City Council - Regular Meeting

[laughter] I got a long ways to go. Russo. Yeah.

[snorts] Gentlemen, do you guys 188? 188. Where's that from? Awesome.

Thanks.

super cool. You guys ready? I'll call the December 15th meeting of the West Point City Council to order and invite you all to stand and join us for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Okay, please sign in. [clears throat]

Five members present. Okay, Ryan, are there any changes to the agenda? Uh, we do have a few changes. Uh, there's memos on the DS related to all these. Item 4H, interf transfers. There was one item on the exhibit, uh, item number 34 has been removed. Um, public hearings, items 6A and 6B, both related to Davis Estates, uh, agenda's been updated to a motion on each of those to continue those to January 5th. And then item 7 C, uh, site plan for South Branch Business Park. Um, there's been changes to the conditions of approval on that resolution.

Okay. Can I get a motion to approve the agenda as second amended? Okay. So moved and seconded. Please vote. Five. Yes. Okay. Moving on to the oath of office. Okay. Ryan, you going to swear me in and then I'm going to swear them in? Yep. That's okay. What do I need to sign on this? Just the one space here. Is that yours? Yeah. Yeah. Just the the blank line. You want to sign that? [clears throat] I'm all alone flying solo.

Kevin's the only one that's got love in the room tonight. I even brought it for you. [clears throat] Raise your right hand. Repeat after me. I state your name. I, Russell, solemnly swear do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States that I 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 the duties discharge all the duties of the office of mayor of the office of mayor in the city of West De Mo, Iowa

in the city of West De Mo, Iowa as now or here required. Now you have to report by sir. [snorts] We have a certificate of election to present to you. Okay. [clears throat] And all the others are here too. All right. So there you are. Thank you very much. Yeah. Appreciate that. All right. Bring this up here. Okay. Sounds good.

All right. We're going to do these all individually. Grab the first one. Okay, first one we're going to do is Rene Harden [snorts] glasses on real quick. You get a picture.

I'll get your picture. You bet. [snorts] [clears throat] [snorts] Okay. Please raise your right hand and repeat after me. I state your name. Iman do solemnly swear do solemnly swear that I will support I will support the Constitution of the United States the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and the Constitution

of the State of Iowa the state of Iowa and I will faithfully and impartially I will faithfully to the best of my ability of my ability discharge all of the duties all of the duties of the office the office of at large council members in the city city of West Demo as now as now or here required by law congratulations bring it down. [applause]

Okay, Councilman Trail. [clears throat] Oh, do I get my plaque or? Yes. Get your plaque plaque for you. Okay. I would like a picture with that. You want a picture? All right, let's do it. And we'll do Councilman Trudeon. Cindy says she'll take it.

Congratulations. Thank you. Okay, that one's yours. I This is Kevin. Let me just sign this. Okay, raise your right hand and repeat after me. I state your name. I, Kevin, do solemnly swear do solemnly swear that I will support do I will support the Constitution of the United States the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution

the Constitution of the State of Iowa of the state of Iowa and that I will faithfully and impartially I will faithfully and impartially to the best of my ability to the best of my ability discharge all the duties discharge all of the duties of the office the office of first ward council members of first w council member in the city of West Iowa. in the city of West Iowa as now as now or hereafter

congratulations certificate as well. Do you want to have family come up with you? Yeah.

Let me get out. And Sandy, you want to take down? Is he holding his flag? You got a plaque? Okay, Doug. Doug. Duck. Okay, there you go. Last but not least, Doug Moes. That's right. [clears throat]

Okay, raise your right hand. Repeat after me. I speak your name. do solely swear solemnly swear that I will support I will support the Constitution of the [snorts] United States the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution the Constitution of the State of Iowa state of Iowa and that I will faithfully and impartially that I will faithfully and impartially to the best of my ability best of my ability discharge all of the duties discharge all of the duties of the office the office of third world council member third world council member in the city city Bless as now or here by law

by law congratulations.

Yeah, sure. Why not? Let's do anybody here for you or [clears throat] No. Okay. So, just [cough] [laughter] soup. Cindy, you want to grab one? Maybe I'll take Oh, and then your son's here. You want to do another one? Yeah, we'll do another one. I move out of the way. I want to be in their picture.

Yeah. Can we get another picture with Kevin's son and their son in it? It's too [laughter] [snorts]

And congratulations to you. All right. That's great. Congratulations everybody. Certainly not easy putting your name on the ballot and running for office and everybody worked really hard. So congratulations to all. All right, [clears throat] with that we are going to move on to item two, citizens forum. Uh anybody that would like to address the council on any item that is not either part of public hearings or new business, why don't you come on up to the podium, give us your name and address for the record. We ask that you keep it civil and respectful into five minutes or under. All right, come on up. We'll we'll do the chamber first and then we'll go online after that. Right here to the podium if you want.

All right. All right. Start off with your name and address for the record and then you've got five minutes. Hi, my name is Holly Anderson. My address is 20527th Street West Mo, Iowa. So, I'm a resident here. Okay, go ahead, Holly. Thanks for being here.

Hi, I emailed the council um on November 3rd, so I know it's a busy time is all switching over. Um I emailed about pausing the construction of the sixth data center being built in West De Mo and um I'm here in person tonight to continue to advocate for that. Um, I would have advocated sooner had I learned more about data centers, but um, starting around that time that I emailed was when I first um, was finding out more information about them. And the more information that I found out recently and more is coming out, continuing to come out on them, the more I think it's a time pressing manner to speak up about it and for our community to really um consider and pause and reflect on this. And I think maybe we can just push a pause on the data center construction for now. Um till we can find out and be aware of all the environmental impacts it will have both in the present and in the future. And um what we don't want is to have something come in and then discover down the road. I mean it's just starting to come out. There's been rare cancers developed around some of the data centers that have been around. Um, we don't want another cancer causing agent here in Iowa. We already have, we're already number two in the state for cancer. Um, our biodiversity is at a loss globally. Um, and data centers produce a lot of sound and light pollution in addition to their water usage and their electricity,

their energy usage. They use a lot. Um, it's it's varying. I know that they're working on making it better, but it's not quite there yet, I don't think. And if we're putting something in that's going to be taking up a large portion of land, I think that we should make sure that it is the best idea for West Mo. And we have the opportunity here as a local, you know, community here. We have the opportunity to advocate what's best for our community, what's best for the current our current residents here, and what will be best for the residents in the future, our kids who are growing up here. We don't want to leave them with a mess. And if we look at technology, um I'm older, so years ago, about 25 years ago, um you know, technology has changed since then. It's changing rapidly. Who is to say that these data centers will not be obsolete within a certain amount of years? And what are we going to do with those data centers in the future if they prove to be obsolete? There are studies coming out now that are showing that there's not as good of return on AI that there was thought to be.

[clears throat]

And so I think until we can see more of these things that's actually going to be a growth thing, that's actually going to be helpful. Um that the pros are going to outweigh the cons, which I'm not sure that they are right now. According to everything I've looked at, it's not there's not good balance. It's not the cons are outweighing the pros right now. And I think we need to pause and wait until we can collect more data on it to see if it's really worth moving forward on. Um I know that it's been there's the potential for a lot of revenue for West De Moines. Um but I think that we need to consider residents and our um land here for West De Mo. We need to take that into consideration and put a big weight on that. We want this to be a place where people want to continue to live into the future and we don't want to be putting something in place that will be harmful. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you for your time. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Okay. Anybody else for Citizens Forum in the chamber before I go online? All right. Come on up, Steve. Steve Freever, executive director of the Historic Valley Junction Foundation. Uh again, I want to applaud the work of uh Gary Ranks public services crew. They did a phenomenal job cleaning up after yet another snowfall. Uh I live on Fifth Street, so I get to see all the action late at night, and uh it's it's wonderful. It's to be commended, and uh the business community down there very much appreciates it. Uh at this point, we are watching the weather for our last jingle in the junction. this Thursday. Um stay tuned. If it's if it's good, uh we will go forward. Uh and if it's not, we will announce uh if there's any kind of cancellation, keep your fingers crossed.

Thanks so much. Sounds good. Thanks so much. [clears throat] Okay. Anybody else for citizens forum in the council chambers before I go online? Okay, seeing nobody else in the chamber, we'll go online. Is there anybody online for citizens forum? Hit star six to unmute yourself. Star six, mayor. How's it going, Amy? Go ahead and give us your name and address for the record and we'll give you five minutes. Thank you. Thank you so much. How's it going?

Not too Not too bad. Not too bad. Okay. Okay. All right. I uh Mr. Mayor, is the city manager Tom Haden there? The city manager, Tom Haden, is here. Uh Amy, I'm gonna remind you to I'm just going to remind you, Amy, I haven't started your time yet. We just got to keep it civil and respectful. Um I don't want to have a bunch of al I just want to make sure we don't have a bunch of false allegations thrown out. So, I I I can't see him. Is there any law enforcement in the room? Yes, there always is. Okay. Uh, okay. Is Greta Truman there? Yes, she is.

Okay. Great, great, great. I just have a few subjects to cover. So, please don't violate my First Amendment right just because maybe you might not like what I have to say. We never do. Okay.

All right. Thank you. I [clears throat] would like uh city hall to turn on comments for the official West De Moines City Hall government YouTube channel. In essence, a blanket off switch for all comments infringes on the public's right [snorts] to engage with their government online by turning it off. This is called censor censorship and you may be blocking valid criticism and violating first amendment rights. Okay. Uh West De Moines City Hall widen mill civic parkway bigger than Pacific Coast Highway in California. And now traffic is speeding on Mill Civic Parkway even faster. So they're speeding and then they're speeding even faster to pass uh each other. Please lower the speed limit to 35 miles per hour. I almost got ran over today. Okay. Iowa has a strong veterans preference law, Iowa code chapter 35C that gives eligible honorably discharged veterans advantages in the public sector

over other applicants. And I didn't know if your human resources or human Yeah. resources department knew about that and so I just wanted to remind them. Okay. Uh Mr. Haden, I know you would be interested in this. I tried to call you today and got voicemail that says to call Hannah G. So then I called the number given for Hannah and then the voicemail for Hannah says it belongs to Molly Howard and she doesn't answer either. So who who is Hannah and does she still work there or does Molly answer your phone or do both of them? It's confusing. I look forward to that being worked out on your voicemail. A couple of weeks ago, your voicemail said that you would be out of the office until like August 19th or something like that. And so, you know, I I your voicemail doesn't get updated by your crew very often. Uh, and also, uh, [clears throat] I made a mistake last week. I said that, uh, city manager Tom Haden gets paid 230,000 a year. It's actually 260,000. So that's a $30,000 difference from 23 to 24. And I don't think anybody that works for city hall deserves a pay raise. And also

I would like to place a restraining order on Renee Hardman for inciting public hostility against me last week. She is dangerous. Thank you. Okay. Uh thank you Amy. Uh is there anybody else online for citizens forum? Well, that's too bad. Okay, citizens forum is closed. [clears throat] We will now move on to item three, mayor council manager report, other entities update. And I will start uh down to my right with city manager Tom Hatton.

Yeah, I just want to start with that. We talked about the this year's a I guess we could call it normal or how it used to be for snowfall in Iowa, but we receive a number of snowfalls and I can tell you our public services and police department have to work together are doing a great job. The snow is not just they they get on their get in their trucks and go. They're doing a lot of planning. They if if the temperatures are right on the pavement, they they if you see the treatments going forward. So there there's a lot of science involved with temperatures and you know if it's too cold the the material doesn't work. So they do a great job and uh they've uh I was watching them yesterday on Mills Civic. They look like a ballet out there with our these big trucks cleaning off Mills Civic and doing a great job in getting our pavement back to normal as we can. So I just wanted to give them a shout out. Thank you. No doubt they do an awesome job at all hours of the day, night, and make sure that it's uh safe for us to drive around. So, very much appreciated. Uh Gary Rank and the crew doing an excellent job. All right, moving on to uh Councilman Greg Hudson.

Yeah, Tom, I want to agree with you on that. And Mr. Mayor, uh Gary, you and your team uh for the past several weeks have been out there late at night, early in the morning doing uh what needs to be done. So, be sure to thank them on our behalf. Uh a couple other things. Uh Renee and Russ, Kevin, Doug, congratulations on your swearing in. And uh I've worked with uh you three for six years. Doug, I've worked with you the last four, and uh I look forward to working with you in the future as well. And I did wanted to say everybody uh merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah, and I hope you have a wonderful new year. We'll see you in 2026. I'm not leaving now. I'm just saying that's when our next city council meeting is. [laughter]

Thank you, Councilman. Councilman McKenna. Nothing at this time. Mayor. All right. Councilwoman Hardman.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor and team. Um, a couple of things. Um, it's been a challenging weekend this weekend with the violence and everything that's been happening. So I take a moment to pause to reflect upon what happened to the Jewish community in Australia, what happened at Brown University. And um you know it it it just makes me sad that at this time of season when Hanukkah is being se celebrated, maybe Christmas for the Brown students that lost their lives, that there's going to be some empty chairs around the Christmas table this year for families. And so my heart is heavy. I pray and hope that all of us lift up these families and their mourning regardless of our religion, their lives, and their people and their human beings. And so um I I just want to just ask everybody to pray and to lift up perfect strangers to maybe us, but human beings to everyone else. [clears throat] I also like Go ahead. Okay. Um, I'd like to also lift up Gary and uh the police department as well for all of the work that they have done with the streets. And I'm going to tell a personal story. Um, a week and a half or so. Uh, Gary, I was in Altuna at a dinner at Prairie Meadows. And I'm telling you, I did not think that I could make it home safely. It was so bad that night after the banquet. But I knew the minute that I entered West Moy. I knew the minute I entered West De Moines and um I could tell the difference. And so I want to thank you and your team for really getting out there ahead of the storms, being very proactive, um laying down stuff on the streets to make them a little bit more drivable and safe. Um,

so West Point has a phenomenal thing going on [clears throat] and um, thank you for your leadership and your team that's out there doing it at all hours of the night. I'd like to also uh, congratulate one of our colleagues, Audrey Kennes, who that's where I was at Murray Medals that night trying to get to a banquet where she was honored. She was honored for her selfless commitment to the community. She was honored to her sense of fairness and justice for all. And you guys, she gave a speech that was just absolutely incredible. And um it was so nicely spoken and talked about West Moyne and talked about just her commitment to helping folks and being the voice for individuals. So Tom, I just want to congratulate Audrey on that. You would have been very proud. It was a wonderful occasion where she was showcased. She could not hardly get out of the room because everybody was talking to her

or what with her. Um so that's what I'd like to offer tonight. Um um [clears throat] I don't think I'll dignify the comments that I heard tonight. I don't think they're even worthy of that. So, I'm going to conclude at this moment in time.

