner? Aye. Scott?

Aye.

Berenstein? Aye. Bertrand?

Aye. 14 is a hearing and ordinance rezoning 4302, Ruston Street. Petitioner Charlie Rose, P&Z recommends approval. I'll move it.

Second.

Public hearing is now open. Anyone to be heard? Seeing none, the hearing is closed. Passes 5-0. Anybody oppose waiving the statutory rule? No. I'll move that. Second.

Shaner? Aye. Scott?

Aye.

Berenstein? Aye. Bertrand? Aye. Rayford?

Aye. I'll move second. Oh, go ahead, Bob. Go ahead. Move second, third. Second.

Scott?

Aye.

Berenstein? Aye. Bertrand? Aye. Rayford?

Aye.

Shaner? Aye.

15 is a hearing in ordinance rezoning a portion of property at 3800 Line Drive. The petitioners are Jeff Hansen and Dave Haggerty. PNZ recommends approval. This is for the hotel site, correct? Correct. I'll move that. Second. Public hearing is now open. Anyone to be heard? I'd like to clarify a few things on this. Number one, Soapbox Derby did not close because of anything the city did. Soapbox Derby just doesn't exist in Sioux City any longer.

Their contract has been expired for a few years. How many, Matt? Since 2023.

Secondly, this land was not bought with Cone Park Trust money. This was bought way back when the ballpark was bought years ago. from not my uncle Gene Scott, no relation of mine Gene Scott, just happened to have the same last name. I remember that back in the 90s, how I took all that abuse. So it's all part of that ground. So it's not like we took money out of a trust and now we're selling that ground and profiting from it because we're not.

I think I can provide some additional clarity. I was on the council when we accepted the $2.5 million from the Cone family, and part of the decision in going to that area was because the city did own and control that property, so it was not part of the $2.5 million that was used for the project itself. It was separate and distinct.

And then I personally, I'm not going to vote for this, and it's not that I have any big problem. People say we have too many hotels. You know when you have too many hotels and apartments when they stop building them. That's when you have too many. But I just think this is a piece of ground. We don't have that much left there. If we ever wanted to do a swimming pool, we're going to be out of land. If we ever wanted to do some other, somebody, I mean, I'd sooner have a putt-putt golf course, actually, than something more recreational. And I know it's going to serve, but there are hotels within a five-block drive And I just think we should save this for park ground. It's just a personal deal. I know it's going to pass, but I'll feel better about no.

Well, not really for park. You want to save it for future development of something else.

In the park related is what I'm saying. This was also approved by the park board themselves. I know. I know. I have the right to disagree with them.

You do. So do you have any background or conceptually can you help? with the development in this particular location? Because I like the idea of a hotel there. I think it serves the baseball facility. I think it serves Cone Park there. I think it serves other development on Singing Hills Boulevard. But as you go to the east and Sertoma Park, what potential growth and development can still occur there, taking into account the bike trail that was constructed? And maybe that's more of a question for Matt. I don't know.

That might be for Matt or even Wade. But I mean, just... I guess from my personal point of view, with the bike course that's in that area, there isn't much room left.

Okay.

Of any size, anyway.

Thanks.

No, real quick comment. I just, again, want to thank the developers for sticking their necks out on this. I know they've talked about things like this in that area for a while. It's a great amenity to the park and everything that's going on down there. It's a risk. They're willing to do it. We support it. Good job. Keep spending money. We appreciate it.

Anyone else? Public hearings closed.

I move we waive. Can we waive second and third on this?

Second.

Thank you.

I'd like to announce the vote. It passes 4-1.

Yeah, I'll make a motion to move wave second third rules.

No, you gotta move to wave the statue sure.

Let's do that, too I gotta do that first Berenstain aye Bertrand aye Rayford Shainer I got no Now you move second third second third.

So does this trigger a 30-day window now? Is that correct?

Yeah, for an RFP.

30-day window. And part of the reason I'm okay waiving the rules and approving second and third is because this gives 30 days for other interested parties that might show interest.

This is just the rezoning.

But as we look at 16 as well?

Renee Billings, Economic Development Manager. We plan to start the 30-day notice next Monday.

Thank you.

I already second that, Rick.

Thank you.

Bertrand?

Aye.

Rayford? Shaner. Aye. Scott.

No.

Berenstein.

Aye. 16 to hearing an ordinance vacating a portion of Cone Park. Petitioners Jeff Hanson and Dave Haggerty. PNZ recommends approval. Second. It's all moved. Second. Is there a second?

Second.

Public hearing is now open. Anyone to be heard? Seeing none, the hearing is closed. Passes board of one. I vote no.

Can we move that again? Move to waive the rules? Yeah, let's do that. Second.

Rayford?

Aye.

Shaner? Aye. Scott?

No.

Berenstein?

Aye.

Bertrand? Aye.

I'm with, and I move again, the third. Is that what I'm doing? Second, third? Sure. Second.

Shaner? Aye. Scott?

No.

Berenstein? Aye. Bertrand. Aye. Rayford.

17 is a hearing and ordinance vacating a part of the East West Alley and a portion of Magnolia Street and Walnut Avenue. The petitioner is Guillermo Martinez. BNZ recommends approval. I'll move it. Second. Public hearing is now open. Anyone to be heard?

Wade Schultz, City Planning. Our Real Estate Department has asked that we defer this. Why is that?

They want to negotiate the price as far as... Well, we'll do first reading and then they've got two weeks to get that done. All right.

Okay. We won't write the rules off.

Public hearing's open. Anyone to be heard? Seeing none. Hearing's closed. Passes 5-0. 18 is a hearing and resolution accepting the proposal of Siouxland Youth Hockey for the lease of land in the Donner Park Urban Renewal Area. The property is a portion of the land at 3808 Stadium Drive for the IBP Ice Center Shooting Shed deferred from July 13, 2026. I'll move it. Second. Public hearing is now open. Anyone to be heard? Seeing none, the hearing is closed. Ask a couple questions.

Nicole, did you draft the lease or did somebody in your office review it?

Matt Salvatore from Parks and Rec drafted and our office reviewed.

Matt, can I just ask a couple questions then, please? I'm supportive of this project. I think it'll be a nice addition. I think it works well for them. But I'm curious, a couple of the provisions. The utility provision says that the city shall provide who pays for the utilities.

