City Council - Regular Meeting

Matthew Johnson, Sister City with Yamanashi City. You want to come up and tell us a little bit about yourself and why you want to serve?

Yeah, so I'm guess I'm not I'll be honest. I don't know fully what all goes into the sister city committee I've been interested in sister cities, you know, just kind of as just curiosity for other larger cities You always look on Wikipedia and you see them and I recently just purchased a house And was on the Sioux City website and notice that there was committee for one of our sister cities so I just you know kind of almost impulse applied for the applied for it. Good job.

Very good. We like it.

So, and now I'm here.

Excellent.

All right. Any other, I think we have sometimes the unknown works out. That's great. All right.

We'll let you know. Okay.

Is that it? Awesome. Thank you. Have a great day. Useful.

Consent agenda today is items 3 through 13F. You can consider them to pass unanimously unless a separate roll call vote is requested by a council member. If you want to speak on an agenda item, please come up as I read that item. If you want to speak on an item not on the agenda, please come up under citizen concerns and please remember to always state your name for the record. I'll move the consent agenda. Second. Three is the reading of the city council minutes of June 15, 2026. Boards of resolution amending resolution number 2023-0471, establishing the wastewater treatment plant reconstruction and design advisory committee by extending the term expiration date of the committee and its members to September 30th, 2026.

Is there any reason to believe that we shouldn't extend it just even another six months just in case? Is there any reason not to?

We're hoping it will. Okay.

5 is a resolution adopting construction documents for the Hamilton Boulevard resurfacing project. I should have asked this, are you getting rid of all those worthless medians that have nothing but big hunks of them missing because we don't know how to plow around them? I'm not blaming the snow plow drivers. I'm blaming those stupid medians that only we have in Sioux City, Iowa anymore.

Gordon Ferris City Engineer, that is the plan in that section from 15th to 20th. Yes. The ones that are not in use.

And we're considering that throughout the city. Every time we have a reconstruction is if it's not needed to control traffic crossing through it, I left turn.

Yes.

And it's going to be a painted median like we did at Meyer there on Hamilton. That's we don't.

We haven't been a fan since 1986. We've

Well, I haven't been on the or on the public works team, so there you go.

Six or actions relating to grants. A is a resolution approving a $50,000 grant to Saturday in the park. Mike, please explain for the public where the 50,000 is coming from.

So this was budgeted during the budget cycle. $25,000 was originally budgeted through the Explore Siouxland budget. We edited that, and so the total has been budgeted for. Just the whole amount is coming through the city.

B is a resolution authorizing the police department to submit an application to the JAG State Crisis Intervention innovation program for grant funding for a cloud-based scalable security platform. C is a resolution accepting a transit joint participation agreement with IDOT for the grant to purchase two light-duty buses. D is a resolution accepting a grant agreement from Homeland Security and Emergency Management.

Nicole, did somebody in legal have a chance to look at this agreement? When I went through it, there were some aspects I just want to make sure that Somebody had a chance to look at it before we approve it.

Yes. Unfortunately, as far as the city of changing terms related to these federal grants, we're fairly limited.

But you've reviewed and you're comfortable submitting it?

Yes, and we have to sign off on these as well.

Very good. E1 is a resolution accepting a grant agreement from the FAA for taxiway C rehabilitation project at the airport. E2 is a resolution accepting a grant agreement from the FAA to fund the construction of the perimeter fence improvement project at the airport. F is a resolution authorizing fire rescue to submit a grant application for a fire prevention safety grant for the purchase of smoke alarms for the use in the safe home smoke alarm facility.

Checked programs. So is this a retroactive grant program because it's fiscal year 25?

It's ongoing. Mark Asep, Fire Marshal. No, it is not. They just opened the fiscal year 25 grant period. That's how far back.

Okay, thank you.

Seven are actions relating to street closures. A is a resolution temporarily closing a portion of Larson Park Road on the Riverfront Trail July 3rd for the Independence Day Parade and staging. B is a resolution amending Resolution 2026-0370, temporarily closing various streets in the downtown area by adding an additional date of closure, August 22nd, for the Hard Rock and Casinos Battery Park concert series. A, interactions relating to agreements and contracts. A is a resolution approving a pre-design agreement with IDOT for the Gordon Drive Viaduct Reconstruction Project. B is a resolution approving a consulting services agreement with the University of Iowa Office of State Archaeologists in connection with the National Register nomination for the historic Pearl Street District.