Sounds good to me. Okay. Council Travillian, I just want to say thank you to the residents of West De Mo for electing me to another term on West De Mo City Council. Um, this will be my fifth term on city council. Russ and I started at the same time. He has moved up to mayor now, but uh Russ, we've seen a lot over these 16 years, and I know we're going to see a a lot of other great things over these next four. So, uh, it's been an honor to work with, uh, with you and this entire council and city staff. So, I just want to say thank you to the residents and, uh, if you need me, give me a call.

Thank you, Councilman. You know, I would I would echo your comments. It's, uh, you know, we came in here together back in 2009. 2010 was our first year. We started working on this uh thing called the comprehensive plan and we had meetings that regular meetings that went till you know I don't know 9 10:00 then we did then we did the comprehensive plan we did executive sessions and we were regularly ending at about midnight and I leaned over to Mayor Gar and I said is this how this goes he said not usually but we have the comprehensive plan we had a lot of long long nights that first year and but it's been an honor to serve with you and and to get to know you and and your family uh very well. And you know, I sit here and look at this young man sitting in the front. He wasn't quite that big uh when you first got elected,

nor were your kids. No, no. [laughter] It's it's it's amazing. So, it's huge honor. Appreciate uh everybody that uh went out and uh participated in the process, voted for me. Uh it is uh the greatest honor of my life to serve as the mayor of this city. So, thank you so much for your comments. All right, Councilman Lot, two quick things. Um, I want uh there's four young scouts in the back. Would you guys please stand up? And uh I want to recognize them for coming. They're working on a scout merit badge. So, thank you for coming. [applause]

Thanks for coming, uh you guys. Um, the second thing I want to say is, um, uh, I've never been prouder to serve with five people as I am of you guys. I'm thankful to get another four years to do this. Um, you're all awesome in your own ways and it's been the honor of a lifetime and I'm excited to continue to serve. I would like to tell a funny story about the mayor. Does anybody want to hear that? I'll be really quick. I don't know if I do, [laughter] please. The first time I ever met the mayor, before he was even elected to city council, he was running for office. He knocked on my door and woke me up from a nap on Saturday afternoon. And I didn't like him very much then, but I like him a lot now. So, [laughter]

I didn't get I didn't get a vote in either one in in either lots that that year. I remember that distinctly. So, thank you, Councilman. Um, Councilwoman Hardman.

Yeah. Yeah. I [clears throat] I too want to thank everybody for their vote of confidence and um electing me for my third uh seat. While I am on a different journey and I'll wait for remarks later because we don't know what that how that journey will end. But um regardless of what happens, I will still continue to serve the constituents and the citizens of West De Mo. This has been a public service um of a lifetime um serving with each of you. Each of you taught me various things about what it is to be a sitting council woman and um I am appreciative of what I've learned and what I've serve and more later, but um just kind of in a journey of doing something different, but excited to still serve Western whatever capacity that might be. Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman. All right. Moving on to item four, consent agenda. Are there any items that any council person would like to have pulled and voted on separately? Otherwise, I would uh take a motion to uh move the consent agenda as distributed.

So, move. Second. Okay. So, moved and seconded. Um please vote. [clears throat]

Five. Yes. Okay. Item five, old business. Item 5A, Cedar Ridge, lot 28, 9217, Cedar Ridge Drive. Amend the zoning map to establish single family residential zoning. Zachary and Haley Sims. [clears throat] We've got an ordinance amendment for approval of the second reading. Wave the third reading, adoption, final form. There are no outstanding issues and no change from the previous reading, which was adopted unanimously by the council at our last meeting. Move consideration of second reading. Second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Okay, please vote. [clears throat]

Five. Yes. Or amending the official zoning map of the city of Westwood, Iowa 2024 by amending title 9 zoning chapter 4 zoning districts and maps. Move approval of the second reading. Second. Please vote.

Five. Yes. Move to wave the third reading and adopt in final form. Second. All right. Please vote. Five. Yes. Okay. Item 5B, Jordan West 270 Jordan Creek Parkway. Amend the Jordan West specific plan ordinance to reduce the building setbacks required along the southwest property line from 80 ft to 50 ft. Ryan Company's USA Inc. or US Inc. we've once again got an ordinance amendment for approval. The second reading wave the third reading adoption final form. There are no outstanding issues and no changes from the previous reading which was adopted unanimously by the council at our last meeting. Motion to consider second reading.

Is there a second? Okay, it's been moved and second. Is there any discussion? All right, seeing none, please vote. [clears throat] Five. Yes. Normatic city code of the city mo 2024 and the Jordan West Pacific plan ordinance numbers 1749, 2097, 2384, and 2554 pertain to plan unit development district regulations and guidelines. Motion to approve the second reading. Second. Please vote. Five yes. Motion to wave the third reading and adopt in final form. Second. Please vote. Five. Yes.

Okay. Item 5 C. Um, ordinance amendment amend title two boards and commissions. Chapter 2 board of adjustments section 4 jurisdiction powers by repealing and replacing chapter 2 section 4 jurisdiction powers in its entirety. We have once again got an ordinance amendment for approval of the second reading. Waver the third adoption of final form. There are no outstanding issues. No changes from the previous reading which was adopted unanimously by the council at our last meeting. Move consideration of second reading. Second. It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Okay. Please vote.

Five. Yes. Or amending the city code of the city of West Mo Iowa 2024 by many title two boards and commissions chapter 2 board of adjustment section 4 jurisdiction powers by repealing and replacing section four. Move approval of second reading. Second. Please vote. Five. Yes. Move waiver of the third reading and adopt in final form. Second. All right. Please vote. Five. Yes.

Okay. Item 5D, amendment city code, title 4, health and safety regulations, chapter 3, fire code. Adopt the International Fire Code 2024 edition with local amendments. Repeal the International Fire Code 2021 edition with local amendments. Uh we've got uh once again an ordinance amendment for approval of the second reading wave of third adoption file form. There are no outstanding issues and no changes from the previous reading which was adopted unanimously by the council at our last meeting. Somebody want to move second reading. Second. All right, it's been moved and second. Is there any discussion? Okay, please vote. [snorts]

Five. Yes. Nor amended city code of the city west 2024 by repealing title 4 health and safety regulations chapter 3 fire code in and in lie thereof adopting the 2024 edition of the international fire code. Motion to approve the second reading. Second. Please vote. Five. Yes. Motion to wave that third reading and adopt in final form. Second. Please vote. Five. Yes.

Okay. Item 5E amendment city code title six motor vehicles and traffic title uh chapter 5G rules of the road miscellaneous rules section 10 general traffic regulations to comply with Iowa code section 321.238. We have once again got an ordinance amendment for approval of the second reading. Waver the third adoption of final form. There are no outstanding issues and no changes from the previous reading which was adopted unanimously by the council at our last meeting. Move consideration of the second reading. Second. Okay. It's a move and a second. Is there any discussion? Okay. Hearing none. Please vote. [clears throat] Five. Yes. Norman city code of the city of West De Mo Iowa 2024 by many title six motor vehicles and traffic chapter 5G rules of the road miscellaneous rules.

Move approval of the second reading. Second. Please vote. Five. Yes. Move to wave the third reading and adopt in final form. Second. Please vote. It's Greg. Five. Yes.

Okay. Okay. Item 5F, repeal of Sugar Creek Storm Water Connection Fee District, Title 7, Chapter 8, Article H--1. Uh, we've got an ordinance amendment for approval, second reading, way of the third reading, adoption of final form. There are no outstanding issues and no changes from the previous reading, which was adopted unanimously by the council at our last meeting. Move consideration second reading. Second. Okay, it's moved and second. Is there any discussion? Okay, please vote. [clears throat] Five. Yes. North amendment city code of the city of West Manima 2024 title 7 chapter 8 by repealing article H1 Sugar Creek storm water connection fee district. Motion for approval second reading second. Please vote.

Five yes. Motion to uh wave the third reading adopted from the form. Second. Please vote. Five yes. Okay. Item 5G, uh, approval of professional service agreement, Jamimeie Herd Amphitheater restroom. We've got a motion for approval of the professional service agreement with OPN architects for design and construction administration of restrooms at the Jamie Herd Amphitheater and there are no outstanding issues. Okay, it's moved and seconded. I would also point out this was approved unanimously by the public services city council subcommittee. Um, is there any discussion? Yes. Okay, go ahead, council.

All right. Although I am 100% in favor of restrooms at the amphitheater and I have advocated for a long time and I'm going to continue to do it at least for the next four years that we need restrooms in all of our parks whether it's a neighborhood park, a regional park, whatever. My concern is though the cost of these restrooms. I don't know how we come up with, [clears throat] you know, threequarters of a million dollars for a restroom down in Railroad Park. And I questioned it then and uh Valley View, according to this one, says that the restroom portion was around $550,000. So, I would strongly urge staff to look at the restrooms that Pulk County installed out at Brown's Woods,

which is a um prefab building that has toilet and sink in it, and it's basically just planted there, and that's it. I don't know why we need such fancy restrooms. We need a roof, walls, and doors that lock and flushing toilets and a sink to wash your hands.

And a sink to wash your hands. You're right. That's that that's it. We don't need all this real fancy stuff for 3/4 of a million dollar bathrooms. So, I would urge staff uh and Tom that's ultimately [clears throat] uh at your level as well to find a way to and you know use what Poke County used cuz they they work just fine and it's it's all we need. Okay. I agree with Councilman's Trailion by the way. I think if we can look into it to lower costs, I agree wholeheartedly. I I do as well. And maybe that's something we can take up at FNA. I don't know to examine the cost of these things. But yeah,

we do need restrooms, but they're expensive. I couldn't agree more. At a point in time where we talk about affordable housing, we're going to build a restroom. We budget it up for $870,000 is not something I can support. I also take a look at city hall here. Most folks that are going to go to the amphitheater are going to park at city hall and they're going to [snorts] walk right by this building where we have restrooms. And I can appreciate how we uh need to ensure appropriate security protocols are in place. I think we can do that for a lot less than spending this kind of money here. I appreciate Ryan sharing me with the information. I appreciate [snorts] this council uh deferring two weeks so I could get some information. Um but uh I I agree with Kevin's comments. Thank you.

I have a question. Is it a process where we've gotten two to three bids or not yet? I I think we've just been bitted out yet, right? Estimate of probable cost. [laughter] We're looking at doing well, not even that. We're looking at doing a design here. Okay. And then I think we already have probably an estimate of probable cost based on some of the last couple restrooms that we've done. Okay.

Where inflation has caused that amount to go up. So I I think what staff is saying based on very similar bathrooms that we've built in the past, this is what we can expect for these to cost. But they're looking at going out. We're approving tonight the design um I believe of this restroom. The question that I have as mayor is if you guys are on board with what Kevin's talking about taking a look at a different design. I mean is this this is I guess direction uh to OPN at this point in time for design of the bathroom. I I'll speak for myself, your honor. I sure would like to do $112,000 to design a bathroom.

That's a great business to me. What is that? Could agree more.

Well, I think what we need to look at is, you know, I think it's wise to take a look at this. If there's another design that these guys can come up with that's that's reasonable and accommodating to our citizens, then let's take a look at that. Maybe it cost less. Uh but if it doesn't and it comes back and you know the cost of this thing is 750,000 uh and we've looked at every single piece of this then at some point in time it's the cost of doing business and we got to make a decision as to whether or not restrooms up here um are something that you all as a council and uh that we as staff want to push. I think the reason that it's here today is that we've got really hardworking parks and recck staff that are working nights and weekends. They're staffing the Jamie Herd amphitheater and they're getting complaints from people that are there on a pretty regular basis that we don't have any modern-day facilities uh for use uh when they're there with their families trying to enjoy a concert. So, I think we also pride ourselves on, you know, listening to our input and feedback from residents and taking that into account when making decisions. So, I'm all for it. Let's look at it. Let's see if the um if OP architects can come up with something that's more simple in design. And I don't think that we're trying to come up with the Taj Mahal bathroom. [clears throat]

Your honor, I I think um what's up for a vote today is the expense for the design, if I read this right. Right. for the architect to for the architect to do it and and I I want a restroom at the Jamie Herd Amphitheater as well right out here. We need it. Um I think the thing that we should take up is we should more closely examine why what costs $112,000 to build a restroom. Yeah. Just to do the design before we ever pour a yard of concrete out there. Um and I think that's something we can look at at FNA. Um

I I think we could do it at staff level and bring you back some recom it's a whole difference of what level restroom one's nicer and if you just want to go with a simple you know well and maybe it's got to be four stalls for you know on both sides or something and maybe there's something that's not here. I it it's hard for me to

I understand. I I've always said the reason restrooms are more expensive is because they got plumbing and they got just aspects of them that are just costlier to do. And and then also when projects are smaller, the percentage of cost of professional services are higher as a percentage. So that's why it seems like that. But this isn't like this is common if you do a custommade bathroom. Now if you do like Kevin's talking about, there could be some savings. It's not aesthetically going to look as good, but we can certainly look at that and say this is the another option of an estimated, you know, a cost that would be lower.