That's out where parks and Recreation director. The city would pay that. I don't think there's a lot of utilities. Paul can maybe clarify like a light. There's no. Yeah, there's there's not a way to separately meter it, so I don't think we're talking about a lot of power.

Basically, like a like a lean to shed, kind of like a shooting gallery there.

Yes, we walked out there and we were and it didn't look like there was, but it talked about other utilities being provided by the by the lessee, but it talked about utilities that we were providing them. But provide means pay for as well.

Yes, OK.

Nicole, did you take a look at the indemnity language? Can you, real quick? Yes. Make sure you're comfortable.

I'm sure that I did. I'm sorry. I reviewed a lot of contracts for this. Yes, I'm to that provision.

Okay, thank you. And then, Matt, there's a damages section, a removal section, a holdover section, a return of premises section. and an abandonment. So this is a two year lease and they've got a one year option to extend. What happens in three years if they just decide they weren't getting enough use out of the facility and aren't gonna use it anymore? Whose responsibility is it to remove it? What happens?

I have to review that. I think we borrowed the format of this lease from other projects. Where is that at, Craig?

It's on, well, it'll be, hold on. No, there were multiple.

Return to premises to the association shall surrender the, okay.

Yeah, it would be the, and the property damage as well, but return of premises, the lien language, holdover, abandonment, and then the default comes into play too. But I just, If in three years they decide that the project isn't what they were hoping for, whose responsibility is it to remove property and what happens to it?

I'm reading real quick.

As you're looking at that, Matt, another question, Nicole, for you on the insurance provision. It talks about having liability insurance of no less than a million dollars. Is that what you anticipate being necessary or reasonable?

Yes, and I have reviewed the insurance certificate, and it meets with our requirements. Very good, thanks.

It doesn't necessarily clarify one way or another.

It's basic wood structure, so using heavy equipment, it wouldn't take the city much to demo if it fell on the city as the responsible party.

So it's more of a nuisance or a negligible value or cost, and you're not worried about that?

I'm not, no.

Thanks.

Hey Matt. Thanks for when this fall came around. Thanks for being flexible Darryl you too. It was a great meeting I think it's one of those things where wasn't gonna happen. It's like well Sioux Falls is doing it Why can't we and it's great for the kids and it fits the needs and you know great job Anyone else be heard Public hearing

Did it come up? I didn't see it. Oh, my bad. I hit it. I hit it twice, I guess.

Must have.

Passes 5-0. 19 is an ordinance amending Title 10 traffic regulating operation of off-road utility vehicles on city streets. The first consideration was approved July 6th. Second was approved July 20th, 2026. I'll move third reading. Second. Second. Before we vote, I think it's important, there might be amendments, but it's important that the city do a press release the day we know that it's gone in the journal because this does not go into effect today. It goes into effect after publication and we're at the mercy of the Sioux City Journal to make sure it gets in on the timely basis. So if for some reason they don't get it in a Saturday paper, it would be a week from Saturday. So I think we should do a press release so everybody understands that when it finally is approved.

To make it clear that approval today does not mean that you can get on.

Thank you.

So let's talk about amendment real quick. I called the DNR. I don't know why. Like I said, I don't really have a dog in this fight. So I called the DNR on this tire thing. So we struck down last week the downtown area, right? That's what I mean, but now it's included. So the tire thing, so I've done a little research. I'm becoming a UTV tire expert. And I've walked it up the chain. So the stamp that's on the manufacturer tire says what? Not for use... On highway.

On most, sorry, Mayor and Council, Caleb Christopherson, Assistant City Attorney. Happy to be here.

Good, me too.

It shows on your face.

So it says on the menu, the sticker says not for highway use.

NHS, right, non-highway service. Non-highway service.

Well, these vehicles aren't legal on highways. Well, they weren't manufactured for highways. Hold on, hold on. So you got to follow what other people are doing. So when I talk to the DNR, the DNR says, you guys are overthinking this. When the stamp says not for highway use, and I talked to Mike about this, which means they're not designed for highways. Well, these buggies aren't designed for highways. That's for 35 mile an hour. So to leave the manufacturing tires is completely appropriate. Second of all, they don't make a road use tire for these. They have to go to a non-UTV tire, which then can throw off the timing of these buggies. So again, I think Sioux City, we're all thinking this thing. I think we go back to the manufacturing tires, what is put on these buggies, and they're going to chew them up because the manufacturers know that. And I talked to Bach about this, and he confirmed what the DNR told me also. So I feel very comfortable that we are completely protected through that sticker and through the DNR that says that we can just go with the manufactured tire that's given. If people want to put a a truck type tire on it that's not designed for the UTV and that's kind of what we're requiring here. with this ordinance. Just my opinion, and I would like to put that amendment on there that we just go back with the tire thing and go back to the way that approved manufacturing tires are acceptable.

Your thoughts, Caleb, I'm sure you're gonna. Yeah, this office is ambivalent to this requirement. Okay, I'm the guy that you asked to bring forth a law that had a main focus on safety. Oh, you don't have a bullseye on that.

I'm just saying, I did the research too, and I'm just saying, let's go back and what do we need to do to amend that?

So the requirement that tires that are not studded and tires that are not made of metal, that probably should remain. If you want to delete the DOT requirement, bear a DOT marking, that's an easy amendment that I think you can pass.

I'd like to make that amendment.

You can pass this third reading as amended. IN THAT SPIRIT. THE SECTION FOR YOUR REFERENCE COUNCIL WOULD BE WHERE THE NEW SECTION 10.55.025 SUBSECTION 7 IS WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT THERE. portion the very last portion of that sentence which reads and which bear a manufacturer's dot marking could be deleted and then the spirit of the remainder could be Left in place.

What are you guys thoughts on Caleb in what Rick is shared with you? Does does that modification? address safety damage to the road and noise issues

Well, I'm not an expert on... Again, I'm the guy that you asked to write an ordinance as far as safety. That's you all's province. As far as whether or not it's going to chew up the roads. I mean, that's why we don't have a... Or that's why we have a no stud and no metal tire. That's what I'm asking. Right. So these tires, in my limited experience, they're probably softer and the road is going to chew them up before. They are.