So this is to use the grant writers from the university to assist in that process. I was surprised it was only $26,000. That seemed very, very reasonable.

This is Wade Schultz, City Planning, staff liaison to the Historic Preservation Commission. This is the National Register nomination. They previously did all the site inventory sheets in the neighborhood over there. So they've got a lot of this research kind of already done, so.

Okay, thanks. He is resolution approving a contract for transportation services with the city of South Sioux City. He is resolution approving a contract for transportation service for the city of Sergeant Bluff question.

So on those, so just so I'm clear, this is the agreement that we have that we're running our buses. Into South Sioux and into Sergeant Bluff, right? That's what that is. Yes, and the appetite is is that I was told that last year they raised the fees nominally. On these.

Yeah, so we increased both of these. We also get grant funds from the federal government through the state of Nebraska and through the state of South Dakota that pair with these.

So my question is... State of South Dakota or state of Nebraska? Both.

Oh, I'm sorry. I was thinking worse.

So my question is, the fees, so this only goes back to the individual riders, right? So the fees we're talking about, this is being assessed to the riders themselves?

This fee goes through the city. The city pays this directly to us. We also get a fee from the riders that ride these.

They're paying us to come over there and pick up their riders. Exactly.

This kind of fits in that same category of the wastewater with me. It's like, I know it sounds bad, and I get it, it's essential transportation, but buy your own buses. I think fees should go up.

The only other question, Mike, Isn't it fair to say that a large part of the support we get for the buses that we purchase are because of the additional districts that we provide service to?

Not necessarily. This goes directly into the operating costs.

But the fact when we apply for federal funding to acquire the buses, the fact that we go into interstate routes assists in that grant application?

To somewhat, if we have additional rides and miles, just as a whole, it would add to that.

Because my understanding is the federal funding is based upon 50% of expenses, right? So I get it's maybe not money out of pocket. My question is, if we raise the fees, what's the standard fee in Nebraska? What are we getting paid?

From a rider? Yeah. Depends on, you know, just a regular adult rider is $1.80.

So then what do we get from South Sioux?

We get this $70,000, plus we get federal money through the state of Nebraska that's about $300,000, I would say.

Would raising that $70,000 to $100,000, would that... That's additional $30,000 right to us. Just to us.

Or wear and tear on the buses, et cetera.

That's where I'm going with this, too. I know we're probably competitive with other communities, and the research we talked about is pretty competitive, but I'm going back to this I'm tired of this piggybacking on the Iowa side of the river and the Sioux City side of it with services. What do we get? It's 70,000 we get from South Sioux. What do we get from Sargent Bluff?

Sargent Bluff's about 14,000, but it really depends on miles and where we're traveling through already.

Okay.

How much are we really going out of our way? We don't get additional funds through Iowa because we're already in Iowa.

Right. Can we, is this, is this, is this got a time urgency to it? Can we defer this for a week? What's, what's the urgency?

July 1. July 1. So we would need to amend it today if we're going to do something.

Would be there. Do we have to give notice? Do we have to give notice to those two communities like we did with the wastewater?

Mr. Mayor, what are your thoughts? Not officially, but I wouldn't want to do that to them without just. Yeah, that's why I asked.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Because they got budget too. What's council's thought on that?

I don't know that we have enough time to give them notice for this year's contract. Is this a one-year contract, Mike?

What's that?

It's a one-year contract?

It is a one-year. They're all one years just so we can revisit them.

Maybe the idea is to move forward now with the understanding that we'll revisit the numbers, better analyze. Maybe this would be a good budget.

Budget issue but also for the effective fiscal policy committee and South Sioux City City Council has already approved this so I think we should approve it and then revisit it.

I'm sure it's a great deal for them They get bus for 14 grand not a great deal.

They're not it's it's I'm just telling you it's a better deal for the city than it is for them, but I Quit hauling them there because the benefit is for our citizens more than there. We have more people going to South to work than they got coming to Sioux City to work. If they go to their own bus system, we're still going to have to figure out how to haul people over there. We get paid on ridership too. It's in the formula. If we approve this- It's such a good deal, why don't they have a bus? Well, if they have a bus, it doesn't do us any good. We only care about the people. But if I got people in my neighborhood that are going to South Sioux to work, and all of a sudden they don't have a bus, it ends at the Missouri River, that affects our people as much or more. And Sergeant Bluff as well. Well, it's the same contract. That Sergeant Bluff route, is the one that runs by like Seaboard and those places.