I I just find it hard to believe that our residents are be so [clears throat] concerned about the the look of it rather than the function of it. I mean, nobody wants to use a Kybo as the only facility at the amphitheater, at a neighborhood park, whatever it might be. But again, if it works for Pulk County, I don't know why it won't work for West De Moines. And I I I voiced this when we were doing the the bathrooms down in Railroad Park.

I mean, I I just don't know why they need to be that fancy. And so, I would encourage us to talk with Pulk County, find out what uh vendor they're using, and get a cost of those because they work. And again, it's my understanding, Ryan, that we've already got sewer and water out here where this is going to be placed, right? Electrical and water. Electrical water. Y Okay. So, we've got a sewer line that we got to put in. So, again, by already having the electric and and um water out there, that substantially reduces the cost of what a bathroom otherwise would cost.

I just again, I don't think we need something that's super super fancy. No. And I and I would say looking at what we have down at Railroad Park, I think that's it's pretty standard, right? It it's nothing. I' I'd beg to differ on that one. I again I Have you been to the ones out at Brownswoods? Yep. And I was just saying, what's wrong with them? What's wrong with the one we got down at Legion Park?

There's There's nothing wrong with them. It's just a prefab compared to what we're looking at here. I got the direction that we need to look at all options. I think with the event space that we have here, one option is that we need to look at the family restroom part of it. When you have young families that need a changing table and things like that, those are things that we need to consider when we're hosting events out here. If you're planning, if you want to do a wedding or wedding reception out here, that is one question we get is what kind of restrooms do you have? and a lot of people turn us away because we have portable restrooms right now. So, um

I appreciate this consideration and and we will work if if approved, we will work with OPN and give them the direction to look at all possible ways to uh drive this cost down.

I think we're trying to find a nice balance here because I think a lot of us do want some restrooms out there and I am supportive of this particular item. Uh, that's why I made the motion. Or maybe Renee made the motion. I second it. But I'm supportive of this going forward because it does cost quite a bit to to do this. Now, I think maybe it's a little bit uh it's a little bit more of an unexpected expense, but prices have just gone up over the last 5 years even since we made the pavilion down or at least the restroom down in [laughter] in Valley Junction. Uh to that end, uh Ryan, are is it of your opinion that this is a pretty standard cost for a restroom? It might not be a pre-fabricated thing, but considering the number of considering the number of stalls at Browns Woods versus the number of stalls here, that would be different. The size here and the necessity for some other amenity, not amenities, but I mean it's a bathroom. But considering what you just said about families being here way more than out there, I think there's some extra considerations to be made.

Yep. Again, I think a a very comparable one is what we'd have down at Railroad Park, and that cost was just over $600,000 four years ago. So, if you take inflation 5% the last couple years, you're right around that 700,000 mark. That's a conservative number. Obviously, we hope that bids would come in good and that we're at a lower cost, but we we don't want to give you a lower number and then come back and say we need 250 300,000 more dollars today [snorts] [clears throat] to complete this project. I think my question resolves around are most of these restrooms like the rau railroad

the railroad one we were talking about aren't they fairly similar like to me what I'm worried about is architecture just going to plop down another plan and charge us 112 grand and it's the same thing now is there unique design characteristics here that take all those hours the only thought was this is it that we wanted to tie in some of the aesthetics to the the structure of the of the amphitheater itself. So, I mean, I think they can be pretty standard, but um the other thing that we wanted to look at is just additional storage, but again, if we're trying to lower the cost, I don't think we're going to get additional storage on this facility, but we're lacking storage over there. Well, I didn't see how many square feet this facility is going to be. We don't we don't have that. Yeah.

And that's what we got to pay the 112 grand for. Correct. So to expand on that, you're saying that part of this $112,000 is to design something that's got architectural characteristics of the amphitheater. That is our hope. And I again I just struggle with why is that needed? I mean I

well I think we want to have the same standards that we would hold the private sector to when doing development. That's that's one thing I know we have done that's caused some of our costs to go maybe a little bit higher because if we're going to if we're going to require the private sector to do a building or development with certain standards, we've got to abide by those standards. I don't know that there's going to be a private sector developer that's going to plop down a private bathroom in the middle of a city park. But I think that's the answer to the standards. We've got to adhere to the same standards. Like when doing the reclex, we talked about that. When doing the the public works facility, we talked about doing that. We don't want a Taj Mahal, but if we're asking the private sector to do a certain level of development, we can't ask for that and then do a lesser standard. You know what I mean?

I feel like that we're missing some [clears throat] information. Like, I'm not talking about the standard thing. I'm honed in on the 112 grand and I'm thinking that's a lot of hours and a nice high rate. And architects certainly deserve that. But I don't know that this restroom is going to take I'm thinking about my own consulting gigs in the past. It's not going to take 12 weeks to design this bathroom. Again, I I would I can't [clears throat] believe

I would question what what vendor the county is using and what the cost of those are and do they have a prefab that's got the family part of it as well as individual men and women. So, I just again I think it's almost kind of the cart before the horse. All right. Councilwoman Hardman. Yeah. And I'm not trying to [clears throat] I think it's time to flush the toilet and kind of make a decision on where we're at here. And I am hearing that we want to try to lower cost.

I'm hearing that FNA can look into this. I'm hearing Ryan who also understands the cost of if we had a bathroom that was 600,000 400 four years ago, my goodness 700,000. Um seems a little logical. I'd like to see whether this can um go to FNA for more consideration and allow Ryan to talk with the professional services agreement to see whether there's a little give and take. Otherwise, I think we're going to be talking about this all night. I think we're ready to move this to have Ryan have more deeper dive discussions on all the options that have been presented. You presented an option and let's move forward.

Ryan, are there any timeline considerations for you here? No, [snorts] we obviously we wanted to get it approved and start working with the the architects and that uh construction would start after the amphitheater season. So, fall of 2026 and then in hopes that it would be ready to go for summer 2027. So,

well, I don't know that we even need to bring it to FNA. I mean, I think we could probably bring have the architect put together different plans. you know, maybe the most economical plan you can looking at the Poke County building as an example and then something that maybe fits in with what you were looking at doing and then you can bring that back here and the council can make a decision as to what they want to do. Yeah. I I mean this is again for the the design the the construction is going to [clears throat] come up in the CIP

for the upcoming fiscal year. So, um, we should have, I mean, that's what we're working towards. So, you still have to approve the construction of this project. You've got your marching orders on the design, come up with a couple different alternatives. Uh, and we'll go from there. So, I think we got a motion in a second. Can we figure this out and move on? Yeah. Yeah, let's All right. But just just to clarify though, this is this is a motion to approve an expenditure of $112,270 for the design for the design. I

Yes, I there is there is a point of of order and that this is a lump sum contract. So if we're going to do the things you're saying, Ryan, I think we need to go talk sit down with the architect and talk about scope of services. That's right. So, do you want us to defer because they would get this regardless and that doesn't mean they're going to say if they would look at that as a change of scope if we said we also want you to do this, right? That's right. I I think I think that's what we I hate to Do you want to defer? Should we defer? Yeah, I think we defer because we got to get to talk to them directly about the contract, what we're we've heard what you're saying, so I think we just got to get the contract right so it allows that to happen. Who made Who made the second? I I made the motion. You made the motion.

I made the second. You made the second. So you withdraw your second. I will withdraw my second. Withdraw your motion. I withdraw my motion. I make a motion to defer. Second. Okay. For indefinitely until we come back to us. I want to make it clear that uh I do believe that we need to have a design that makes sense for that space. I think I want to make it clear that I think the residents would like a permanent bathroom there that does not look out of place. But at the same time, I I think at the same time, we can cut costs when we can. And so, yep. Okay, let's go forward with this. We have we have a motion in a second. Please vote. Bet [clears throat] these scouts didn't realize what they were coming to tonight, [laughter] huh?

Man, [snorts] lots of bathroom. Yeah, mom. They talked about bathrooms forever. Said, why are they talking about Wow. Why don't they just get portaotties is what they're probably saying. Unbelievable. They don't want them. Except for that anybody that's gone into Portaotti realizes why we're talking about bathrooms. You guys, I don't care. I I want a nice bathroom. So, I do not They're having weddings there and things here. Got to do something that fits. You don't want an Armani suit with docsiders. Okay, moving on to item six, public hearings. They are they are leaving now. All right, they've had enough for the You had enough of bathrooms. Enough for one evening. Thank you all for being here. topic.

That's the kind of sexy stuff we talk about here. Bathrooms. Okay. Item six uh 6A. Um I believe this one has been uh this one's been withdrawn. Is that correct? We need a motion to motion to motion to withdraw. Second continue. To continue January 5th. Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Please vote. Kevin, who we wait five? Yes. Okay. Uh item 6B. Uh we need a motion motion to continue that as well. Second.

Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Please vote.

[clears throat] Five. Yes. Okay. Item 6 C. We're being asked to continue. Motion to continue. Second. Okay. It's moved and seconded. Please vote.

Five. Yes. Okay. Item 6D. Uh we're being asked to do a motion to withdraw. Motion don't draw amendment. Second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Please vote. Five. Yes. Okay. Item 6E is is being recommended to be withdraw. Motion to withdraw. Second. Okay. Please vote. Five. Yes. [cough] [clears throat]

All right. Back to the regular program. Item 6F. This is a time and a place for a public hearing to consider amendment city code title 9 zoning chapter 7 setback and bulk density regulations modified regulations pertaining to uncovered decks in the front yard initiated by the city of West De Mo. Ryan, would you please read the date the notice is published? November 28th, 2025 in the De Mo register and have received any written comments this hearing. The plan zone commission by a vote of six yes with one absent adopt a resolution recommending approval of the ordinance amendment.

Okay. Anybody in the audience who would like to address council at item 6F, please come to the podium, give us your name and address for the record. Anybody online, please hit star six to unmute yourself and do the same. Is there anybody in the chamber or online that would like to address the council on item 6F? Okay. Hearing and seeing no one, I'll declare the public hearing closed. We've got an ordinance amendment for approval of the first reading and there are no outstanding issues. Move consideration of the first reading. Second. It's a move and seconded. Is there any discussion? Okay. Hearing none, please vote. [snorts] [clears throat]

Five. Yes. Norman in the city code of the city of Westwood, Iowa 2024 title 9 zoning chapter 7 setback and bulk density regulation pertaining to allowance of uncovered decks in the front yard. Move approval of the first reading. Second. Please vote. [clears throat] Five. Yes. Okay. Item 6G. This is time and to place for a public hearing. Consider amendment city code title 9 zoning chapter 6 commercial office industrial zoning district. Modify regulations pertaining to SIC 58 eating and drinking places in the professional commerce park zoning district initiated by Serenity Couture Salon and Spa. Ryan, would you please read the date the notice was published?

November 28th, 2025 in the De Mo Register. And have we received any written comments to this hearing? The plan zoning commission by a vote of six yes with one absent adopt a resolution recommending approval of the ordinance amendment. Okay. Anybody in the audience would like to address council on item 6G, please come to the podium. Give us your name and address of the record. Anybody online, hit star six to unmute yourself and do the same. Is there anybody either in the chamber or online that would like to address the council on this item? Okay. Seeing no motion in the chamber and hearing nothing from the phones, I'm going to declare the public hearing closed. We've got uh an ordinance amendment for approval of the first reading and there are no outstanding issues. Motion to say the first reading. Second.

Okay, it's been moved and second. Is there any discussion? Okay, please vote. Five. Yes. Amen. The city code of the city of West Iowa 2024 title 9 zoning chapter 6 commercial office and industrial zoning district pertaining to the allowance of bar restaurant class 2 and bar no drive-through as a permitted and permitted conditional use in the professional commerce park zoning district. Motion to approve reading number one. Second. Okay, please vote. [cough] [clears throat]

Five yes. Okay. Um, moving on to item 6H. This is a time to place for a public hearing to consider global aviation southeast corner of Cascade Avenue and South 78th Street. Vacation of 172 ft of South 78th Street rightaway initiated by Shojot Properties, Inc. Ryan, would you please read the date the notice was published? November 28th, 2025 in the De Mo Register and have received any written comments at this hearing. uh plan zone commission by a vote of six yes with one absent adopted a resolution recommending approval of the vacation request.

Okay. Anybody in the audience who would like to address the council on item 6H, please come to the podium, give us your name and address for the record. Anybody online, hit star six to unmute yourself and do the same. Would anybody like to address the council on this item? Okay. Once again, hearing and seeing no one, I'll declare the public hearing closed. We've got an ordinance amendment for approval of the first reading to vacate city property and there are no outstanding issues. Motion to consider the first reading. Is there a second? Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? It's amazing that we got to do this for such a little tiny piece of ground. Yeah,

it I just got a question though. I mean, this is just going back to the property for free or are we selling the rightway to them? The reason I asked that is because when I lived down at 7:22 Fifth Street and the city vacated what would have been the alleyway through there, they sold those property that piece of property to myself and the adjoining neighbors. So, I'm just free or charging them. No, there will uh it will be sold. Okay. Okay. Uh because this is an urban renewal area, we are required also to put it out for a public bidding process that is a little uh lengthier than the typical.