They are.

So... And if there are controllability issues, obviously that goes with speed, but hopefully people will follow the rules and that won't happen.

So Nicole, is there any, or Caleb, is there any overlap with the county attorney's office and should they, could they have, or did they review your proposed ordinance to make sure they're comfortable with enforcement or have any ads or suggested modifications?

No, and that isn't something that we normally do on simple misdemeanors or they have no governance over municipal infractions either.

So if a unit is in the county and they're pulled over, what are they subject to?

State code, which is apart from us. We're only regulating within the city.

Right. Okay. So seatbelt requirements. Does everybody in the unit required to have a seatbelt?

YES, UNDER STATE CODE AS WELL AS THIS.

QUESTION ON ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION. SOME STATES REGULATE ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION WHETHER IT'S AN OPEN CONTAINER CONSUMPTION OR OWI DWI AS A RECREATIONAL VIOLATION AND DOESN'T NECESSARILY BE ACCOUNTED AGAINST A VEHICULAR EFFECT LIKE AN SR 22 OBLIGATION OR affecting insurance. Is this a OWI or is this a recreational OWI?

Council Member Bernstein, I believe if memory serves, Chapter 321I of the Iowa Code will cross-reference over to 321J if memory serves, but it would be an OWI under 321J, long story short. So those rules don't change just because it's an off-road utility vehicle.

Okay. And my final comment is I'm going to renew my, I know it'll get voted down, but I can't live without suggesting it. I had a number of reach outs over the last six days with medical personnel that believe that there's a significantly different brain capacity from an 18-year-old to a 20-year-old, and including a 21-year-old to a 25. I know you're shaking your head, but you're not a medical personnel. I think your comparison last week was you have kids that are 18 and 21 and that you didn't see a difference. You actually said that your 21-year-old was as incapable as your 18-year-old. I had health care personnel reach out to me telling me that there is a significant difference in the brain capacity and ability for decision making and otherwise. And I think that's something that we need to strongly consider.

You want to run that amendment? I do want to propose that amendment. I'll second it.

Just so back to the original amendment that was moved, you're separate. So the first amendment that was moved was yours to remove the language.

And it was a good one. You want to vote those separately? Oh, yeah.

Yeah. Do you have a second? I do not have a second. Is there a second? Second.

This is on the tires.

It's on the tires.

Yep. Okay.

Well, we got somebody here to talk, so. Oh, yeah.

You want to talk about the tires or you want to talk about something else?

The tires, actually. Cool. I'm 100%. I can actually show a picture to each and every one of you.

I would like to see it. No, we're, I think we're going to pass it, so.

Yeah, don't sell what's sold.

We need your name, please.

Yeah. My name is Scott Bishop. What I was trying to get at and what I brought up initially is I do think that what's called the crossbar or a tractor tire, that should not be allowed because those are, they're unsafe. You have very little, and they do put them on side-by-sides over in some of the river run areas.

And they're very stiff tires.

They're very stiff, correct. I like the idea of what's supposed to be on it, but if it is a pivot tire or a tractor tire, I think those should be illegal in town, for sure. Thank you.

Mayor and Council, I just want to clarify the portion of that section I was referring to. I would also delete where it says 10.321.440, which that would not be necessary as well because it does have an explicit provision that says that you can't have a marking on the tire that says not for highway use in the NHS, like I said before. And if we're gonna get rid of that, then I'd get rid of that part too. But 441 has to do with metal tires and the 442 has to do with studded tires. So I believe that that should be kept. Which I think that's exactly the motion Rick Bertrand made verbatim. It was a good one. Okay. So, yeah, I'm just trying to be very clear to cut down on other questions. The third reading.

All right.

Thank you, Caleb. Okay. Thank you. Good job. Go ahead. On the amendment.

Scott. Tires.

On the tires. Aye.

Berenstein.

Aye.

Bertrand.

Aye.

Rayford.

Aye.

Shaner. Aye.

I'd like to also move that we increase the permitted age from 18 to 21. Second.

Berenstein?

Aye.

Bertrand? No. Rayford? No. Shaner? No. Scott?

No. I think if we have a problem, we're going to review this in nine months, and that would be the time to do it. Okay. Now on the motion.

As amended.

As amended.

As amended. You may now vote electronically.

Passes 5-0. Remember, do not go out and start driving today. We'll let you know when.

All right. Spread the word. Put that on your Facebook pages.

One is a resolution authorizing and approving an assignment and an assumption of a mutual easement agreement with Pierce Street Partners in Steel Martin Tower, property at 4 Creed and Pierce Street, deferred from July 20, 2026. I'll move that. Second.

Mayor and Council, Marty Doherty, Economic and Community Development. At Council's direction at the last meeting, staff worked with the developer who is here today on an agreement to purchase the first floor and basement, basically the city-owned property in the building, and we drafted, working with legal, we drafted an LOU that they have signed, and if you have any questions, I guess they are here to answer those questions, but... worked out well that they are going to move forward with purchasing, I guess, the entire building. We will have to bring that back, of course. A renewal requires, law requires a two-step process with a 30-day notice that you're familiar with that will have to be part of that.

Marty, I haven't had a chance, I didn't have a chance to attend the meeting this afternoon. In looking at the letter of understanding, on point, well, it's for the development of the property the city commits to, A, best efforts to assist developer to secure financing does not mean that we will agree to co-sign or guarantee any obligations. I just want to make sure that's clear.

No, we'll just work with the developer to try to find a use for the space on the first floor.

Julie and I met with the developer earlier. They're buying three other properties, four other properties, so if We appreciate what they're doing in our community, and a lot of it's for low, well, most of it's everything. All of it is low-income housing, and we certainly need that in our community.

Yeah, so I just real quick comment on this, too. Also, Bob, I want to, you know, you can't put a price on experience on this one, and I don't know if we would have saw this without you bringing this to our attention, and kudos to you on this. I think the The city is very grateful that we're getting rid of this, and also the developer, again, for investing in this. The improvements are there, so hopefully you're not inheriting a turd. I mean, you're getting a pretty decent buy. But again, I just want to acknowledge Mr. Mayor. Good job. I appreciate it.