So it- I'm just saying is they got a bus service for 70 grand and for 14 grand and they pay property taxes. But you get state money besides. Yeah, but they pay property taxes in South Sioux and they pay property taxes in Sergeant Bluff. Well, then raise it.

That's why we're having this discussion. I think this would be a good review for the effective fiscal policy committee.

With a different look at it, my preference would be to bring it back.

For next year?

For next year. Just due to the time constraint. Mm-hm.

So we'll approve it today and bring it back for next year review. Okay.

He is a resolution approving your new option. We pull that out as a separate. I'm sorry. Sorry. I did Sergeant Bluff, right?

No, we were on South Sioux, but you would like.

He is a resolution. Thank you.

He wants to pull them both for a separate vote.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay. First on C, South Sioux City, Rayford.

What are we voting? Rather than putting that on the consent agenda, we're voting for it separately. No.

Shaner? No. Scott? Let me just make sure and clarify. You're not voting to pull it out. You're voting on the item.

You're voting on the item.

Because there's no vote required to pull it.

No vote is. We better start over.

I want to make sure that was clear.

I assume that's what you were thinking. You have to pull it, right?

All right, I'll start again. Rayford?

Yes.

Shaner? No. Scott?

Aye.

Berenstein?

Aye.

Bertrand?

No. He has a resolution approving a contract for transportation services with the City of Sgt. Bluff. Now, they want to pull that, so call the roll on that.

Okay. Shaner? No. Scott?

Aye.

Berenstein?

Aye.

Bertrand?

No.

Rayford?

Aye. E is a resolution approving renewal option number one to the purchase order of HICAM for the purchase of . F1 is a resolution accepting the workman found coverage from the IMWCA for chapter 85 employees. F2 is a resolution approving an administrative agreement with the IMWCA to administer chapter 411 medical only claims for police and firefighters. G is a resolution accepting the quote for excess work comp coverage from the Safety National for Chapter 411 medical only claims for police and authorizing the city manager to execute a notification of acceptance securing excess workman's comp insurance coverage.

On F12 and G, are there other aspects of either worker's comp coverage or medical claim coverage? that we're gonna find out are not being covered under our normal carriers that are gonna come back as well?

Well, IMWCA has renewed the chapter 85 for the next year.

Right.

So that is secured.

The 411 medical is secured.

411 claims administration for fire and PD is secured. I mean, we'll know next fall probably or the winter time as to where we're sitting as far as being picked up for another year. Okay. This year they gave us some advance notice.

Thank you. H is resolution approving Appendix 3 to the memorandum of agreement with the Iowa Department of Public Defense for the warm up holding pad project in connection with runway 1331 and the 185th April reconstruction project at the airport. I as a resolution directing the mayor and the city clerk to execute 2080 agreement for the hazardous material response services for Dakota Valley emergency services. Jay as a resolution approving a parking management agreement with ABM industry groups for management and operation. of the airport and the downtown parking facilities.

Mike, when was the last time we revisited whether the management of the facilities could or should be handled by city staff as opposed to outsourced?

I think we looked at it this time when we went through if we were going to include that as part of the RFP process or not. I still felt and the board felt.

Very good. Thanks. Kind of like RS&H, once you get in, you never get out. They just keep pulling you back in, Mike. Nine are actions relating to property. A is a resolution proposing to sell part of the vacated east-west alley adjacent to 1800 Sioux Trail, 3511 Orleans Avenue, 3515 Orleans Avenue, and 3527 Orleans Avenue. The petitioner is Morningside University. B is a resolution proposing to sell the vacated north-south alley adjacent to 2310 South Clinton Street. The petitioner is Clarence Gordon. C is a resolution proposing to sell part of the vacated East West Alley adjacent to 3503 Orleans Avenue. The petitioner is George and Randy Joe Sully. 10 are actions relating to purchasing. A is a resolution canceling the purchase order issued to UBC Precab for a restroom building for the Parks Field Services.

On 10A, and there's no opportunity to recover, Matt?

Salvatore Parks and Recreation director we had a closed session on this in November Nicole.

Do you remember what the What attempt we made on that options were presented to the council and the decision was to just proceed for?