Okay. Thank you for clarifying. Okay. Any other questions, comments? Okay. Hearing none, please vote. [snorts] Five. Yes. An ordinance vacating 172 feet of rightway of Cascade Avenue. Motion to approve the first reading. Please vote. Five. Yes. Okay. Item six. I this time to place for a public hearing to consider 2025 parking lot repair program initiated by the city of West De Mo. Ryan, would you please read the date the notice is published? November 28th, 2025 in the De Mo register.

And have we received any written comments at this hearing? None, your honor. Okay. Anybody in the audience like to address council on this item? Please come to the podium. Give us your name and address to the record. If you're online, hit star six to unmute yourself and do the same. Is there anybody either in the chamber or online that would like to address the council on item 6 I. [cough] [clears throat] All right. Hearing and seeing no one, I'll declare the public hearing closed. And we've got two resolutions and a motion we can take at the same time. And there are no outstanding issues. Move approval. Second. It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion on the DAS? Hearing none, please vote.

Five. Yes. Okay. Item 6J. This is a time and a place for a public hearing to consider City Hall Trail. Let's start over. I didn't have my mic on. This is time and a place to have a public hearing to consider City Hall Trail extension initiated by the city of West De Mo. Ryan, would you please read the date the notice is published? November 28th, 2025 in the De Mo Register. And if we receive any written comments at this hearing? None, your honor.

Okay. Anybody in the audience would like to address council on item 6J, please come to the podium, give us your name and address for the record. If you're online, hit star six to unmute yourself and do the same. Is there anybody either in the chamber or online that would like to address the council on item 6J? [snorts] Okay. Hearing and seeing no one, I'll declare the public hearing closed. We've uh once again got two resolutions and a motion which we can take at the same time. And there are no outstanding issues. Motion to approve. Second. It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion on the DAS? Okay. Please vote. Five. Yes.

Okay. Item seven, new business. Item 7 A, Timber Null at the preserve plat 3 west of the intersection of Southwest uh Wild Bergamont Drive. Who names these streets? And southwest Meadow Rose Avenue accept Shy and release final plat to create 29 lots for single family development and three street lots. Raccoon River Land Company. We've got a resolution for acceptance of shity and approval and release of the final plat. And there are no outstanding issues. Motion to approve. Second.

Okay. Is there anybody either online or in the chamber that would like to address the council on this item? Okay. Okay. Is there any discussion on the dis? All right. In that case, please vote. Five. Yes.

Okay. Item 7B. Hidden Estates at the preserve plat one west of the intersection is Southwest Wild Bergamont Drive again and Southwest Meadow Rose Avenue. Accept shy and release a final plat to create 40 lots for single family development, four outlots and four street lots. Raccoon River Land Company and we've got a resolution for acceptance of shy and approval and release of the final plat. There are no outstanding issues. There are two conditions of approval. One is related to the council providing a waiver of city code to allow public utility easements to be in the front lawns and the other is in regards to the city receiving all executed easement documents prior to the plat being recorded by Dallas County. Motion to approve. Second.

It's been moved and seconded. Is there anybody in the audience or online that would like to address the council on this item? [cough] Okay. Is there any discussion in the dis please vote? Five. Yes.

Okay. Item 7 C, South Branch Business Park, Building 2, 4500 Southeast Army Post Road. approve a full site plan to allow construction of a 76,800 ft office and warehouse space building WB realy company LLC. Uh we have got a resolution for approval of the site plan and there are no outstanding issues. That said, there are two conditions of approval with this action item regarding restricted uses on the site and requirement for the applicant owner to execute an easement with West De Moine Waterworks outlining prohibited uses as well as site improvements necessary for protection of water sources in the area. All that said, what was approved by PNZ was the site plan without these two conditions of approval. So before we take any action, I'm going to go to city attorney Greta Truman to let us know from a parliamentary procedure uh what we do in this case should we um want to approve the two conditions of approval given that it was voted down essentially by PNZ.

You could add those u back in. I don't know that you Ryan I don't think they would need to be removed. I think you just add them in. Well, there's a memo related to this one that changed the conditions of approval from what was in the in the pinky. So, I'm not [clears throat] sure.

Regardless, PNZ approved approved the site plan, but essentially, for lack of a better term, rejected the two conditions of approval with it. So, I guess what my what I'm seeking to understand is if the council chooses to approve this with the two items amended or not, um, do we need a supermajority vote on this? No, you do not. This is the site plan in a supermajority. So, not for site plans. No. All right. So, does somebody want to make a motion? Mr. Mayor,

yes. I I think the recommendation of staff is is um to include a revised number two um [snorts] condition of approval. Yep. As reflected in the memo to your right agreeing. Y Lyn Tweet, director of development services, just what Greta had said where we provided you a memo.

Um after discussing with legal, it's our opinion that condition number one is not needed. It is covered in city code. Condition number two, however, we would like to see remain and just be rewarded to be um that the applicant developer shall obtain permanent water to the building prior to issuance of occupancy permits. So, there's an ongoing discussion between the developer and waterworks, but just by code, you have to have that. Um there are site plan findings that we do not feel they can meet if they don't [clears throat] have that water and that's why we can condition it. So, city code gives you that authority to provide a condition that in will make the site plan 100% consistent with code for lack of a better way to say that. I kind of bumbled that. So, 918 A2C as in your memo

that says there are certain there's five site plan findings that you have to be able to make. We can make four out of the five. the fifth one which is number three in those findings. The council has that authority to say if I can't make all of those findings I can place a condition that would make it compliant. That is what we are asking you to do with this condition of approval. If by chance they do not get the water, this site plan would not be compliant. So we are requiring them to get that obtain that permanent water supply in order to make this site plan work. And Lynn, uh, have you talked to the, uh, applicant on, uh, this condition? And,

and they're here and I want to hear from them before we have a motion made. So, yeah, just curious. Um, it is still, from what I've heard just from a quick email, I did send this to them this afternoon from the quick email I got back is their preference is to remove both conditions of approval. Okay. And your position is that in order to comply with our current ordinance, we can remove one, but we would need to keep condition two. Right. condition two because if we do not have water I cannot say that it meets the health, safety and welfare. You would not have sanitary sewer within the building. You would not have fire suppression. So if they do not get the water, they should not be occupying that building. And I would suspect that I mean we didn't talk about this in development planning, but often times uh fire marshall Woodsell would have concern if there's going to be an issue related to fire suppression.

Right. And we did check with Mike Whitell about construction. There is plenty of temporary water or through the current hydrants that's on site to get us through construction, but not permanent water to be able to hit that the fire suppression, the sprinklers that'll be in the building. I'm going to ask Christina Murphy. Do you have anything that you want to add to this? Let's get let's get Christina up here, but let's go to Dan [clears throat] first from WB Realy. Let's let's hear what he has to say, then we'll go to Christina and then somebody can make a motion based on the information that we've heard from the three.

Good evening. Dan Carlson, WB Realy, 70001 Westtown Parkway, sweet 265 in West De Mo. Uh the reason we're requesting that that uh restriction to be removed is just that um like was mentioned, we're already going to be required to bring water to the to the building before we get um occupancy. Anyways, um yeah, Mike Whitell would have a a big problem with us getting a certificate of occupancy without water to the site. Um just seems like a redundant uh clause to have on this approval. planning and zoning approved it with no conditions and we'd ask the same. Can I just ask Dan? So, you're saying that you're going to comply anyway? It's redundant in the sense that you're going to be

comp. Yeah. I mean, we're we're not going to be able to get a a certificate of occupancy with the building department or fire without water in the building regardless. So, if it's redundant, it really shouldn't matter if we have the condition in there as staff is requesting. Right. 100%. I'm wondering why this is even coming up. It's bizarre to me. So, you don't have a problem adding in We don't have a problem having it in there. It's just it's not required. It just seems redundant. It seems unnecessary to have it documented on as a condition of approval. It should just be a fullsight plan approval as presented. But if it's not an issue, then [clears throat]

what's it going to hurt if it is a condition? I mean, if you have to meet it anyhow, what's it hurt to have it on the official documents? Well, I I think that gives I think that gives West De Moine Waterworks, and we'll hear from Christina the ability because they're going to have to negotiate an easement with West De Mo Waterworks. Uh, and that easement is going to include uses that are prohibited and site improvements required uh to provide protections to the water sources. So, essentially, this gives some kind of [clears throat] those be two separate items. The the restrictions of uses would be in the PUD amendment that's been continued. Um the the uh water service to the building is going to be an ongoing discussion with waterworks uh just to continue to negotiate a deal for that.

Let's hear from I'd like to hear from Christina. Yeah. Let's hear from Christina.

Hello mayor and council. Good evening. Christina Murphy West my waterworks general manager. Um just a quick explanation. It is this is complicated and messy. Okay, I recognize that. Um the [clears throat] history a little bit is I think you all recall spray tech and some of the challenges that we had with that and you tked the waterworks to get more specific about the requirements that we need for source water protection and we budgeted for that source water protection plan and it's in process right now. I have a draft actually on my desk. Um, so we heard what you said and we listened and we're trying to execute that. The developers desired to move forward before that plan is in place. Um, as we've been doing the planning, there have been certain uses that are of concern for source water protection. Given that this development is right adjacent to Purple Martin Lake, it's not a current water supply, but it is a planned future water supply for the McMullen plant, which for West De Moine, we get about 30% of our water from that plant most of the time. So, um, we tried to negotiate uh with the developer in good faith. We originally tried to go through the PUD process. you don't you continue that hearing tonight because that was deferred and that did had certain uses that were prohibited as part of the ongoing discussion. Um our legal council because waterworks is separate there's a separate sort of entity there uh felt like an easement would be appropriate given that a PUD could be changed by the council in the future. Um and so we are requesting an easement. it is a condition of service to this parcel. Typically at the site plan process, those types of issues have been sorted out before a site plan is approved. In this case, that issue is not sorted out yet. We're still

negotiating with the developer and so we believe a condition is appropriate. Can you can some can someone I don't know thank you for [clears throat] being here. Thank you for the explanation. Uh share a little bit about what happened at the P&Z. I mean was this discussed in detail. Was this condition why was this condition not approved by the P&Z?

Um I don't know Lyn, you're probably the more appropriate person to explain that. We had discuss obviously the PUD and the site plan were on the same agenda. The PUD there were a couple of questions that we were still working with with legal. They asked to defer that which I can support that. Um we want to make sure it's right and we appreciate that the city has been city staff have been supportive of that. um on the site plan. Um I don't know how you would characterize that. I think they felt like um it wasn't needed. Um but the challenge with that is um as I pointed out to city staff is that if there's no water service, it's sort of hard to know that you can have a site plan to be approved a building be functional without water. It's not just fire suppression, it's um public health and safety. And so by deferring that PUD, it sort of created this sort of complication I think with the site plan.

Well, and and had the PUD move forward and maybe the conditions might not be needed, but it's deferred at this point. Well, and and to be clear, the we have a we have an amended conditions that we are to be considering. one is gone

and two remains, but two essentially just says now at this point in time that the applicant developer shall obtain permanent water service to the building prior to issuance of any occupancy permit, including any temporary occupancy permits. So, I I'm guessing I mean either way, they can't do anything until they get water to the site. To get water to the site, they're going to have to go through you. If you believe that they are going to have a use of the building that isn't something they should have, you're probably not going to allow water to go to the site, right?

Uh until we work out the terms of the easement, we we're not going to move forward with water service to the site.

So, it's it's it's covered with or without this basically without this second. I think it would be helpful if the city normally when we bring a site plan together obviously we sit on the development review [clears throat] services all of those water things typically are all worked out prior to coming forward with site plan approval. I mean I if there if they're not there have been conditions and so I wouldn't see this any differently but uh Greta can weigh in on that. That would be my recommendation, but I I appreciate that there's there's another separate process there occurring. But usually we we work together, step together in line.

Well, I I'll just say I I appreciate the the [clears throat] commentary and and um I wish this was I mean I I can appreciate this is I don't know. I think this is our last meeting of the year, so maybe this is something you needed to get done and and uh and so therefore it didn't come to development and planning and and here we are hashing it out. I think, you know, uh, given the proximity to our water sources and what you're saying relative to public health and safety, um, at least to me, uh, I don't see any harm. I I see, you know, Dan was saying we're going to be compliant anyway. I think this is maybe belt and suspenders, it sounds like, but when it comes to water source, I think that's probably a good thing to do. So, I'm comfortable with with the second uh condition as as outlined here on the memo.

Okay. Any other additional comment before I go to somebody to make a motion of some kind? We'll see what that might be. I'll make a motion. Okay. Second. All right. I I move to uh let's see, approve item 7 C consistent with the memo that's before us that would remove um condition number one and uh adopt condition number two with the modified language that simply states the applicant developer shall obtain permanent water service to the building prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits including any temporary occupancy permits. Second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Do we want to try to beat the bathroom discussion? Is there any further discussion on this issue? No.

Moving. Well, let's see. We took what, 20 minutes on that? Yeah. Anybody else in the audience or online that would like to address the council on this item?

Okay. Hearing no one, please vote. Five. Yes. Okay. Item 7D, [clears throat] Global Aviation, 7760 Cascade Avenue, approve a major modification site plan to allow construction of approximately 5,400 foot building edition, Global A Global Aviation Resources. Uh we've got a resolution for approval of a major modification of the site plan. There are no outstanding issues. However, there is one condition of approval related to the deferral of nine parking spaces until such time those parking spaces are deemed necessary by the city. Somebody want to move approval of the resolution.