Passes 5-0. 21 is a Simcoe Metropolitan Planning Organization South Lakeport Street corridor study presentation. A long time in coming.

Yes, this is Gordon Ferris, City Engineer. Yes, it has been a long time in coming. November 6, 2023 was the actual date we started this project. We entered into an agreement with Simcoe. Yep. All right. I got Ryan Brower here from Simcoe representing, and I got Mark Tuck from Burns and McDonald who performed a study. We wanted to do this study to improve the level of service for this whole corridor, basically from Morningside Avenue all the way down to Singing Hills. We've had problems with accidents at Glen, a lot of pedestrian concerns throughout that whole route. So we looked at everything, and we wanted to make sure we got everybody's input on it. We also had a public study. What do you call that? The internet. We had people sign up for it and tell us their concerns. I'm going to turn it over to Mark, and go from there.

You want me to operate, and you go over here and talk? Sure. Yeah. I appreciate that. So today I'm just going to kind of give a high-level presentation of some of the findings that we found over the course of this. So as Gordon mentioned, our study area was from Morningside all the way down to Singing Hills. And we really looked at a variety of different factors for this, looking at existing conditions, some crash data, what the future looks like. We gathered public input. And really the overall intent was to identify opportunities to improve the transportation for all users. So along that route, we were able to gather public feedback early on and help utilize that feedback to be able to help align some of the concerns and get a thorough understanding of the users and their perceptions throughout the corridor. We had a survey, as Gordon mentioned. There's over 600 responses. We had a detailed website. We also had an interactive map where people could go ahead and drop their concerns. Other people could go ahead and like it, dislike it, add additional comments on that. And so really this helped us identify the specific areas of concerns that the users were experiencing and really helped define and align the overall study with some of the engineering findings. Safety was a big part of this study. This corridor is part of the safe, SS4A, the Safe Streets and Roads for All, was identified in that study that Simcoe had done earlier that year. So we did really want to take a good look at safety. We looked at some crash trends to identify any contributing factors, looking at crash characteristics both from a segment level and intersection level. We also looked at predictive, some of the predictive So this graph right here is an example of some of the data that we found. So this is from the segment and the intersections between Morningside Avenue and Mayhew Avenue.

Could you do me a favor and pull the map back up just real quick? Oh, absolutely. Then you can go back right away. Yep, absolutely. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Okay.

So in this particular one, the blue, it's kind of a dark blue shade, that's based on similar facilities all across the state of Iowa that has similar characteristics, similar intersection types, and that's what we would expect to, from all the way from that data gathered, what the crash rates would generally look to trend to look like. So in this particular one, I want to point out two different locations that have our observed, or this is what was actually we found with our crash analysis. One is Glen Avenue. It is almost four times the amount that would be expected on a similar facility, similar intersection across other facilities in Iowa. And the other one, this one is Sunnybrook, which is about double the amount of crashes that we. So that kind of variation shows us what the potential for improvement could be with different strategies and different mitigation factors. One of the reasons that both of those are high crash rates is because we do not have dedicated left turns at those intersections. One of the reasons we don't have dedicated left turn lanes is because we're just limited with the amount of real estate we have available. On one side, there's a cemetery. There's a lot of individual housings on both sides, and driveways are lined on all those sides. So one of the ways to do that is with a lane reallocation, and that's really taking the four lanes. Is this 35 miles an hour? Yes. That's taking two lanes in each direction, right? And then adjusting the lane widths to create that center turn lane to provide that level of safety. And there's a lot of benefits to doing that that we get from crashes particularly. And one of the reasons why we're really interested in moving forward with this particular one.

30 years ago, some people thought we should do that and we didn't because the engineer at that time didn't think we should, but.

There's definitely been a lot of research, particularly that Iowa DOT has done, that really, really shows that people... We have real life benefited this.

Riverside Boulevard.

I'm just saying I was here when we redid Lakeport with one of these studies. That's how long ago it's been. I totally understand.

So there won't be a fight from us as well. Oh, great. I just want to show this image up here. It kind of shows why we get those crashes from here with those two lanes. One is because our sight lines are obscured. They're not aligned between the two different turn lanes. And so as you think you're clear, you pull past there and you can actually get hit by the other lane. The other element that comes through here is people switching lanes. They get stuck behind traffic. Somebody's stopping. They don't realize they're going to stop. And then they try to switch lanes and get hit from the other side. So the benefits of this lane reallocation, in general, research shows that it decreases crashes by about half, particularly the left turn crashes and angle crashes, which usually result in the most severe injury level crashes. Another thing we heard from the public feedback was a lot of speeding concerns in here. You mentioned the 35 miles per hour. A lot of people don't feel like that is what is actually happening out there and the speed is much higher. So by having these narrower lanes, that helps to control the speeds and calm those speeds and to have a consistent speed throughout that area.

I think a large part of it might be motorcycles as well, right? The speed and the noise.

Yeah, it's kind of a right.

It's cars too.

It's everybody. It's everybody.

If you have a quote, quote, four lanes, you know, two and two, somebody's always passing because they get in pain again, and that's what is...

They're passing or they don't realize somebody in front of them has stopped to turn at the rear end. And so those are a lot of the issues that come with this. So here's kind of a concept of what that could look like to reallocate that space. So by putting the center turn line in there, that's how we get that dedicated left turn line at those intersections to improve that safety through there. And there's a lot of options then you consider for what do we use with the extra space. You could stripe it out as just a shoulder width. This particular one shows additional width using bike lanes which could be incorporated.

Are you proposing to redo the whole street because of this or are you just proposing to use the existing surface?

So in this particular image, these are just restriping. So we're not doing any physical reconstruction through there. One thing that typically we would suggest to do would be to do a quick little overlay because what happens sometimes is when you take the pavement markings off, there's scarring in there and it's difficult to Determine where the lanes are particularly if you get wet weather bad weather as over time so you can kind of see those lanes So one one thing we would do with that would be to help make a smooth finish so then the markings really stick out The other thing we consider to with us is transit does go through here I'll go ahead.

Do you have a problem Bob? I was thinking To answer your question. I think you're asking. What are we going to do? This well once we decide we'll we have to do a full-on engineering study With this if we decide to go with like say for this one for example And we'll lump that in with a bunch of our pedestrian improvements that are recommended in the study And we've a plan on applying for some safe. Is it safe routes for? For all or safe streets and roads for all for all yeah grants for that

Three years for the study.