Thank you He is a resolution awarding a purchase order ed stivers Ford for the purchase of two F 350 4x4 flatbed trucks C is a resolution awarding a purchase order to EHWACS for the purchase of two valve maintenance skid systems. D is a resolution awarding a purchase order to CDW government for Microsoft Windows Server Data Center licenses. E is a resolution awarding a purchase order to PVSDX for the purchase of caustic solutions for the wastewater treatment plant. F is a resolution amending purchase order number 362196 issued to Hyman due to specification requirements for the purchase of three pumper engines. Spiro, are you here? I sent Spiro an email. I realize I'm not all that important to get a response on it, but when you bid a deal, when I bid a vehicle and I put what I want, and they say they got what you want, and then all of a sudden, oh, well, we had to bid that.

Teresa Fitch, Assistant City Manager.

Well, that's what I asked for. I asked to find out this last week, and nobody responds around here, and I asked the chief, and he said that it was in the specs. So was it or was it not in the specs? And if it wasn't, why was it not in the specs?

Mayor, Kevin Kelleher, Assistant Fire Chief. I Told the chief that it was included in the bid. That was my mistake Well, it'd be nice if somebody would respond around here to that Because now I'm asking questions that I was told the exact opposite Yes, it was caught in the review period after the award was made In the pre-construction meeting we caught that that we had missed it That's where we're at well

Teresa, you're in charge of purchasing. Somebody should respond to emails.

I will say in this instance, typically the fire department does their own specs here. The CMG does not. So it didn't run through CMG either. They typically do their own. So I apologize.

I was told to ask Spiro why it wasn't in there when it was in the specs. And that's what I did.

I agree. I'll handle it. Thank you.

We'll talk about that later, Mike. That's unbelievable that we can't get an answer out here when you ask on Thursdays. 11 is applications for cigarette, tobacco, nicotine, vapor product permits. 12 are applications for alcohol license. 13 are board's commission and committee minutes. That concludes the consent agenda. Anyone want to be heard on those items?

It won't let you go back and revote. Would you like me to call it? Yeah, I accidentally flipped my finger off. One moment here. Okay. Sorry. That forward. Okay. On the consent agenda, Scott?

Aye.

Berenstein?

Aye.

Bertrand?

Aye.

Rayford? Aye. Shaner? Aye.

Recommendations of Planning and Zoning 14 is a motion acknowledging the Board of Adjustment Actions of June 9, 2026. I'll move that.

Second. Andrew Gleiser, Planning and Zoning Chair, if you guys have any questions.

We probably will before it's done.

Do you know on item 14 was Brissette, Annabelle, Castillo, and Guiano, was she misled to believe that she could get a variance when she acquired the property or when she moved the property? Do you know?

You don't know? I couldn't tell you if she was misled.

I don't mean by P&Z or by city staff. I'm wondering maybe in the acquisition or the transfer of the property.

So, Gabriel, for your city planning, the variance that she was requesting for, she was requesting that you want to put an accessory structure in front of the principal building, which wasn't like an allowed use in the code. Right. So we are thinking of meeting with her to see if she can get some space beside the building to place it. So there may be another accommodation? Yep. If she can reduce the size of it. Yep. Thank you.

She honestly didn't know that she couldn't. That's why I was asking.

Because it was a 0-7 vote. So clearly there was no question from E&Z on whether it could be done. And I just wondered if she had clarity on the request. And I'm glad we're going to try and work with her.

It sounded like a neighbor or acquaintance kind of told her you should probably check in to see if that's okay to do. And that's when she found out that it's not. She said she had it at her previous place, right? Right. Yeah, and then, you know, I don't know exactly where her previous place was.

That passed 5-0. We'll go to a resolution approving a final plat of 2800 Gordon Drive. The petitioners Jeff Hansen and Pete Nelson. P&D recommends approval. I'll move that. Second. Are they tearing that office building down? Really? Okay.

Oh, you know what? I didn't hit the button. I'm so sorry. Try that one more time.

Passes 5-0-16. The hearing and ordinance vacating the alley intersection adjacent to 2017th Street. The petitioner is the City of Sioux City and P&Z recommends approval. I'll move that. Second. Public hearing is now open.

There was a lot of discussion with that one. It sounds like there's some neighbors in the area that use some of the private property that was already previously vacated as alley access. So there was a little bit of a long discussion with that one. But at the end of the day, we directed neighborhood services because they're looking to develop that area to maybe do something to maybe get an alley back so they do have access to the back of their houses. But most of that was vacated a long, long time ago.