So moved. Second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Uh is there anybody in the audience or online that would like to address the council on this item? Is there any discussion on the dis? I'm going to ask it. Who's going to police this to [clears throat] know when these other nine stalls are needed? I mean, I just they're either to me they're either needed or they're not. I don't know. I'm assuming it's going to be on a complaint basis. And as the pinky says, people observe parking on the grass and other places. [snorts] All right, Lynn. What he said, that's quick.

That is that's how we handle Lynn tweet, director of development services. Whenever we are deferring parking spaces, that really is what it amounts to. It is a complaint driven is if anybody sees that they're parking on the grass, parking in no parking zones all the time. If we have any kind of reports of any issues, we will go out and trip them. Um the most recent one was the foundry. [snorts] Yeah, we got the comment that it was um parking on neighboring properties and parking and grass and that was what we needed to trip that requirement. So, it is a a complaint-based for the most part approach. So, who's going to complain about this one? I mean, Global Aviation is not going to complain that they parking on the grass.

Yeah. So, this one likely, if there's any kind of issues, it likely would come through emergency services telling us they can't get through the site because people are parking in the wrong spots. That would likely be how this one would happen because there, you're right, there is nobody else really around. But with that though, I mean, you don't build parking stalls overnight. And so it's probably depending on when it occurs. You could very easily, you know, go from one one year into the next, so almost a year's time before they get built. I just think if if if we think they're needed, why not build them? I just I don't know. It's nine stalls. With with this major mod, it's more about the production space than it is any office space. So, you're not necessarily increasing the number of employees drastically like you would if it was an office addition. So, they have plenty of parking out there today. That's why they really aren't even building any extra parking with this. They're able to use what they have. So,

I think this is a small part of why we're voted the uh best city to do business 28 years in a row is having some flexibility, not requiring them to build the parking if it's not needed today. It may never be needed. I mean, I hope it is. It means that they are a massive success and growing and adding jobs and um but it may never be needed. So, I I like the flexibility. Yeah. And with the uh the uh you know, self-driving vehicles and the articles I've seen recently on, you know, the lack of needed additional parking, you never know where this plays out. That's right. Absolutely. I

from your So, what in in five years, nobody's going to be driving? I don't know. I just I either So, but our guidelines indicates that it's it's 63 stalls that are needed in total in total. And we're being asked to let them just build 54. They already have 54. They have 54, right? So, they're asking, really asking not to add any additional parking with this addition to the building because they do not feel it's needed. We're within that acceptable limit and we are just deferring. We are not waving. So, if there's a problem, we have a way to get them.

So, they have 54 on time. I I just Okay. All right. Any further discussion? Hearing none, please vote. Four yes, one no. Man, we're the Boy Scouts for that discussion. Okay, moving on. Item 7E, plat survey parcel 25-115, southwest corner of Windover Road and South Grand Prix Parkway. Approved Plat Survey to create a 12acre parcel for transfer of ownership, Mid-American Energy Company. Uh we've got a resolution for approval and release of the platus survey and there are no outstanding issues.

Move approval.

But there are not so quick grasshopper. There are however three conditions of approval. One condition is the applicant and property owner acknowledging that this is being done for transfer of ownership only and that the current or future property owner remains responsible for any public improvements required. The second condition of approval relates to the applicant property owner acknowledging and agreeing that no improvements are to be made to the property until the property is replatted through the city subdivision process. The applicant property owner also must acknowledge that if the subdivision does not occur that no building permits for any structure shall be issued on the property until the required public improvements are made, required fees are paid uh and necessary legal documents are executed as and filed. Finally, condition number three relates to the new property owner executing and providing to the city irre irrevocable offer of dedication. Now

move approval. Beautiful. Is there a second? Okay, it's moved and seconded. Is there anybody in the audience or online that would like to address council on item 7E? Okay, any discussion in the DAS? Just want to make sure I get that out there. So if they violate it, I say, "Hey, you should have heard it here." That's right. We told you about those conditions. Very thorough. Absolutely. All right. Hearing no discussion. Please vote. Five. Yes.

Mr. Mayor, one quick note on the on the previous one about global aviation. I just wanted to add one quick comment. I think it's awesome that they have the need for an addition. I I want to do I want to recognize that the fact that global aviation's been there been there for many many years and now they're expanding. I just wanted to reflect the record that it's awesome that they have the opportunity and the need to expand. So, I did want to say that.

Absolutely. Thank you, Councilman. Okay. 7F uh Plat Survey parcels 25-72 and 25-73 generally located at 113 11315 Boonville Road. Approved Platis survey to create parcels for the transfer of ownership WRJLC. Uh, we've got a resolution for approval and release of the Plat survey creating parcels 25-72 and 73 and there are no outstanding issues. There is one condition of approval related to the applicant property owner acknowledging this has been done solely for the transfer of ownership and that no building shall be constructed upon this land until it's reszoned, replatted, and the necessary public improvements are made. These conditions are going to approve are going to apply to the next three items. I'm not going to repeat them after this. Is there a motion to approve and release the PL survey?

So moved. Second. It's been moved and seconded. Is there anybody in the audience or online that would like to address the council on this item? Any discussion? Good. Come on up. Give us your name and address for the record again. You've got five minutes. I'm just Hi, my name is Holly Anderson. Um, do you need my address again? Do you need my address again? Go ahead and give us your name and address again. Um, Holly Anderson, 20527th Street, West De Mo. Okay, go ahead, Holly.

Is this these parcels of land the 11 315 Booneville Road? From what I've looked at, isn't that where a data center is nearby currently? Um, I believe there is one uh nearby off of 115th. This is 113. So, uh I think that is probably accurate. So, I was just wondering if these were going towards that data center to It looks to me like this is a family that's trying to subdivide the land and Okay. Uh parcel it out evenly is what I gathered from the pinky. I could be wrong to to children or something or Yeah.

Okay. Okay. That was just so nothing related to data centers, but they are somewhat nearby. My concern and Okay. I just wanted to take a pause on that if that was the case. All right. Thank you for your concern and your feedback. Appreciate it. Anybody else like to address the council on this item. Okay. Any discussion in the dis hearing? None. Please vote

for yes. One abstension due to potential conflict of interest. Okay. Again, we've got uh the same conditions on the next couple. Not going to repeat these conditions. Um plat survey part I'm sorry. Item 7G, plat survey parcels 25-74 and 25-75 generally located atund 113,000. I can never get this right. 11315 Booneville Road. Uh approved plat of survey to create parcels for the transfer of ownership WRJ LC. Again, we've got a resolution for approval release of the Platis survey creating parcels 25-74 and 25-75 and there are no outstanding issues. Motion to approve. Second.

Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Uh is there anybody in the audience or online that would like to address the council on this item? Okay. Is there any discussion on the dis? Okay. Please vote for yes. one abstension due to potential conflict of interest.

Okay. Uh item 7H, Platis survey parcels 25-76 25-77 generally located 113 111315 Boonville Road. Approve Platis survey to create parcels for the transfer of ownership WRJ LC. Uh we've again got a resolution of approval release of the Plat Survey creating parcels 25-76 and 77 and there are no outstanding issues. Motion to approve. Second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Uh, is there anybody in the audience or online like dress counsel on this item? Any discussion on the dis? All right, please vote.

Four yes. One abstension due to potential conflict of interest. Okay. Item 7 I platis survey parcels 25-78 and 25-79. generally located at 11315 Booneville Road approved plat survey to create parcels for the transfer of ownership WRJ LC. Uh we've once again got a resolution for [laughter] approval release of the plat survey creating 25-78 and 25-79 and there are no outstanding issues. Motion to approve. Second.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Is there anybody in the audience or online that would like to address the council on this item? Any discussion on the dis? Okay, please vote. Four. Yes. One abstension due to potential conflict of interest. Okay, we are off that issue. On to 7J. Uh approval of traffic code amendment. Special stops required south 34th Street or Court and Park Haven Drive, South 43rd Street and Timberwood Drive, South 56th Street, and Southwest Lake Drive. We've got an ordinance amendment for approval of the first reading. There are no outstanding issues. Move consideration of the first reading.

Second. Okay, it's moved and seconded. Is there anybody online or in the audience who would like to address the council on this item? Any discussion on the dis? Okay, I hear that. Please vote. Where's that stop sign saying going to go? Vote yes. Probably go right in my yard. Thanks, guys. [laughter] Five. Yes. In order to amend the city code of the city west Iowa 2024 by many provisions pertaining to the traffic code relating to official traffic controls. Move approval of the first reading. Second. Please vote. We're going to bit of put a big How many signs that you have right by your house and flags hopefully. Absolutely.

Five. Yes.

Oh lord. All right. Item eight. Item eight. Receive file and or refer. Item 8A. we will receive uh the FY2425 annual comprehensive financial report and we will refer it to the finance and administration city council subcommittee for putting that stop sign on my yard. Um item [clears throat] 8B uh 2025 West De Mo Waterworks budget amendment number two. Um we will uh receive and file uh budget amendment number two and item 8 C the 2026 West De Moine waterwork budget. Uh we will again receive and file this budget um amendment or this budget as well. Item nine, other matters. Are there any other [clears throat] matters that any council person would like to bring up for the good of the order?

I did take note, your honor. It cost $52,000 to audit our books and 112 to design a bathroom. Thank you for that, Councilman. Okay. Anything else? Stay on that, aren't you? Oh my goodness. We're fixated on bathrooms. Okay. Anything else for the good of the order? If not, we are going to adjourn into our workshop, but take a bathroom break since we're so fixated on it before it we are journed. What is our workshop? We've got a quick workshop. I'm told it's only going to take about 15 minutes on a couple items.

Um, I'll tell you that bring those down. You guys grab the baskets down. I don't have my badge. How do you feel about that? Well, they're taking feedback on that decision. I don't like the faction. That's what people are calling and saying. They're saying, "Okay, do the board thing." And then the superintendent is being silent about all of it.

All right. Out of respect for everybody in this room, we're going to we're going to start here in one minute. At 7:15, we're going to kick off. 7:15. Elmer Petru. Elmer Petru.

All right, going to city engineer Brian Hemisad to kick us off on the workshop on EPRU Extension. We're talking about the EP True Parkway and from Grand Prairie Parkway to um and you can see on the map here from Grand Prairie Parkway to Ute Avenue which is also County Road R22. Uh this is what our Ultimate Street circulation map looks like today. Uh that purple line is is what we're going to be focusing in on. So I'm going to cut to the chase on the next slide on what the purpose of this workshop is. We're going to talk about do we need that connection of EP true from Grand Prairie to Ute and the staff staff recommendation this is a spoiler alert staff recommendation is to remove it from the ultimate streets map and we're going to go through some some different

All right, workshop over. Okay, I'm good with that. Yeah,

but uh basically and uh we're going to go through these these points here. I'm not necessarily going to go through every single one of those. I'll I'll hit those uh at some point. Um but then uh we'll have discussion items. I'm going to go first, then we'll have Ryan come up talk about uh development potential and annexation and Lynn will talk about the comp plan and how that might change. So, a while back when uh the Prairie Fire Development came in and that's that little missing piece on this map there uh towards the middle uh left of the map and uh we had a consultant look at what it would take to build EPR from South Crane Prairie Parkway to Ute uh through that through that property and the Prairie Fire built a portion of of EPR through that property uh already. Um, but basically what I want to talk about is the fact that while that's built, it doesn't necessarily mean that we have to build EP true all the way through there. It's still an important connection. Uh, it's it provides access to those parcels in the back. Uh, but it doesn't necessarily mean that just because that piece is put in there that we need to build this this road from Grand Prairie Parkway to Ute. So, we did some uh we did a uh preliminary design. The cost of that road in two years ago dollars is about 21 million. Um and what we're going to show you and and Ryan's going to go into is is we really don't have uh enough valuation in that area to um to to do a TIFF uh project. But I'm I'm not going to steal his thunder. I'm going to kind of go into what uh why we're here. We've these are a couple of uh design concepts for projects on the east and the west side

of EP True. And what we're running into is people are trying to do some development uh on both sides of the creek and we don't know what to tell them uh where the roads are going to be because this has kind of been in the back of our minds is do we really need EP true and we wanted to run it by all of you uh and and give you all the all the data on it so that you can let us know if if you're supportive of of taking this off the map. What was that left map? I'm trying to figure out where is where on the upper left map here.

Yep. So, the the left map is uh this is the area that was used to be owned by Davis Estates and it is now uh um Krauss owned property. Uh that on the top of that is the uh Jewish Federation property. And then uh and then right next to it on the right is uh the Prairie Fire Development. And that red line on the on the left side is R22 or Uteth Avenue. So what is the red or pink uh line with the curve with the dash in it? And I mean you've got three or two or three of these.

Yeah, that would be where where Mills uh was originally planned to go. I I'll get I'll get into uh what the map will look like when we're all when we're all said and done, but the the these are for just illustrative purposes to show why why we need to get these uh roads figured out so that people know what to design to when they're doing these developments out here. Okay. But just to clarify, you did say that part of EP True has already been built, correct? And so if we don't continue EP true,

it would just become a local street at that point to serve the And and if you go back here, so you can see that that portion that's not gray that is that is constructed. There's still there still needs to be access to those back [clears throat] to the back properties uh to the east of of there that can be used for for access to those properties. Okay. So, if EP2 does, and I maybe you're I'm getting ahead of you, but if EP2 doesn't go through, how do you get roads through there?

Yeah. Through where EPU is currently built on that property and and I can I can go Yeah, we are jumping ahead just a little bit. All right. So, this is this is what the map looks like as adopted. I showed you that at the beginning of the presentation. how this map would change. And so, um, you [clears throat] can kind of see where where the Prairie Fire development is. I wish I don't know if you can see. Can you see my mouse? Yeah. So, Prairie Fire development is right in here.