I hope we don't wait three years to do something but but we will be programming it into our CIP For some of these improvements in which here's Gordon. So Gordon if I'm sorry, what years? Oh, I'm decided that yeah, I mean we'll look at putting in there as soon as possible So Gordon, I don't understand why if we're not changing the size of the street.

We're just gonna restrike Why do I need why do we need a study?

Because there's more to it than just you know painting new street. I

But why is it more than for it's the same distance? I mean, I guess I look at this and I go, we're going to go from four lanes to three lanes and I'm going to put some ridiculous bike trails on them. I think that's, I mean, I'm just trying to figure out why do we need to study?

Yes, so just maybe I can help answer that question. So this was the first phase here was to study that. There's other improvements that come with it with pedestrians, refuge islands to help make safe crossings, other elements as well that would come with this. What we've done to date has been high-level conceptual, but there would be engineering that would need to be involved, survey. There would be curb ramp improvements that would be needed to improve those. So there would be another phase of design. I think when he says study, it would be design to go through those, get those final details designed.

What's that study going to cost? Sorry. Like you said, it wouldn't be so much a study. It would be more of a design.

Do you want to go to the next one real quick? And then maybe I'll come back to your question. So this is the other piece of this because this is a bus route and there are bus stops all the way around here. And so as part of our survey, we did ask people about what their expectations were and how their experiences were with the transit system. So this provides an opportunity to have a permanent fixture of a bus stop from there and then Addresses a potential concern that hey if a bus stops we're not stopping them in the lane now this actually provides a little bus turnout with that as well to be able to Help get that bus out of the through lane to keep traffic still moving when buses are stopping along the different routes that cutting some of the sidewalk out and That would require some reconstruction through there. So again, it's a trade-off of moving people and not having them get stuck versus providing that safe passageway. One of the comments that we got, particularly regarding the bus, was that there's no infrastructure, I'll say, from the standpoint of permanent shelters, things that keep people out of the weather. Having this permanent fixture or stop would allow a static location to help add in those additional amenities to make them more comfortable for the people that do utilize the bus service.

I noticed the entirety of Lakeport.

So this lane reallocation is only intended between Morningside and Lincoln Way. And the reason for that is because those volumes are a little bit lower because of more residential, more neighborhood. There's schools in that area. And so that's the threshold that we can still maintain that capacity and through movement without really degrading the overall level of service through there.

So to that point, if it's Morningside to Lincoln Way, are you thinking that if we have the three, are you, I mean, are you taking in consideration, you know, East High is there,

You have some other school absolutely and that's where and we haven't shown all the details, but that's where we would have Pedestrian crossings those refuge islands to get people safely from one side to the other to accommodate those kids that are crossing through there So it would consider those users and again particularly when we're talking about Reducing speeds through there. That's a that's a real benefit for the for for the high schools and the middle schools that are in that area and In addition, those left turn lanes for those crashes, Sunnybrook is one of those locations that did have those high crashes through there. So being able to get that left turn in there does bring that element of safety to those commuters that are going to school every single day.

So then would there still be a signalized intersection? Yes. Yep. Yes.

Some of the specific, and we touched on a little bit about concerns about people walking and walkability through there, some of the pedestrian concerns about being able to cross some of the ramps through there. We also heard that through other different locations, Singing Hills, Southern Hills, the US 20 ramp and Surgeon Road. A lot of the concerns raised around just the alignments of how they are. They're long crossings, so that means a pedestrian is exposed longer to traffic, increasing the risk they could be hit. Some of the push buttons aren't necessarily compliant with what the standards would need to be. We heard from some people with visual impairments, and it was really difficult for them to walk up and down the corridors, primarily because of some of these features in the geometrics that are with there, that are currently out there. But also, being able to safely cross a location, particularly there's a lot of free right turn movements that vehicles don't stop and it's difficult for somebody with an impairment to be able to safely cross and understand that, particularly how some of the sidewalks are oriented through there. So this is a really important part about that, taking into consideration all users, and we did hear from some that have challenges with visual impairments. So this kind of gets to some of the improvements at the U.S. 20 ramps. One of the concerns also that we got through the public feedback is the ability of somebody coming eastbound off the ramp and wanting to turn left, I'll say at the gas station over there, right? That's a very difficult movement. It's a high-speed movement off of that ramp. This is coming south, turning east. So this is coming off of U.S. 20, going eastbound and turning south to head down to Southern Hills Drive. So somebody coming off the ramp wanting to turn left immediately at southbound left at Southern Hills Drive. Within the area, we kind of show the arrows of how those movements mix and how they prevent a weaving situation through there. So this was really from a risk standpoint and a risk factor. A lot of comments we got back included this, that it was difficult to do, difficult to make. In addition, you can see the multiple, what I talked about a little bit about the geometry from the crosswalks going across there, some of those challenges with doing that. So one of the concepts to look at here, Next one. Next one would be to actually bring that right turn into like a traditional intersection and to eliminate that free right turn lane through there. This helps to eliminate the conflict points. It provides a more simplified crossing, particularly for somebody with an impairment. It also minimizes the crosswalk on the west side to be able to have just one crossing across the ramp as opposed to where previously we had two of those. It really helps to reduce the speeds through there. The other benefit of this is it helps from the... Vehicle, we eliminated that weaving movement that happens through there of cars going back and forth, which was really a risk factor and a safety concern that was identified.

The next ramp we want to talk about is

The westbound ramp, very similar challenges with this one, with the exception of these are coming from Sargent Road. And then one of the concerns particularly with here is that we want to get a better usage of is the left turn lanes. There's two left turn lanes from westbound Sargent to head southbound down to this ramp. So being able to utilize both of them equally and provide all that storage space really would help out and benefit that. So one of the options with this that we looked at and considered was, again, if you want to go to the next slide, was bringing the sidewalk and extending it out and making a crossing across the ramp and to make a more perpendicular movement for pedestrians to go across there. That really helps with pedestrian safety by having a shorter distance to cross through there. Additionally, looking at a potential for an option lane through here to provide two lanes that would go to the ramp from southbound Lakeport Road between Sargent and the ramps to eliminate that weaving movement through there and to be able to get better utilization and manage those queues better at Sargent Road for the westbound direction.