Anyone to be heard? Hearing's closed. Pass 5-0. Anybody oppose waiving statutory rule? No. Move it. Second.

Berenstein?

Aye.

Bertrand?

Aye.

Rayford?

Aye.

Shaner? Aye. Scott?

Aye. Move second and third.

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

Aye.

Berenstein? Aye.

Good to see you. And when you find out what that big project is, we'd all like to know. Yeah.

I'll tell you later.

Yeah, yeah. Tell Catherine to call sometime. Come incognito next time. Hearing at 17 is a hearing and resolution approving plans and specs for the Highway 75 water main upsize project. I'll move that. Second. Public hearings now open. Anyone to be heard? Seeing none, the hearing is closed. Passes 5018 to hearing resolution approving plans and specs for the 13th Street storm sewer improvement project. I'll move that. Second. Public hearing is now open. Anyone to be heard? Seeing none, the hearing is closed. 19 is a hearing and resolution accepting the proposal of Outer Banks Apartment for land in the Teton Urban Renewal Area and authorizing and approving a development agreement and minimum assessment agreement for the property at 4203 Denise Court. Somebody else can move that one. I'll move it.

Second.

Public hearing is now open. So as I understand this, there's a 100% tax rebate, so... Does that mean that we're not going to have any fire calls or police calls up there for the next 10 years? No. Because, you know, you got 256 or 156 units behind my house. Now you got a few hundred more that we aren't going to get any taxes on. Not one dime for 10 years. And people were building these with 75%. I know Mr. Bertrand and Julie want all this development. But sooner or later, you got to have some tax dollars and guys like me that get to keep get to continue to pay taxes on our properties.

You do get tax dollars. That's the whole point. 100% of zero is zero.

It doesn't matter. They were building with 75%. Anyone to be heard?

So Clayton, help me understand, to the mayor's point, how does economic development and how does the committee analyze each project on a project-by-project basis to understand where we think we need to be in terms of incentivizing the activity? Because we're sort of setting the benchmark now.

Yeah. So I know in previous conversations with a lot of recent development, what we've been trying to do is for the first year, 50%, just try to capture the growth, especially with the changes in legislature that are happening. And then from there, we've been looking and taking counsel's advice, the members of our ED team's advice, to go with that 100% to, you know, incentivize further growth, try to boost economic development, especially in areas like that.

So both with regard to location and the nature of the property, we're trying to promote single family dwelling, multiple family dwelling, affordable housing.

Absolutely.

And that's the analysis that economic development went through and the committee went through as well? Yep, exactly.

The beauty of this is I think this is, between this and the adjustments that are being made in TIF with residential, this is how development should be done. because it's not just you cut them a check, it's based upon performance and it's based upon future income. Like I said, the 100% or zero is zero. If you don't build, you don't get anything. So 10 years in the view of a city is not even a blink when you look at it from a historical standpoint. And from a percentage standpoint, the way the costs are, and if you don't want $75,000 lots, you have to find a way to try to get the infrastructure in. And with the new TIF project and with this, I think that we were averaging anywhere between seven and 13% of total input on projects. The goal should be minimum 25% of income on projects because if not, you're just not gonna cover, the developer's not making any more money, they're just getting the infrastructure in. So this is, I think, a really smart way that we've adapted here with this new five member council and and people can disagree with it but to me it's it's going to stimulate the growth that we're going to see in the projects that are now popping up in our committee um from the residential side are stimulated with yes we are setting a new standard of what guys have a little more stability what they can expect if they want to put their necks out there and put the infrastructure in and it's money in front of the lots down what's that because i just drove out by by uh Run or whatever and somebody said that where we paved that street that the lot was a hundred and forty five thousand dollars I don't think that that drove the price of that Well, we can use the same use the same argument with the Lieber thought behind Lieber the same thing Those are spills were all them dollars were put in to drive down the prices of lots and I made the same argument Mr. Murray, which is then they all should be thirty thousand dollar lots So we'll see if that if it all pans out that way with the investor No, I think they're all gonna be sixty thousand dollar lots

I'd like to believe they're all going to be $60,000.

No, it's going to be location-based. No doubt about that. You know that.

No doubt. Yeah, it's going to be location-based. There aren't going to be very many $60,000.