Uh, the the Krauss land that was on one of those drawings is is right in here. And that angled down road, Kevin, that we were talking about, that that's Mill Civic Parkway. That's what was shown dashed on that property. All right. Thank you.

Yep. And then uh the other one was uh some development over on this side of the creek over here and EPR was shown kind of going through the middle of that as well. So what what we are proposing is that that road essentially go away. I didn't do the best job of covering that up. You can kind of use your imagination. That's going to go away. Now if you look over where the EP True is towards the right, [clears throat] we would make the connection uh of basically that is uh Wendover Road and we would connect that in where EPR would uh would connect in that location and then Mill Civic Parkway would be shifted up to that other quarter section and it would have be more straight across if if it were shifted down to where it is or where it's shown on the uh the dash line there [clears throat] It's really not a great place for Mil Civic Parkway to continue on. Now it you might ask, well that's going into Walke. Why do we care? We care because we want road continuity between our communities. And down in that area there's Johnson Creek is right in that area and it would be incredibly difficult uh to make that connection to Ude Avenue down there where that uh where that creek crosses. So,

where it was previously shown. Where it was previously shown, but this one avoids Johnson Creek. That's correct. I got that stuck to myself.

Um, so then, uh, you can see where that that yellow line came in there. That would go all the way across from, you know, a mile or a quarter mile south of there, [snorts] uh, to connect up to, uh, South Crane Prairie Parkway as a as a minor collector street. So essentially, if you look at that, those are the changes. And then we would adjust some of those other streets in there to make uh all the streets work together. And you can see here uh this road that comes up from Mills that lines up with where the EPR is in this uh in this development. And then that could continue on to serve this area up in here. So then that would just it would just end. It'd be a loop street or or uh some kind of a a culde-sac or there'd be some there'd be a small road network up in there to serve that area. [snorts]

Brian, well, you have that up there. Yeah. Um this was an issue, I don't know, this was something we discussed with some other stakeholders two years agoish, right? Mhm. Uh well, I guess probably 2022 as I'm looking at the top of that prior screen when we adopted the comprehensive plan and there were a lot of uh very interested uh folks um that were part of those discussions about the alignment of EP true and where mills and you know just the whole thing.

Um has has the I'll just say the interested parties been [clears throat] um briefed on what is being proposed here? They're they're sitting in the room right now and we've uh they've been notified about this meeting and they've been briefed on on what's what's happening. Okay. That includes um that includes uh the folks with the development along I80 Prairie Fire. Is that okay? I don't know the technical sitting behind behind your [clears throat] CASP terrorist group, the Jewish Federation. Uh okay. Very good. Okay. Okay. All right. Very good.

This this kind of thing, [clears throat] you know, I want to know why we are looking at doing this, taking this off and doing this new map because you know I just think back about the days with Linda Roel and and the alignment of streets and the you know you move it this way then somebody screams you move it that way and somebody screams and you know this is like a a no- win battle but there's obviously a good reason why we're having that that alignment gone right and and a lot a lot of the reasons I've already I've already mentioned the the sheer cost of that road that a lot of that cost is in the bridge to get across Sugar Creek. Significant environmental concerns with that area.

So, environmental concerns, taxpayer concerns, right? And um and you know, there's other there's other things too that uh my counterparts will come up and uh and discuss as well. Keep going, Brian. Keep going. Yep. So, I'm going to actually pass it over now to [snorts] to Ryan uh to talk about some of the uh developable uh areas here and and how that ties in.

Thank you, Brian. Ryan Moffett, community economic development director. So, yes, one of the uh primary considerations we've really looked at is what's developable in this area versus what isn't. And this is a a rough map to depict that. Uh you know, we've done a lot of analysis on this area. I think some of this was forced out based on the development interests we're seeing. others was during the course of the Fox Creek annexation discussion. And I think in a nutshell, one of the arguments that we've got here is that it's going to be awfully tough to get enough development to really carry the the burden essentially to fund a $21 million roadway project through increased tax revenue generated from development alone. And so what this map essentially shows is uh the whole area uh comprises about 278 acres. This would be the alignment along uh what would would have been proposed EP True Parkway. Uh the red is areas that are either topographically sensitive, already developed, or in the case of the Jewish Federation, our conversations with them, they really don't have further aspirations for some of their ground to develop any further. They really just kind of want to be be left to their own devices out there. And so when we take that out and we look at the green area which are either under development now or we've had conversations with folks about development on uh that yields about 135 acres of property total

and Ryan the Jewish [clears throat] Federation is that the purple or whatever in the middle or that's over there. Okay, I gotcha. And [snorts] there are some other small properties that are against you avenue that are independently owned over there but as you can see they're developed as well. And then of course at the end of VC court on the north end there's a a small collection of existing houses that remain out in unincorporated Dallas County. So uh as you recall I mean this was part of the Fox Creek annexation area that back in May we got direction on to basically move on from. Yes. And the roof steakhouse is on ute too right?

They are. Yep. They're on the west side and our annexation mortorium agreement with Walke basically anything on the west side of Ute Avenue would be seated to Walke. Anything on the east side would be territory under this agreement that we could annex in the future. And a lot of that stuff on the west side is already in the city limits of Walke too. That's correct. Okay. Yep. That's correct. That was the annexation I guess that um caught West De Moines by surprise many years ago before I came on board, but u shots fired at the time. So, no doubt about it.

Yeah, I think you know that's an important map to take a look at here. And then just from a consideration standpoint, I've talked about this with several of the developers. I've talked with uh Tim Styles about this, but just back of napkin math, we essentially need about $5.7 million uh in assessed commercial valuation for every $1 million of public improvement project that we bond for. And so when we talk about, you know, the ways in which we go about paying for road infrastructure, you know, I think we've got kind of the triedand- trueue model where we get the burden hand, so to speak, from an economic development standpoint. We put that project under a minimum assessment agreement. We come back and we collect the tiff revenue that comes off of it to pay down our go bond debt to to build public improvements. Done a lot of work with that. That's the Microsoft data center example. In this case though, when we look at this uh for a $21 million roadway project, we would need roughly $120 million in valuation guaranteed to be able to pull the trigger on uh extending that roadway project using that model of funding the roadway. Uh it's even more valuation than that when we talk about residential development which this area might have some tendency to go residential partially [clears throat] in the future. Uh and that reason why is because of the difference in the roll back. Uh commercial's at a 90% roll back next year residential going to 44. So uh without a large committed project basically when you just kind of have speculative development where you got people that might be marketing for development purposes without that bird in hand it makes that way to fund the project a little bit of a challenge. Obviously, the other major funding source that we use for roadway projects would be the capital improvement plan budget. Um, I think just in our discussions internally, I mean, you're the decision makers on this, but our thoughts are that uh at the moment there are probably other higher priority uses for the capital improvement plan than this particular area of the community. Uh, really I'll just end with I know this map's a little bit hard to read, but this basically shows the municipal boundaries of West De Moines. So point I'm trying to make with this is that much of this area that we're talking about to be developed in the future

would still require annexation of the city. Uh we think it's probably going to happen in a much more incremental peacemeal fashion versus the wholesale annexation that we tried before. But the purple dash lines are what you see within the city today. So the Westport subdivision that you see uh Brookdale Drive that really is the western extent of the city limits today.

So I am going to turn it over to Lyn to talk a little bit about the land use of this area. Okay, Ben Tweet, director of development services. So, you likely remember with the comp plan, we tend to look at we take property boundaries off the map. We look at the roads and we look at kind of the environmental features. So, heavily treated areas, um, creeks that have slopes that are 35% or generally in that area, things that would kind of give us some boundaries for those land uses. This is what we adopted in 2022. Um, if we make this change and take EP true off of this map, this is what we would suggest we end up going with. Um, some of these changes that are going to happen,

[clears throat]

um, this detached residential that is now placed up in here, this [clears throat] secondary access, we'll have the one access that comes up through Prairie Fire, but there needs to be a secondary access. We really don't want to route commercial back down through that residential. Therefore, we'd recommend making that a residential land use. Um, the other piece of it is with mills kind of coming across, you end up with a not needing quite as much of the commercial as what we maybe had on the previous map up in this area. We end up losing, if I go back, you end up kind of losing these commercial nodes that we have in the middle of the residential because we can actually hit the walkability based on what's around it in here. So, there's not drastic changes to this. Um, this residential appears probably the biggest change. We have downgraded this over to multi-use load just as you move away from the interstate there. Kind of reduce that uh commercial intensity. Still allows for that commercial, but it's at a little bit less of a intense more of a neighborhood commercial as you kind of come away from the interstate. Um, and again, just pocketing in some little bit of the mixed residential which could allow for the multif family apartments, town homes type development.

Remind me again what multi-use medium would allow up there in the [clears throat] at the intersection or the uh y interstate interchange.

Yeah. So these are what the the land uses are really all the multi-use categories will allow um commercial office essentially what we call no impact or limited pack industrial. The multi-use low allows single family. It does allow uh attached product at a smaller scale. The multi-use medium. So multi-use low is like our neighborhood commercial nodes that we have today. Multi-use medium is kind of a little bit more of that commercial level. Um little bit bigger of an area, a little bit more intense. A lot of the city is actually developed under what we would consider multi-use medium. It does not allow single family. It does allow more intense uh multif family a little bit higher densities [clears throat] little bit bigger apartment buildings and then your multimuse high is your most intense kind of commercial mixeduse area. So all of them allow residential of some capacity commercial office and that limited industrial

multi-use medium would not allow a truck stop. Um, you could you could do a truck stop in a multi-use medium because I can see that being a desire right there at the interchange. I don't know that you'll find the ground to do it, but it is possible. I just talked to I just texted Bies the other day. [laughter] Can I what's what um I'm trying to understand what the u outcome of tonight is supposed to be. Um, normally these sorts of things typically come before development and planning and then if we have issues we come to the full council. So, are we being asked is this like a briefing? Are we asked to be Obviously, we can't formally approve something, but what are we

we're we're asking for whether or not you're in agreement that EP True maybe should not extend West Pass Sugar Creek due to the cost and due to the limited value that we're going to have up there. If if you agree with that, we will come back with a comprehensive plan amendment to update the map of the uses on the map. [clears throat] um help me understand why we wouldn't go to the subcommittee first before going to the full council here.

Um generally just because this we felt that the magnitude of the change to this one is probably something that all of you should weigh in on. So we're looking for that general direction first of yeah it makes some sense to take EPR true off or no we'd like to see it remain. So without that we didn't know what our next step. Yeah, I I get that. But my concern is that I don't know how many of these affected property owners have had notice or are aware of what's going on and and you know that I mean obviously there's some folks here tonight, but

I I'm not comfortable giving direction until I understand I mean people may have made purchases, people may have you know made investments based upon the comprehensive plan that was adopted three years ago and then to ask us for our direction tonight without giving an opportunity for all of those that may be impacted by some subst substantial changes to weigh in feels like a cart before before the horse to me. Everybody that would be changed in this map received notice of tonight's meeting.

Okay. Have any of those opinions be shared? I agree with Matt. Uh like I will share my personal thought. I've seen this map just hundreds of times. The EP True going through the north, Mil Civic going through the West, and I have thought to myself before what you all are recommending that does it really make sense to have EP True and Mil Civic going through. However, I do agree with Councilman McKenna saying that there's a lot of folks here who have an interest in this area and so I'm glad they've been noticed. Have they shared their thoughts with city staff yet?

Um, the only one that I've talked to personally is with the Jewish camp um and just explained what they were looking at at the map. Um, the other gentleman that called me, I've tried to call back three different times and could never get them. So, those are the only two people that reached out. My name is the one that was on the notice to to reach out to. So are we I mean yeah are we going to open this up for feed I mean that's entirely your call [clears throat] this is a workshop workshops we typically have not unless you guys have questions

we [clears throat] typically have not I mean if if this is going to go you know if we're going to move forward with direction on this and then continue to explore it um there will be time for public hearings and for feedback and input from residents but um and maybe that's a greater discussion that we need to have as a council IL because some workshops we have allowed public participation, some we have not.

Typically, it's for us to get to listen to staff, get direction, [snorts] move forward, then the rest of the process follows. But but I'm with you. I mean, this is, you know, I'm I've I've got like, you know, nightmares looking at this. I agree. I think it needs to come off the map because you know the impact $21 million if if that's just not economical, we can do it a better way, then I think we owe it to the taxpayer at least to take a look at that better way. But then that impacts this which really uh has a major impact on everybody sitting out there.

All right. So you said if we have if we've got questions. So I got a question. Is there anybody here in the audience that came to talk about this tonight? I would feel you don't know what they're all proposing. Come come on up. Come on. Come on up. What we're proposing is and and Brian, can you put that map up, [clears throat] please? right here in a couple things but just came out. So this is what is currently adopted to bring the purple line is to bring EP true eventually take EP true somewhere in this area. This line is not exact, right?

Well, is the western terminus a specific place though? I I think that's a specific spot, right? This is this is not a specific alignment. It's pretty it's pretty close. We were we had an engineer look at it and and this is probably the most economical location for it. So that's what's proposed. Now Brian, if you would go back, I guess the last one that showed no EP True and Mills Civic Parkway. So that's now what's being asked of the council. Do we think EP True needs to stay there or the red line with Mill Civic Parkway? [snorts] You're Are you right? Yeah, that's the question.