Can you go back north one? Yep. Well, probably one screen. Right there. Okay. if you, there's a right turn red light that if you don't stop completely going into your own lane, if you don't stop there, completely stop, there's a red light camera there. I think that is absolutely ludicrous because you're turning into your own lane. Why is that?

I don't know. That was installed years.

If Sergeant Mel Williams was still here I would ask him the question because he used to oversee the hearing process. There is no reason for there to be a red light stop there. Because you are going east, turning into your own lane, and they make you stop there. Is that by the ID are you talking?

Yeah. Yeah, right by the heavy, right on that pillar. I think the reason, my opinion, I think the reason that is a stop there is because you have the two lanes coming westbound and they utilize those same two lanes.

Absolutely.

To get onto the ramp. They don't utilize the closest lane to them. They turn into their own lanes. And it says for them to turn into those lanes. It doesn't tell them to turn in. But it doesn't tell them, the arrows do not show that they can pull into the southbound lane that's heading east.

If you're talking that one right in front of the Hy-Vee gas station, people coming out of the other area, they turn into that lane because they're going to go fast to get on that interstate. Well, but that's not their lane. That's my point. Beside the point, you're going to create more accidents if you don't.

And I believe the original red light camera placement was based on high instances. Absolutely.

That's the only reason we could keep it as long as we did.

And that's going back so far. That's like almost 20 years ago, I think. So my memory is a little...

It's at least 20 years, yeah.

Yeah, my memory is a little tested on it, but I believe that was one of the issues they looked at for placement.

I'm going to move that one down to Glenn. But he shows it, right?

Yep, go ahead. So the last improvement we want to just touch base on is at Singing Hills Boulevard. Again, a lot of feedback we received on this. It's currently an all-way stop. There's multiple approaches, so people have difficulty determining who stops first. I think I stop first, or I can go with them, or I can't go with them, or who stops first. And so generally it's confusing. Also, this is an area that does have some operational issues in the future. CURRENTLY ON THE WEEKEND PERIOD, IT DOES GET VERY BUSY AND DOES MEET A SIGNAL WARRANT FOR THE CURRENT WEEKEND PERIOD. IN THE FUTURE, AS TRAFFIC CONTINUES TO GROW HERE, IT WILL DEGRADE TO A LEVEL SERVICE F IN 2045. SO THIS IS ONE THAT I THINK EVERYBODY IS KIND OF AWARE IS CONTINUING TO GROW IN THAT AREA. IT'S BEEN VERY BUSY. AND SO WE LOOKED AT POTENTIAL OPTIONS FOR THIS INTERSECTION TO IMPROVE THOSE. And the two options we really looked at were a signal and a roundabout. There's benefits and trade-offs to each one of them. And so from a traffic signal, compared to a roundabout, a roundabout is a much safer alternative and has reduced severity of crashes compared to a traffic signal, which typically can have those higher... You said the roundabout was safer?

And a roundabout is safer compared to a traffic signal? Of course they're saying that. We can all agree with that now, Julie. We understand that the biggest thing with engineers are roundabouts. And there's Dolly's headline for tomorrow. In 1962, they put one-way streets in this community, and people wondered why. Now we're thinking, why did we put them in? We want to take them out. So your roundabouts are your latest, greatest things. They're teaching you in engineering school now. We've all established that. Keep going. All right.

I knew that would get him.

That's great. I'm glad everybody knows how roundabouts work. That's my favorite thing to explain to everybody. Absolutely. Yeah, so then everybody should be aware roundabouts are a safer option compared to a traffic signal. trade-off is it's got a higher upfront cost to design those but you get a better back back end with fewer operational costs compared to a traffic signal and then traffic flow we keep that community moving movement going through there so again both options it would be again in the future to determine what what would be preferred from there as as the concept develops in the next stages so those are just kind of the highlights i wanted to just share some of the outcomes of those really we're we're looking at ways to improve safety and traffic flow and really support the multimodal users and their feedback public said and their input to help make the corridor that can everybody can can utilize in the way they would like to so gordon i'll take it back to you i don't want to So Gordon, I think, is going to ask for approval of the overall study to then help support some of those future programming in the CIP and start to be able to get some of those opportunities for funding as they come through. And with those then, that would trigger the next subsequent design phases where we would have the opportunity Continue to design some of these get more public feedback We could refine anything that that might come up from that process And really then take it to a final level where it could be implemented and that's really the hope of studying this project is to take the data take the public feedback take the safety analysis and really create a corridor that Already can really enjoy

Thank you. And keep in mind, none of this... Thank you. For this whole design, I mean, we haven't designed anything. It'll still come forward for council to approve designs, even approve the consultant to hire for whatever thing we're looking for at that time, whether it be the restriping from Morningside to Lincoln or some pedestrian improvements there off the bypass or Singing Hills.

So are we spending any money today? We're not spending any money?

No.

Okay, so there's no money going to be spent. None. Okay, no consultants, no anything. We're good. Nope. This is just out the door.

Approving the presentation. You talked about from... We're not spending any money. So the pictorial that you showed from Lincoln Way to... Morningside Avenue are there sidewalks currently on both sides yes? There are sidewalks on both sides I think one side there may be retaining walls throughout there right on the better on the east side right like property lines are really tight both side That's well the reason I knew there were on the east side I just didn't remember if they were on the west side, and I knew that there's a pill right but no when he showed the the bike or the bus lane option

we'd have to basically get rid of the parking, so to speak, that's there now on each side. That's just moving the curb back, which can be expensive because you're moving that back, you're moving the hydrants, you're moving your catch base.

We should have gone with the three-lane when we went with it. The mall didn't want it. Now the mall's pretty well not there. We should have gone with the three-lane because we've ruined front yards of a lot of people with that darn four-lane, and here we are. We don't need it now. It's sad that... But it is what it is.