God forbid a developer makes a little money along the way. I get it. It's hard to swallow.

Well, you know, Mr. Heisroth's there. He can stand up and speak, but he built a lot of apartments with 75%. Right.

But, Rick, to go back, well, with Elk Creek... I don't think they have the same development agreement that Lieber has.

I mean, no, no, it's completely different.

Yeah, I get back number two. Can you please expand? to the cameras and to the public what you mean when you say, I know what you mean.

What's that?

When you say zero percent of zero is zero.

Oh, basically saying, yeah, I mean, yeah, you got, you got a blank, what you have is you have a blank piece of ground. It's a blank piece of ground. So you've got a piece of ground that nothing is on and it's receiving $3,000 in taxes, maybe on nothing. And if you incentivize it in year 11, you know, what's, what's, what did they sign onto for minimal agreement on this one?

16.6 million.

16.6 million if the city is patient enough to wait 11 years is what the assessment against it is. So again, if you do nothing and the incentive isn't there to put the infrastructure in, then it just sits there as vacant ground with tree stubs on it. So I know it's hard to believe, guys, but in modern America, the other communities and everything are incentivizing greater than we are even to get the infrastructure in. So... If we want growth, people want change and they want growth, but boy, they sure don't like to see what you've got to do to get there. But I think the community supports this because it's not money out of pocket. It's money we wouldn't have. It's not money that's accrued. So, great question.

I use that argument every day, Rick. It's 75%. I used it every day. And we had a ton of growth on that.

Why don't we stand back and watch and see what happens between with this new incentive, with these new developments, and the dollars being invested in bringing builders back, and we're so far behind on single-family housing, and I think you're going to see some growth. The stuff that's being proposed to us, this is all good, really good. Good job. Great job. Thanks, Dan, for investing.

Clayton Bankford, Economic Development Specialist. Thank you. Thanks, Clayton. Dan, do you have any thoughts?

Keep spending. There's the thoughts. Dan Heist wrote with Outer Banks Development and Apartments. First, I want to say thanks to the city staff that helped put this deal together and make things happen. I do support of what's most being said here, that if you notice over the past 20 years, there's quite a trend where a lot of the Sioux City developers have left town. And quite frankly, it's because you can do better incentives and make more money elsewhere. You can't have a deal that's so skinny where there's no room at all from a developer standpoint to... have any margin of error or any risk. So that's why you see a lot more development going on out in the dunes area. South Dakota and Nebraska have much different TIF terms and incentives, and this really makes it a lot more competitive by offering something like this to happen.

And how did you build all those 18 units or whatever out to Whispering Creek? How did you do it? Are you not making any money on them? 2.95% interest. What's that?

2.95% interest. A lot of the deals earlier that we were trying to make happen, when interest rates were extremely low... That started after interest rates... Come on.

No, 295 is what we have on that. The doctor just moved there two years ago.

Yeah, 295 is the rate we have on that. Now, they're going to be adjusting. But... The one you're probably referring to is Avenue East 1. We're at 75% on that. And initially, when we started that project, and I don't believe Marty's here, but there was another development agreement in place ahead of that that we were working on, and then all that changed. So that project, we kind of were already started, and then it was a moving target. And I think, Mr. Mayor, as you mentioned, we were trying to get 100% at that time. I think you had offered 50%. And I did a comparison of where we were supposed to be at, and we ended up being at 75. But 75, if you look at the current city abatement program, it's already at, for residential development, you already are at 100% for three years. 50% for I mean, it's a graduated abatement. So to go from that to 75 is not much It's much more attractive to go to the hundred percent for the ten years and I think it will stimulate things I'd like to see developers coming back to Sioux City.

I'd like to see you know We went 30 years around here and didn't build any apartments.

We haven't built much of anything.

You're right now Wait a minute. We have built more apartments in the last ten years than they did the previous year and

Right, and I think that also comes back with workforce housing tax credit state incentivized 90% of those of workforce has nothing to do with what we did with the city. Trust me.

And when we did our first development, we didn't get anybody building this city.

I don't get what we asked ourselves that for the last six, seven years. They know what we continue to ask you. That's why I got holes in South Dakota too. Yeah, OK.

And for our first project, we did get some dig funds on that, so it was a different funding stream. We didn't get the tax abatement, but we did get dig funds, plus then the residential property tax abatement on that as well. So really, if you look at what we got before some other projects combined with the typical residential rebates that were done at that time, it's not that far off.