That's the question. So, for the gentlemen, that's that's what's taking place tonight. Are they proposing they're doing a tiff program and putting the streets in and buying the ground from everybody or they just At this point, it's just where do we think the road should go sometime in the future? We're not looking at building it tomorrow or next year. It's sometime down the line. Do we think EP True needs to go in up at that north, that purple line, or change the comp plan to show this red line of Mills Civic Parkway buying land and where the roads exactly going to go? Because again, this isn't necessarily the exact place the Mill Civic Parkway will go. It's somewhere

in this area. It's also not just the street configuration. And it's also what the comprehensive plan, you know, we we saw I saw at least one of them go from purple and I don't remember if it was medium or high or low, but to detach residential. That's that's the next phase, right, Lynn? Correct. Tonight, it's whether or not we keep EP true or not. Is that the question? If we don't, then there will be a change of some sort of the comp plan.

Correct. But staff wants to give us a 30,000 foot view [snorts] of what how that comp plan may make sense to change based on the road alignment and what we know in the area. And so the folks sitting in the audience have two things to consider. Where that road is going versus where the other road was going. and number two, what the change in the comprehensive plan is going to mean to them as a homeowner or as somebody that's going to someday sell your land, but that's going to come in the next step. They'll have input [clears throat] then as well.

Yes, a comprehensive plan amendment isn't isn't noticed. It's a public hearing matter. So, we would notice anybody who is having their land use changed within that area. I I just bring up the use because typically as we as we see these things happen, the the higher the use, you have uh infrastructure that accommodates the higher use. If we eliminate the infrastructure, there would be no need for a higher use. In other words, if you're going to put in a if we propose residential streets in the area, it probably makes sense to go residential streets.

If we're proposing a major thoroughfare there, it probably makes sense to do something not detached residential. And so yes, while the specific conversation tonight is isolated as it relates to the type of road, the type of road we land on will also inform the comprehensive plan in that specific area.

And that's why for for me just I don't want to extend this meeting out long long long. However, if there are folks who are really really passionate about this issue of EP true and you came out here tonight, I I mean I would certainly love to hear from you. Uh, if you're cool right now and just want to share that in a concise email or a long email later, I'd be fine with that, too. But I don't want anyone to come out here and relax. I don't I didn't have my voice heard. So, that's how I feel about the M.

All right. Give us your name and address for the record. Yeah. Uh, Jared Bernstein. I'm the executive director of Jewish Federation of Greater De Moines. uh 33158 U Avenue. Uh I like the EP true not extending past Sugar Creek. We don't want uh major thoroughfare right along our property uh where we have a preschool uh museum campsite uh in our offices. So when I got this uh notice in the mail, really couldn't believe my eyes that was being taken off potentially. So uh strongly support not continuing EP true all the way through. strongly [clears throat] not continuing to to end it. He likes to change. He likes you. Change it.

Change. Okay. All right. Just want to make sure. Thank you. [clears throat] Thank you for what you do and our prayers are worth your absolutely. Anybody else? How's it going, Nick?

Hi, everybody. It's been three years. Nick Williams, 34097V place in Walke, soon to be West De Moines, even though we've tried for a long time to get that annexation done and failed. But I am one of the property owners in multiple locations within this that has signed the voluntary agreement to annex as well as some of my colleagues I'm here with tonight. Um, I prepared some thoughts. I'm not sure I'm ready to share all of them. I was going to ask that they be that they be filed, but I'm not going to do that tonight because I'm going to trust in the process and that there'll be more opportunity for our voices to be heard. Absolutely, there will be. There will be.

But I will share some frustrations just that we have a couple major stakeholders, one in the room with Krauss that just doesn't speak publicly. So we don't know what the plans are, but we are constantly told our group within Prairie Fire, Freedom Developer, and even to some point my clients uh that purchased the Hansen property, the Lushers who are here tonight, that we have speculative development and until something happens with these larger properties that purchased the Davis Estates, which is Krauss, or Brian Martin with Threshold, until those things happen, nothing can happen with ours. Yet we we're all lined up as sitting ducks. We we've been at the table for three years saying we want to develop. In my mind, Ryan and I disagree on what speculative development is, and we can respectfully disagree on that. But in my mind, it's not speculative when the council approves Prairie Fires Road to be put in there, the infrastructure to be put into place to to support EP True Parkway and to allow us to get to the point where development has has happened and buildings are going up and and [clears throat] you know, we we all came to the table three years ago, two years ago, and we really ironed all this out. And so today, I really am just going to speak as a real estate agent who represents this area and takes pride in this corridor. Not only because I live in it, but because I have a lot of belief in this corridor between Grand Prairie Parkway and Ude Avenue and and the amount of money that can be brought to this area if we can come up with a plan and it is constantly been over the last three years, the chicken or the egg and what's going to come first. Um, so a few of my thoughts as I've tried to learn as well how comprehensive plans

are created and road use is created. There's a major arterial that moves regional traffic that is Mil Civic. There is EPR Parkway that distributes the local trips and I have sold not only to people who are here in the room but also myself and my investment partners that EP True Parkway has dictated development for West De Mo over the last 20 years. Why would it ever stop? So why would we ever think it would be given up on? Especially with the three to four years that staff worked on this comprehensive plan and then [clears throat] the special meetings that were that pursued to talk about six different areas with land owners of what the zone what the land use should be and then taking into account the homeland security um issue with the Jewish Federation and our agreeance to realign EP Parkway already once and to keep to keep them secure and to keep traffic from off their properties. So all that was into consideration and went into our investment and the money that's been spent and the notes that have been taken out to count on this roadway to be put here. I feel I just feel like that was the opportunity for this conversation. Not now, you know, when money's been spent. Um I think eliminating this corridor forces local traffic into a single major arterial which just pushes a problem down the line. We're constantly talked about growth, safety, emergency access, uh, you know, future residential school, commercial growth, especially the school on the other side of of Grand Prairie Parkway where Walke's got plans where EPR Parkway is going through. We're counting on that traffic to come across our businesses that we're trying to attract and bring in along this corridor on the property that we've invested in and we've bought based off of the comprehensive [snorts] plan, the new plan that was adopted. The

single corridor system, I believe, fails earlier and the costs are just moved to a a later down the road. You know, we're kicking the bucket down the road. The economic impact, we talk about that. I believe we have actually sat in meetings with staff and we've shown that we can generate more than $121 million in revenue in this area based off of initial interest and also what can we do once infrastructure is there. Now water is a whole another issue and hopefully Christina can address that in this in this meeting with you guys. uh removing this corridor, it will strand the prior private investment that we've all made and it reduces our land value considerably. Uh there's been utilities put in, gradings that were designed, all assuming that EPR Parkway was going in here and and so I think the land owners that invested based off of the city's adopted comprehensive plan just really needs to be considered heavily on this. You know, the number constantly flexes. [clears throat] We talked about $21 million tonight, but I believe that's the entire stretch from Grand Prairie Parkway to Ute Avenue, but we have no way of knowing that because the Mccclure engineering study that was completed or my what I was told was stopped halfway through and never completed

has never been shared with us. So, I'm still going off of $15 million to create the bridge, the bridge that we're talking about through the Davis farm onto Mary O' Connell's piece, which would come through this 100 foot elevation issue right in here. Uh, I still think that eliminating the road shifts the cost. the f the future retrofits and the congestion that will ensue and oversizing costs, you know, would exceed the near-term savings in my [clears throat] mind. Uh loss development intensity reduces long-term tax revenue in my mind far beyond $15 million for this bridge. Um so I think like a reasonable alternative is to retain EPR Parkway in its original planned alignment, preserve the rightway, and defer the bridge construction if necessary. uh protect our prior investment while maintaining the long-term connectivity of this area and and start planning now for future SIP cycles of how can we make this work. But the main issue that needs to be addressed is the water and no one's talking about that. I'll say again, I really hope that is talked about tonight because that has what what has handicapped us and crippled us in this area and forced us to develop within Dallas County when we have wanted and been at the table for three years to work with city of West Deo. So, I'm happy to answer any questions you guys might have, but those are just some of my thoughts I prepared tonight. And like I said, I trust in the process. I know we'll have more opportunity, but um I will say this, staff is tired, too. They're tired of having seeing us in meetings. You know, we've had probably 20 meetings about this and we just have gut-wrenching feelings when we ask them for another meeting to try to come up with another way and, you know, a new idea. But, uh, anyhow, those [snorts] are my thoughts.

Well, Nick, you talked about how to get water out there. I mean, water is always driven by development. Mhm. And so there is nothing other than what the residential that's on this map just north of what's identified as Mills and V Court, right? I mean, is that the only [clears throat] between uh I'm not even Grandpar Parkway going west, right? And that's so how are you going to get water unless somebody puts it in? Because Westwood Waterworks isn't going to pay to put water in if there's only, you know, we've worked with

crumbs of customers out there to to pay for it. So,

right, uh, we've worked with Christina on a plan to be able to put water in, but that requires annexation, which the staff can't get accomplished, right? and we have voluntarily requested it. We have shown them a way to get our area annexed with the 8020 rule. We have everybody on board except for, you know, a 10acre piece in between the city limits. So, why can't we? Well, then it comes down to maybe it's just not advantageous to do that and you guys decide that because you need our land for future acquisition or annexation, you know, attempts because it represents so much property. Uh typically, you know, you look at areas like this and and you think, well, we don't know what's going to go in there, but you have the developers here at the table who want to put something in there who want to get to a final plat approval so we can we can market and we can attract businesses because I personally on my piece have had four businesses come including the heart of Iowa Regional Transit that's been turned down to buy my 9.3 acres right here because of water. And so there's an opportunity for you maybe to reach across the road and and buy it from Walke while you talk about renewing that agreement and kicking the cur the can down the curb when it comes to the investment for the bridge. You know, some meat in the middle because there is water there more than what we can get through Zenia, but we can't even get it through Zenia now as a rural connection through the county because Waterworks has purchased that fee district.

[clears throat] Nick, uh, thanks for being here and for the explanation. Um, I participated in meetings, uh, with at the time Dan Manning, uh, who I think was representing, uh, the Jewish Federation, I think yourself or representatives of your team, uh, with Brian Hemisath and and others to talk about the alignment and and all the things that kind of have been hashed out here. At the end of your comments, you had mentioned that, you know, you've had a lot of meetings with staff, and I'm glad to hear that. Are they [snorts] are these the meetings from like 2021, 2022, or there have been or have there been more recent meetings?

No, there's been more recent meetings, and I I know Lynn said she hadn't heard from anybody, but we had a meeting right before this where we kind of talked about this area and knew this was going to be coming up and and prior to that, I had a meeting with Ryan as well to talk about this area. and and really wanting to hear from West De Moines, we don't want you. And not not meaning like that, just take that for for blank surface, you know, value. More like we're willing to give you to Dallas County. Like we don't think this area can be served. It's just not going to work. So, we can let you move forward in developing [clears throat] in Dallas County. Um and so I have had you know recent meetings within the last I'll say 30 days 45 days no more than two months with each of them trying to understand what what can we do what options are here and and talking about you know we have even it talked about plans where we do eliminate the bridge but it's it's kind of like we have a feeling where things keep changing we never really do get a firm direction and I think ultimately what we hope from this is that we get that and that in that process their voices can be heard.

Okay. So there have been re this is I mean I don't know about the rest of my colleagues never heard about this. Zero commentary, zero feedback, zero memos, zero you know reports on intentionally kept you guys out of it because we've tried to work through it with the staff first. It's been what we've been coached to do and we've we've tried that. And and and I'm not saying your fault at all. I'm just saying like, you know, um I'm, you know, this is all new, right? And uh frankly, I talked to the mayor as soon as we finished the council. Mayor, what what do we talk about tonight? EP true. I I don't know. I figured it related to the school. I had no idea it related to this area.

So, um to me, this is very early in the process. Um I'm a little disappointed that this is the first time that I'm hearing about it given that we just approved the comprehensive plan 3 years ago, which I voted against. Um and um and now we're being [clears throat] asked tonight to give you direction or give staff direction what we do with roads. Is it going to impact the not just the roadway system but also the land use in the particular area which we don't have our ordinances for yet for the comprehensive plan we adopted three years ago. Um obviously I'm frustrated about it. Um but yeah I I appreciate you being here Nick. I I I can't give direction tonight. I think this is way cart before the horse in my opinion. And I also remember at the time you were more concerned about the areas that were annexed into West De Mo and planning for those versus those outside of the lines.

No, I appreciate those comments greatly, Nick, because that gives us some further context. And that's why I wanted to invite you up because they're just since you're here, let's share some thoughts. And I agree with Matt that uh while my initial thought is yeah I the EP true cutth through didn't seem as necessary but you have provided a greater breath to this conversation and I think we'll probably continue talking as we continue on. So thank you Nick. Yeah

but I think we do need to give staff um direction tonight as to which way we want to pursue. We want to start exploring and figuring out we you know what way we should move. I mean, either you want to stay with what we've currently got against staff's recommendation or you want to explore this and see where it leads us. I think we need to explore what what staff has put out here and [clears throat] see what the impact is and continue to have discussion with Nick and the other residents here because they are they are businessmen and women out there. We're businessmen and women here in the city as well. and we are responsible for looking after the taxpayers and deciding what makes the most sense when it comes to investment in infrastructure. Um, and what [clears throat] staff is saying is that this doesn't make sense for investment in infrastructure at this point in time that this other direction might make more sense. Council, do you want us to pursue this now? We could tell them yes tonight and then start having these conversations. We could get all the way into this and realize, you know what, [clears throat] for whatever reasons, this doesn't seem like the way to go. Let's go back and take a look at what we've got here. But they're telling us that based on based on topography having to go over the river here, the cost of this project, and when they talk about speculative development, I do want to address that. I mean, as long as Kevin and I have been on the council, I don't think we've had a lot of projects where we've actually done big huge assessments to land owners to get the roads built.