In anywhere in this study, I know it's not Lakeport specifically, but it turns onto Lakeport. Did the double left-hand turn off of Sergeant Road to Lakeport ever come to the topic As in topic hasn't been redesigned or well, I just don't see a need for a double left-hand turn As you head up past them all did we do a count there? Turn left. There's two lefts on to which sport which but there's only gonna be Well, it's not going clear to sergeant road though. It's going to stop at Lincoln and

Yeah, so generally Lincoln is the transition point where the volumes will kind of calm down, if you will, from the busy retail area to more of that dense residential and school environment.

But do we have a traffic count on that corner included in this study? Sargent Road and Lakeport?

Yes.

Maybe we can utilize that, Gordon, because then there's the huge congestion Of that intersection going through to Lake Park Commons because that doesn't really make sense that I know that's not the study going into the Commons.

But you're looking at getting rid of one of those north northbound left turn lanes. Or well, less eastbound to northbound and putting two eastbound.

As opposed to one eastbound, well correct, more people are going straight than are turning left.

Not at Christmas time, no way. Go out there and sit at Christmas time and tell me that intersection. You can't hardly get through. It takes two to three lights.

To turn left onto Lakeport? Yeah. Oh, I don't experience that.

I will say some of the comments we got, particularly that intersection, relate to the geometry, particularly some of the visitors. It doesn't line up. That it doesn't line up.

It doesn't line up. You don't know if you're going straight or left or right.

Right, exactly. So one of the other things that we've talked about in our study is to add overhead signage to really designate which lane goes where and to improve that. and also to add some additional pavement markings to really help so people don't get confused or have those, I think I'm in the right lane, and then turn out at the last second you're not because it doesn't go through. Exactly. So that's another component of that. Like I said, I wanted to just keep this high level to talk about kind of the major things in there, but there's a lot of things that went in, a lot of things we looked at, and really a lot of opportunity. All right. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Appreciate that. I'll move to approval of the corridor study, item 22.

Second.

We need to read it first.

Resolution approving the Simcoe Metropolitan Planning Organization South Lake Street Corridor. I'll move it. Passes 5-0. Ken Dart wants to speak on runoff fees. Come to the microphone, please, Ken. I'm sorry, Kevin. My bad. I'm sorry. Apologize.

I would like to register my... Could you stand at the podium and speak right into that mic for me? I'm sorry to interrupt you. Thank you.

My extreme disapproval and disappointment with the ridiculously... Expensive water runoff fee increase. 300% unjustified and undefendable. All of it, apparently, a quick search on AI tells me, is due to corrupt city officials polluting the river. DNR found out about it. Big lawsuit. You guys settled for $300,000. That ain't the problem.

There was no... One storm sewer, one is sewer. They're not connected at all, no.

It's on my water bill.

This is for storm water.

On my water bill. Everything on there has to do with water. It's on my water bill. You guys can call it anything you want. All I know is that this fee increase alone is more money than what I get charged for the actual water that I use. How do you justify that? That's the increase alone. The fee itself is one third of my entire bill. And actually, if you take off the whatever it is anymore, eight bucks or so for the water line protection plan, my bill would be $37. Now this water runoff fee is 20, 50% of my bill. That's outrageous and undefendable. And that's what you got. That's what I figured. Last time I was down here, was because corrupt city officials were trying to glom onto my phone line because you guys bought, stupidly, a used water meter reading system from another city in Illinois who was taking it out because it was outdated technology. Here's Sioux City, hey, we'll buy it. And put it in and from day one you're using losing customers because everybody was going to cell phones. So landlines were going out so you had to pay for it twice. That was the last time I was here and now this is even worse because now I got an extra $15 a month coming out of my bill for the rest of my life.

Did you call down and ask who was correct? I know there's been adjustments on some of these bills.

Yeah, when I first saw it on there.

If it's calculated right, because some of it is based upon, I don't know the exact calculation, but there's been other complaints.

Square footage of your yard is what I'm being told by three different people. Because I happen to have a little house on a big yard, so my kids had a big... It ain't the Dutton Ranch, man. I got a vacant lot. Big yard. Big yard. And I pay more for water that even may or may not land on the ground than what I pay for the actual water that I use. If Mid-America tried to put a gas line delivery charge and charge you more than the actual gas that you use, they'd be shut down in an instant. But you guys can just do what you want. My question, why did you cap it at 300? Why not 500? It's extortion. We have to pay it. You don't like it, don't pay it. We'll red tag your house, we'll take that too. It's sickening. You guys should be embarrassed and ashamed of yourselves. I don't believe in this stuff, but I'm telling you right now, man. I'm going to go home, take a shower from having to be in the same room with you people. I'm going to get a drink. I've got a head case friend of mine who I don't believe in this stuff, but she believes in hexes and curses and crystals and all that. I'm calling her, having her put a hex on every one of you.

All right, guy. Good talking to you. See you later.

Just so you know, every bad thing that happens to you or you... See you later. From here on out, you can remember this day. You brought it on yourself.

Good night. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, let's do building permits.

Darryl Bullock, Inspection Services Manager. In front of you or sent out to you weekly, we have the inspection permit report that we've sent out. Had a few challenges this last week with some illnesses lasting over a week and some vacations, but we were able to keep up and keep things moving forward. Today we're working towards Trying to keep things sped up, so we're doing a lot more presentations. We locked down another presentation on a very large project that is going to take some time to get through. And we'll work together with them before the application even hits our desks. So hopefully we can make that fly. That's a big project, so.

Okay, go ahead. Update on the development review process and software. As you know, as I've said to you several times already, there's two different processes. There's the planning and engineering, and then there's the billing permit. On the planning and engineering, we have now completed review with the consultant that Central Square uses on all of the planning processes. So that included going over four major areas, which is rezonings, site plan reviews, preliminary plats, or the platting process, and variances. Those are the four major ones that we went through with the team and the consultant, together. Then, in the interest of time, our planning staff, and in particular Chris, has gone through 15 other processes that are used for more minor processes, things like alley right-of-way vacations, sign designs, conditional use permits, historic preservation permits, all of those kinds of things now we've completed with basically our staff filling out questionnaires for them. So we're moving along pretty well on the planning and engineering side of it. Then we're also, of course, working on the building permit side. And we're a little bit not as far along there, but we are expecting the business process review report, which is what they provided us for the other one, by July 31st, so then we'll be moving pretty rapidly after that. I don't think we have any training. No, we've got a lot of homework. We've got a lot of homework now. We don't have any other meetings this week, but we'll start up again next week.