Dan, one thing that I know for certain, you and I have talked about this, so I'm not going to shock you. No matter what we do, developers don't, it's never enough.

I don't think I've come to the table asking for more and more and more. We had discussions on it, and that's kind of where we've been. But yeah, I mean, most business people in general try to get the best that they can. Absolutely.

That's your job. I agree.

Yeah.

I agree.

So, Dan, on a good note, I saw the retention report this week, and we are at four days for residential permits right now. Great. Daryl is. So that went from 38 to four. Um, so I'm be curious to see your, some of your feedback on the process too, with, uh, the feedback's been good so far. And we're Daryl in here.

I don't know if Daryl's in here or not on the improvements in the process.

Yeah, that's great. So hopefully any, any resistance, let us know and we'll keep it rolling customer service.

So, and we are working on another residential development, uh, in the Morningside area that I can't announce yet, but we'll be bringing it to your table here in the next month or two. Yeah. Should be another 30 or 40 homes or so if we work out. Right.

Good. Thanks for what you do. Thank you. Thanks, Dan. One quick comment is Teresa still here. So I have a question. To the mayor's point about the 100% abatement for that length of period, and I know he was talking, not in jest, but he was talking sort of tongue-in-cheek about, well, I guess we won't have any fire department or police department issues in that area. For the fiscal management committee, maybe they want to consider and review as the economic development team reviews projects, maybe we should look at a fee for service for fire department or police department or otherwise so that we can at least address those kinds of issues. They'd be relatively nominal compared to the support that we're giving to Dan and other developers, but maybe something that the policy committee wants to look at.

I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND. YOU MEAN TO EACH PROJECT?

A flat fee per call, and I know some of those calls do get, there's a fee structure with EMS and otherwise, but maybe there needs to be a fee structure related to, because isn't there a...

I'm not sure we can do that legally.

I think that there is a fee structure with certain nonprofits, because years and years ago, there were nonprofits that were assessed a fee that were nonprofit, not taxable, And I think there was a fee structure for those kinds of calls.

I can certainly work with legal to determine if that's possible or not.

Because in a rural fire department, if they make a call, they get charged.

I'll work with legal to determine if that's a possibility or not.

It's worth considering.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Hearing is closed.

Is that eligible to waive, Mayor? What's that?

No, it's just a resolution, not an ordinance.

Passes four to one. I vote no. 20 is a hearing resolution approving plans and specs for the Siouxland Nexus Program Volume 5 tanker warm-up and holding pad project at the airport. I'll move that. Public hearings now open. Anyone to be heard? Seeing none, the hearing is closed. Passes 5-0-20 is a hearing resolution accepting the proposal of Bishop Helan Catholic Schools for land in the combined central Sioux City CBD urban renewal area property at 1100 Douglas Street. Somebody will need to move that. Public hearings now open. Anyone to be heard? Seeing none, the hearing is closed. Passes four to one, I vote no. Citizen concerns, are there any citizens to be heard? If so, please come forward. No citizens, we'll go to council. Concerns, Rick?

Janelle's got a couple slides just to update the council on. Oh, I'm sorry, yeah. For the process for police chief hiring, just to let you know kind of what we put together for thoughts right now.

And Janelle, real quick, why we asked you to do this, twofold. Number one, tonight is the closing of the application process. It is, midnight tonight. And then second of all, it'll help educate the public and the council on the process itself. And also, a lot of times I don't think the public understands that we don't have an opportunity, the five of us, to sit and actually have an open discussion about issues like this, because we're obviously for open meeting laws. So this hopefully will give us an opportunity to kind of have a little dialogue also on kind of where we think the city is and what we're looking for in a new chief and kind of a way forward. So I appreciate it. Simon.