Right. That's what he's talking about speculative. What we've done is we've we've done if we can, we've had development pay for that and we've we've done tiff. So, we don't have a project here or an increment identified to be able to issue bonds to pay for the infrastructure. We have no debt service payments identified from a development here. Short of that, we don't know how we're going to pay to put the road in. And if we all of a sudden say, "Okay, we hear you. Here's what we're going to do. We'll leave it here. We're going to assess everybody to get it built." You guys would also not want that. We don't want that. But that might be the only way to get it done. Sure. But we haven't done that yet to my knowledge.

We have, have we? We've done where we we've done assessments of of developers who have asked us to do that like on the four corners of what 88th and Mills. Yep. Coach Light. Coach Light. That's been where we've had a discussion and we've we've come to that agreement that that's the best way to proceed. That's right. But typically we don't like to do that if we can avoid it.

Yeah. And I I think one last thing I want [clears throat] to make a comment on is when we started this, we were working with Clyde. Um, and a plan was put in place, not just to uh address the concerns of the Jewish Federation, but how that road would come through, you know, the property I was looking to be working on through Freedom Developer. and it would come up here and that would be, you know, how we would attach over to Industrial Parkway, which is where EPR was supposed to originally come across [clears throat] this way. and uh and Clyde had positioned with us uh you know 20 a 20-year process to take out that bond and the city could pay for it and over the course of 20 years the tax payments you know would would pay for that or like you said the developers we could pay for it and then it would tiff back to us you know over the course of that time in addition to potentially offering sales tax credits to attract the businesses which we can't attract until we can get a final plat because we can't market We've never we've never done sales tax credits. You you might be talking about a sales tax tiff through the Iowa Reinvestment Act, which I think this area somewhere up here applied for that and never got it. Okay.

But short of that, we can't do anything on a sales tax. All we've got available to us is geo bonds or issuing tiff bonds and having your increment that you guys are all going to be developing pay the debt service on those bonds. But short of a project, short of a some big projects, we have no way to pay for the road going through. Russ, you know that over the last 16 years, there's a lot of things [clears throat] that uh Clyde said that [clears throat] uh really wasn't realistic. And I am not going to eat another one of those sandwiches. Yeah, I know. I had to eat it. [laughter] [clears throat]

I I would just say to it, Nick and his team, they are in a tough spot. You know, we have had just in my two and a half years, numerous numerous meetings. He's been very cooperative on the annexation front, but I think the dynamic here is that sometimes development happens before the infrastructure is in place to serve it. And I think that that is really what some of these issues come down to. It's not that we don't want that development someday. It's not in the city today. There's not the infrastructure around it to serve. We've had a lot of conversations about once further development does happen, it's much easier to tie in to water, to tie in to sewer, to tie into a more orderly road network. But it it's just been a tough conversation this whole way. And I, you know, I don't fault them. It's been a journey for staff and the developer included. But in my estimation, that's a lot of what the consternation comes down to.

Well, and anytime that you go to move a road, I mean, this is why as soon as I saw this, I'm just like, oh my god. I mean, we had issues back in the day with Linda Roble and her neighbors there and you know, Linda didn't want the road on on her property, right? And and we tried to put it in between the two properties and you know, I mean, if you've got EP true going through your land, your land's going to be worth more. You maybe don't want to give up the land to have EPR true go through. Um, you know, and we'd prefer that you uh you give us that easement rather than have us buy it from you. Not that that happens all the time either. Um but yeah, I mean, so it's you're going to have winners and losers anytime you're you're doing any of this. And so we're going to hear from the winners, we're going to hear from the losers. There's really um we just have to come up with what is the most sound policy, try to come up with the best win-win possible and go down that path. And you know, I I don't know how to appease everybody unless we just leave the road alone. But then again, staff is saying it doesn't make sense. is too costly. You got environmental factors and everything else going on.

I think we need to appease our property taxpayers. And I think the best way to do that is on this map that's shown right here. If staff is [clears throat] saying that it's $21 million and how do you pay for this? It's only going to go up as time goes on. That's a today's figure basically, right? Yes. And that's just for two lanes of the road, right? So, we'd be on the hook for future widening of that road, another bridge in in the into the future potentially.

But there's another consideration that may be that compromise and we have to do what makes sense in this standpoint too. But, you know, that comprehensive plan and what what the pieces all become are going to make a difference as well. So, you might not have EP true going through there, but you know, as long as we're not taking you from multi-use high down to mixed residential, I mean, if you're losing EP true and you're going from multi-use high down to mixed residential, okay, you're you're getting a double whammy there. Um, but we also need to come up with a way to have the highest and best use of land to be able to issue that that tiff debt and pay for the debt service and the bond. So, it's in our best interest to also have the highest and best, you know, land use on here possible. But that's another way to potentially try to compromise, if you will, from somebody that's losing that road coming off of their property. I'm not saying take take land that was previously planned to be, you know, mixed residential and take it to multi-use high or even industrial or light industrial. I'm just saying we need to be cognizant of the fact that we have to have a give and take here for what we're looking to do and what we think makes sense.

I agree. Again, that that's that's part two. So, where I'm at is that we take EP true off and we go with staff staff's recommendation and Mills. I'm with him. I don't have a vote, but tonight I'm with him. Lot, what's your thought? I find it hard to pay 21 million bucks for a bridge if it doesn't pay itself back. I think we need to look further into taking note, especially if there are other options.

Some cases we may not have options, but okay. So, you want to go down this this road. Kevin wants to go down this road. Councilwoman, um I can I can see going down this road. Um I I just I also agree with McKini that you know a lot is going on and at stake here without maybe what we do best is kind of a thorough assessment of how impact is on the stakeholders. And I and my hope would be through this process that we get that and that we're not set in stone.

Okay. That if this ends up being just too much for too many people uh and yeah, just has too great of an impact um to not only people but the city that we look at potentially coming back and sticking with what we got. But is this what the staff is? Yep. Councilman.

Yeah. I I I think I mean, hey, in a vacuum where the presentation is it's 21 million and I appreciate that's what the presentation is. Why would anybody ever do that? Why would we spend $21 million on a bridge? So, if that is the presentation, I say, "Let's do this." But I know there's more information out there. Um, I don't know what the opportunity cost is if we go to detached residential on the property along. I listen, I know there are homes on the north side of I80 that are detached residential. I don't think they're probably of the value uh that's going to generate the property tax revenue that would otherwise be there if it were um some sort of industrial or commercial area. I don't have any analysis as I sit here right now to determine whether or not that opportunity cost is higher or lower and it's its uh relation to the cost of a bridge,

right? And so for me to sit here and say, "Well, we ought to do this." Well, sure. In a vacuum, if it's if it is $21 million yada yada, absolutely.

It's a good point. But I don't have enough information to tell anyone where uh I am on this because I've really heard, you know, one and a half one and a half sides. I've heard a little bit of I've heard I believe the whole uh staff's recommendation and all the reasons for it. I heard Nick's response to it, but I don't have enough u I guess data to process whether or not from a taxpayer as I hear perspective what is the best deal for the taxpayer. That's a very good point because is it 21 million for a bridge to get uh taxable valuation of 600700 million

or is it save you know save money on the bridge have the bridge go from 21 million down to 10 million but now the change of the comprehensive plan. Yes. Brings you 250 million in. Right.

Right. So, we kind of need and you've always kind of been the guy that has said, "What are we getting from this land based on these changes to the comprehensive plan? Can it support the infrastructure needs of the city and the services that we need to provide?" So, I agree with you. I think we need to look at that. I don't know staff if there's a way to look at what the current comprehensive plan is, the cost of the infrastructure and figure out here's what the cost of the infrastructure is, here's what the value of the land is based on the current comprehensive plan, and then do that same analysis based on the change of the comprehensive plan that you're looking at doing. Maybe this is too complicated and the infra infrastructure investment that's there. Do you know what I'm saying? Are we spending 21 million on a bridge to get 500 million in taxable valuation with this current comp plan and this current alignment versus saving 5 million on the bridge but now the comprehensive plan changes and we lose hundreds of millions of taxable valuation as a result.

Yeah, I I think certainly something like that can be created. I mean it's I use the phrase back of napkin math on the estimates for what it takes valuation wise to pay for the road. I think the same would be said for that exercise too. I mean, we really just don't know what's going to get built. And I don't want to diminish the development potential of this area, but this is not a gigantic area that we're talking about from a development perspective, from a land area. Just I would ask you to keep that in mind, too. There's what we tried to outline was there are some constraints between what's already built out there, what really can't be developed because we've got a creek and a lot of topography through it. And when you take all that in consideration, it really shrinks down what can be built. But absolutely, we can certainly work on um extrapolating what the difference would be on the land uh the land use map today versus what is proposed and see how that would diminish I guess the value to the city line

because I mean the ultimate win is to reduce the cost of the infrastructure and to increase the value of the land. Yeah. Right. That's that's how that compromise I think is going to work without just uh allowing politics to come into it and just give everybody the highest and best even when it doesn't make sense based on environmental factors, topography, and everything else. But okay. All right, Councilman Hudson. Nick, I need Can you make your comment brief? Very brief.

Please brief. Yes. I think one last observation that I've made over and over is every time this has changed and a new proposal has been brought in front of us, it does seem like our land is always grayed out and if this is the new proposed street map and we lose EP true, well, what where are the roads that are going to come through our land? What what is planned? And I think getting us that information also helps maybe back to what Dean was saying is we don't know what's being proposed because the road's gone now and this is the new street modification map. But where what roads are on our land? The local roads are going to be dictated by the development, right? So it's up to you and any other developer to decide where the roads are going to go.

Yep. So there'll just be local roads. There will be no that's what I would present. Is that correct? That'd be right. Okay. Thank you for clarifying. That doesn't mean that I mean if your piece, you know, is zoned uh multi-use medium, multi-use high. I mean, you're still going to be getting, you know, commercial land prices for for your land. That's where we got to be kind of sensitive on the comp plan and figure out what what makes sense given what we're looking at doing. Councilman. Oh, Brian, did you want to share something? No, I'm just Oh, okay. looking at something on here.

Interrupt. Um, so kind of where I'm at is kind of where I started the process. I don't uh I'm not [sighs] really feeling strongly about EP True going through. However, because I think there's a disagreement between our city staff and and the folks who are out there right now on what this land will deliver in terms of future valuation and I am absolutely so for right now I won't bury the lead. I'm comfortable saying go forth without this. However, Nick and to your team, thank you for providing a lot of stuff because if you're thinking this is not going to produce 50 million in valuation, this could produce 200, 300, 400, whatever the number is. If there's that belief, uh, and we need EPR to go through there, I am here to listen to that proposal very seriously. I think there's a dissidence between what the city staff thinks, which I'm very thankful for coming with this proposal. I am. But at the same time, what you might think this could produce, it's not a lot of land, but if it could produce and go gang busters, my gosh. Uh, let's talk about it. But for right now, I think if you're the further conversation could be helpful, but I do understand what you're saying, chicken, egg, chicken, egg, which are we going forward? But, uh, if I'm making a recommendation right now, go forth with the understanding that we want to hear from these potential developments. And if these potential developments are here, then I think gosh, let's talk about where EP2 could go.

Mayor, if I could just ask, I'm curious. Um, I know Brian or Landon, um, doesn't sound like this came from Nick's group. I'm not sure if this came from the Jewish Federation. Doesn't look like it came from the Jewish Federation. Can you share how this came about?

Leave me up for this one. It's been a while since you talked. Yeah. [laughter] Rock mental rock paper scissors at least two times.

Yeah. I I think we just took a step back and when we started talking about EP and started hearing what the bridge cost would be. We started questioning whether or not we can get the value up here to justify it. So there was no real strong anything driving us as much as it was just kind of a little bit more of that aha moment once we started hearing numbers start coming into play and then the shifting of mil civic it made a lot more sense as you start tying into Ute and making the separations work I I think the pieces just kind of fell into place that said maybe this is something we should be pursuing is is not EP so city initiated it sounds like

yeah I would say it's much more city initiated it's just say, "Does this really make sense to do?" [snorts and clears throat] Okay, thank you. I can add that. I'll go ahead, Christina.

Well, you've heard Nick talk about water a lot. So, bringing water usually follows the roads in bridge construction given all the complexity of that bridge construction is not going to get water out there faster than probably extending a mills or a different road. And so, you know, I think that water is a piece of it, but it comes with the roads. So, Well, and it it always comes down to what I say, and that is it is our job as as city staff and elected officials to build the best city that we possibly can. It might be the land owners, developers owners to be able to maximize the profits of the sale of their land. Somewhere where the two meet is where I hope we can get. So, all right. So, you've got your direction. Let's go forth and and conquer on this thing. And let's keep in mind, we want to hear the feedback, input from the land owners and others impacted by this and try to come up with some kind of a compromise given the fact that this is definitely going to change uh and impact people's properties and what they're going to be able to get for their properties. Some people may not even care what they're getting for their property. They just don't want the road going through. Some people are relieved that EPR is coming off. You know, if I'm selling the land, I want EP going through. If I just plan on living there for the rest of my life, I don't want EPU coming anywhere near me. So,

all right. So, staff, you got your clarification. Is this now from this step forward to kind of go to Matt's point to go to develop? Yeah, let's bring it to development planning. Work through it with the land owners there. Yes. And then we'll come back. Yep. Yep. Let's do that. Okay. Let's do that. Thank you. All right. Thanks everybody. Thanks everybody. Anything else, Brian? Or are we journ Okay. Thank you. We are journ. Thanks everybody. Look at that.