Mr. Mayor, quickly, quickly, on the teardown up there across from the shelter. Yes, sir. You sent that email out there. We're all together. Any update on where we're at on the teardown?

I've just continued to move forward. What's your timeline? The only email we got was in response to us actually moving forward with the sampling of the asbestos.

You mean the 901 Nebraska?

Yes. I just brought up, we're all here. I didn't take the call tonight, but... While I was sitting here in meeting, I did receive a call from the company that does the asbestos surveying for us, and we should have results, it sounds like, probably tomorrow.

Okay, and then what's that do to your timeline?

Then we sent it out for bid to get the asbestos moving forward as far as the abatement, because there was quite a bit in a lot of different areas in the building, a lot of pipes and things like that, because it was all run by steam before. So we'll move that forward on the bidding process, which will take a couple of weeks, and then just matter of getting it awarded, and then the scheduling. Okay. Oh, I would say far less than that to get the best asbestos abatement, but we can't do, we have to do notifications to the DNR pre and post abatement as well as the demolition contractor themselves having to do that.

Good job.

Thank you. Thanks, guys.

Thank you. Rick.

Briefly, updates kind of where we're at on some of the projects that are coming to fruition. We had that, Julian had the meeting before the council meeting, the retention pond for developers. The citywide detention ponds is coming. It's last stage, so we should have something in front of the council here in the next few weeks. It's going to be a huge win for the city for developers coming in. Good job, Tom. Also, the grading permit, same ways. We're going to actually pull together. We've got a rough draft. Thank you, Nicole, for sending that over. I think I've been okay. Now I can forward that correctly. And I have. I'm in the process. And then we're going to pull together, like Daryl said, we're going to pull together a little meeting with the Bain Dirt guys. I think there's a list of 10 we've got at this point and try to get some feedback. And if they don't show up, they don't show up. But we're going to give them a real-time opportunity to feedback on a much-needed updated grading approval process, which will be great for the city. Also, we're going to do the same thing with the conference. I talked to Daryl today. We're going to pull together all the city inspectors, and we're going to do a six-month review on customer service and stuff and things we've done great and things moving forward, and we talked about that today. And then lastly, tomorrow morning at 7.30, I'm going to be updating the Siouxland Chamber of Commerce. It will be a standing room only, so I suggest you get there early. So if anyone wants to attend it's down there and then lastly I'm gonna take my wife on her 55th my smoking hot wife to her 55th birthday Trip and we're gonna watch Red Rocks taking a concert and I'm gonna act like a lack like a juvenile So I'm gonna go to Gary Allen. Yeah, we good time. So have a good week and What a good week was last week.

Thanks been there twice What's that updating the chamber on?

ALL THE GREAT THINGS I'VE DONE PRETTY MUCH. IT'S GOING TO BE JUST AN OVERALL UPDATE ON THE COUNCIL. WE'VE DONE A LOT OF GREAT THINGS IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS AND WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT EVERYTHING FROM THE RETENTION POUNDS TO GRADING PERMITS TO WHAT WE DID WITH I THINK EVEN GARBAGE, THE SIMPLE THINGS TO THE BIG PROJECTS AND I think we've had a great run as a new council. I really, really do. It's funny, speaking to my wife, we were talking about this. You can feel it in the city. Not to get on a soapbox, but you can feel it in the city, the positivity. Our community has a history of looking for things to want to jump on and at times complain. We need villains. It just seems like in the last few months that there's a positive feeling that's moving forward that I think that they feel like we're turning a corner with development, with the city in general and it's make sure make us proud of where we're at and I know that the developers are coming back and with and we're being more aggressive as a council and I just I appreciate all of you and and it's gonna be You know good six months good for six months.

There must be a couple of presentations tomorrow because I know that the Innovation Center Is presenting to the steering committee TSI. Is that weird? Yeah. Yep. So I'm on the committee. I mean, I'm on the steering committee, but they're early I'll be presenting with The innovation center.

What time is it happening?

7.30, that's early. You're probably having lunch about that time.

In my yoga pants. Bring donuts.

I've got a couple of items, Mayor. First of all, I did get a couple of calls that during the emergency weather on Saturday night, a siren didn't go off on the north side, sort of on the Hamilton and the Buckwalter and outer areas. Could we double check on why that may have happened?

That's Wendy. Did it went off or didn't go off?

Didn't go off. Didn't go off. Secondly, I've had a couple calls on, is there, and I haven't seen this in the planning and zoning's minutes, so I don't know if it's been formally or informally presented, but is there a conversion of the trailer park on Gordon to an RV park? Yes. Portions. portions of it, I've been asked to check into that. So maybe if we could get a brief report on that, Marty, or whomever.

They put a sign up.

Yeah, there's a sign that, yeah.

That's what creates the buzz there.

And then finally, I had a request to appeal to the community to both purchase tickets and attend the team handball event that is next week, and if interested, to become volunteers. So it should be a great event, a couple-day event, and I'm looking forward. I'm going to hopefully volunteer, and I'm going to certainly attend as well.

Mike? Yeah, I guess first I just want to plead the blood of Jesus Christ over us all, so we're covered in the name of Jesus, right? Secondly, I really appreciated Shayla sending over the statistics for the warming shelter, just loving it. having that information and having correct information, I guess, is always a good thing. I appreciated that. Otherwise, that's it. Julie?

I have nothing today.

I got just a few things. First of all, East High didn't make it all the way, but they had a great season. They made it to the semis, right? They made it. I was able to watch it on my phone in Decorah, Iowa. They were so close. Congratulate Shelby Houlihan on her second place at the

You know, she actually won that last year.

She won it last year and got second this year. It was a great race. And Pulaski Park or Strikers, I don't know which one, is putting on a statewide little league tournament. Are only Westside teams in it from Sioux City?

They're hosting the 9U and the 11U and our Westside Little League.

Right, and they're the only teams from Sioux City. Correct.

In those two, yes.

We wish them the best of luck, and I move we adjourn. Second.

Bertrand? Aye. Rayford?

Aye.

Boehner? Aye. Scott? Aye. Berenstein?

Aye.