Janelle Bertrand, Human Resources Director. Just a little historical background Iowa code chapter 400 covers civil service and the chief of both of our chiefs chief of police and the fire chief are covered under civil service and The examination is open the when I say examination I mean the application process is open to everyone inside the city as well as outside and There are two types of appointments under civil service. One is an entrance, and what that means, it's open to external and internal applicants. The second type of appointment is a promotional, and that is only open to internal city employees. The chiefs are entrance, so we have to go externally. As I think you saw on the slide, before you guys come in, we post all our vacancies. The Chief is up there. It was open on May 22nd. It closes tonight at midnight. When I did this slide, we had 15 applicants. But before I came here, I checked again. We are now up to 19. And I have kind of broken down where they're all from. As of now, there are three from Iowa and one from Alabama. in addition to what we have up there. And those listed on the right is where the jobs have been posted. We've contracted with a recruitment firm and they've done a lot of outreach, which is why I think you'll see a lot of applicants from outside of the Midwest area. This is sort of a guideline as to what we're doing going forward. The week of July 13th, tentatively, is when, well, it's that week, but we don't know how many days we will need. That's when we'll have the assessment center. What that means, it's a three-part examination under civil service. There'll be a written exercise, a presentation, and an oral examination. The assessment center will be made up of someone from the civil service commission if he or she is available. An Iowa police chief will either have the fire chief or the communications or both center director from here. A human resources professional which will be me and the recruiter who is a retired police chief will be the panel for the assessment center. It is scored. There's criteria that all applicants have to meet. And you have to have a passing score of 70%. And each person must pass each phase of the assessment center in order to be placed on the eligibility list. The eligibility list will be presented to the Civil Service Commission the week of July 20th. We will have to schedule a meeting and make sure we have a quorum. So sometime during the week of the 20th, we will have a commission meeting. And according to the police chief rules, up to 10 names will be certified and placed on the eligibility list, and that list is valid for one year. After the list is certified, it comes to the hiring manager and visiting with the city manager. We have tentatively scheduled the week of August 3rd and there will be some interview panels that will be made up of department heads, the Sioux City Police Officer Association. We will have a community slash city council panel and there will also be a ride along where the people will be able to get to know the community. In addition to passing the civil service requirements, there are also other requirements under the ILEA, and I'm not as up to speed and can't speak as much on those as I can with the civil service terms, but ILEA, there's all sorts of qualifiers that the applicants have to have. They are reaching out to ILEA now to determine if there's any sort of reciprocity or if what they currently have in another state what is recognized in the state of Iowa. In addition to those things, the applicants must pass the MFPRSI pre-employment medical examination, which also includes a drug and alcohol test prior to someone starting. So that's the process. In a nutshell, do you have any questions?

No, don't ask that question. Because this was on the advice of the city attorney. This was not posted in the all there will be no discussion or quite Wanted have questions asked then we'll put it on the agenda next week, but we'd be great.

Could we do that next week?

We have a meeting next week.

We don't have a meeting next week, but on the 6th we can put it on there Yeah, we can have a discussion then.

Okay, that'd be great Now Rick counsel concerns Thanks, Janelle.

Thanks, Janelle. I'll look forward a couple weeks. I'll table the questions there. Citizen concerns. Real quick, I think Teresa already left, didn't she, Fitz? She was going to give us an update on the demo. She sent that memo out. She sent the memo out. Yeah, I saw the memo come out. I'd love to see her in the next meeting come and talk to us a little bit about it. Should she find some more cash in that prioritization on the list? I know the citizens are seeing the demos come down and are responding positively. Sergeant Bluff in South Sioux City. You got a year and your bus rates are going up. So it'll be a great discussion in a year. And then actually everything else was based upon the sheriff. I'll just leave it at that. Let's have a great week. Thanks.

Greg, just a quick note. I know we have meetings tomorrow at noon. We have a joint meeting with PNZ and I have my monthly chamber meeting. So I'm going to try and go to both. I'll probably come to PNZ first, then go to the chamber meeting, but I should be able to be here. Briefly.

Mike? Just real quick, I wanted to say that this weekend the NAACP celebrated June 15th. We had a great turnout, lots of folks from the community, and it's always good to see those events taking place and the engagement.

I think Monique said there were about 300 plus people. It was a little bit understated in the media, but for sure over 300 people. I missed it this year because last year we had great ribs and all kinds of great barbecue, so I missed out on it this year. Yes, we do have a joint meeting tomorrow, of which I have another meeting, so I won't be attending. So I'm glad that you can go, Craig, for the quorum. Other than that, I have nothing. We do have a big parade coming up on July 3rd. I'm going to be reminding everybody in social media, so please show up at the riverfront. You still have time to get a float or a marching band or a drum line or something like that in. So please contact, go online and look for it, and you can register yourself there.

We adjourn.

Second.

Rayford.

Aye.

Shaner. Aye. Scott.

Aye.

Berenstein. Aye. Bertrand. Aye.