City Council - Regular Meeting

Well, you don't need your speaker anymore. in the basement and all. What's your last? Yeah,

we're gonna let Brian. Yeah, go ahead. Sorry. Yeah. Okay. We're going to go ahead and call city council regular business meeting to order this Thursday, November 6th, 2025. It's 6:01 p.m. Uh Kayn, would you please call the role, please? Council member Baker here. Council member Brown here. Council member K here. Council member Livingston. Council member Miki here. Mayor Phillips,

I'm here as well. We do have a quorum, so we'll move on. Uh item number two is the pledge of allegiance. Would you please rise and stand also? Would anybody like to move any of the consent agenda items to the regular agenda? Hearing none. Can I get a motion to approve the agenda? Motion. Second. Motion by Cool, seconded by Micki. All those in favor say I.

I. Those oppos same. That motion [clears throat] carries. Item number four is welcome guest and public comment. Thank you for being here tonight. We appreciate your attendance. At this point in time, we'd open up the day for any public comment on uh any items that are not on the agenda. uh we'll give you three-minute time limit. Realize we can't take action on any of those items tonight because they're not on the agenda and that would be a violation of open meetings law. Don't want to do that. Also, if you'd like to comment on any item in the consent agenda, now would be the time. Do we have any takers for tonight? Please state your name and your address.

Thank you. My name is Stu Sherman, development director for YSS, Fuse Shelter and Services that runs and operates the Iowa homeless youth center in downtown De Moine on Locust Street. My address is Lamona, Iowa. Uh, is that all you need to know? Do you need to know my street address? I think Lamona is okay in it. We're fine. Yeah,

thank you. I'm here tonight to speak briefly, three minutes or less, to try to see if the city council would entertain uh putting uh uh on the agenda a a solicitation for the city of Norwalk to consider making a minimum $5,000 gift to our emergency bed program at the Iowa Homeless Youth Center located in downtown De Mo on 612 Locust Street. And I'd like to share just a tiny bit about the emergency bed program that we have at our walk-in homeless shelter. It is designed for adults ages 18 to 24 who with uh no fault of their own mostly uh find themselves homeless, find themselves sleeping in cars, find them find themselves sleeping outside. We provide nine emergency beds for those clients that find themselves in those situation and we find ourselves uh providing them hope and providing them opportunity uh to be able to get them pointed in the right direction to give them a hand up in terms of the issues that they are facing. The challenge for us, the emergency bed program cost approximately $400,000 per year and we have one grant.

I am

we have one grant that provides $65,000 to run that operation. And about seven months ago, uh, Andrew Alvin, our uh, president and CEO, decided to go to all of the metro area, uh, uh, city councils to solicit support. So know that we have probably entertained approximately about 15 of the De Mo area cities asking for the same kind of support, one-time gift, a one-time uh level of support uh to help us through the process of keeping our emergency bed program uh moving in the right direction. In full transparency, about six months ago, our corporate board was ready to close down the program, but Andrew, our CEO, said, "This program is saving lives. This program is too important." And that's where we put forth this effort to go to the various metro area city council to solicit their support. As of right now, you might be wondering, have we got some positive news? The answer is yes. Uh Pulk County has sub has agreed to a $150,000 uh per year support for the next three years. The city of De Moine is making a one-time gift of 75,000 and then we have about three or four other cities that are contemplating uh what their potential support might be. You might be also wondering how do we arrive at the figures of what we asked the cities for? We kind of looked at the approximate 2020 census in terms of the population of Norwok and we basically thought about a 35 cent uh per Norwok resident ask that falls below the $5,000 uh threshold. Uh but we would like to think uh that the minimum depth of $5,000 might be possible. I share with share

with you one story about one of our most recent clients. Her name is Olivia. She was two months away from graduating from high school last spring. She walked into our doors with a house above her head with a roof above her living with a family member living with uh a mother, a stepdad, and a cousin. The reason Olivia needed our help is that she was being uh human traffked, sexually traffked by a family member and she needed to leave that situation. She came and stayed in our ebeds. We stayed for about 45 days. We got her interest of more permanent housing. We got her uh on the path uh because she wanted to go to college. Very smart, very articulate young lady and she right now is in her freshman year at Drake University. So that is the kind of people that walk through our doors needing the emergency bed uh support and the kind of help that we're able to provide with the services that we do. So I'm hopeful that the city council of Norwok will consider adding me to a future agenda where we could talk a little bit more about more specifically some of the things that we do. I appreciate your time.

Thank you. Thank you.

Anybody else? 01. We will move on. Item number five is presentations tonight. First on the agenda is an introduction of our new parks and rec director and council. I am Shaunie Lane, interim parks and recreation director, and I am thrilled to introduce to you Carissa Williams, our new parks and recreation director. Today marks her second day with us, and we are incredibly excited to have her join our team. Karissa's passion lies in municipal services and she firmly believes that the opportunities offered by a strong parks and recreation department are absolutely essential to providing a high quality of life for our citizens. She brings a wealth of experience from various parks and recreation departments, having gained extensive knowledge in areas such as aquatics, programming, facility operations, future planning, leadership, grants, and special events. Her journey in recreation began as a pool cashier and swim instructor assistant. And for the past nine years, she has been dedicated to providing recreation opportunities for adults 55 and better at the UN at the Urbandale Senior Recreation Center. We are truly eager to get to know Carissa and look forward to seeing the wonderful direction she takes us in as our city continues to grow and thrive. Please join me in giving Carissa a very warm welcome.

I don't have anything written, but just wanted to say thank you for the warm welcome. I'm having a good time so far. Any questions from council? Uhhuh. Trying to sneak off that [laughter] that way around you. Y Yeah. So tell us a little bit about yourself.

Yeah. Um so I like Sha Shanisa mentioned I am from um Urbandale and have been working there the last nine years at the senior recreation center um overseeing all of our programming for adults 55 and over. Prior to that, I've worked um for the city of Anken and city of Ames doing um aquatics facility operation um youth programming, things like that. Um and so just um looking forward to expanding my knowledge and growing as a professional and with a great team. Good. Any hobbies? Hobbies? Um I like hiking. I like reading mostly audiobooks because I don't have a lot of time to sit. I have four kids so I spend a lot of time at youth sporting events and dance competitions and all the fun things too. Uh, what are two good books then?

Two good books. Um, well, if I tell you this, you might judge my topics. I read one called The Heat Will Kill You First, which is about, um, climate change and, um, just the changing environments and how that affects our communities. Apolitical. Yep. Yeah. It was not, but it was interesting to learn about just changing um, needs of communities with changing climate. Um, and then um recently also read um a well I didn't like it. Nope, I won't tell you about it. It was a non-fiction book. It was terrible. I wouldn't recommend it. Yeah. Well, I I saw Mayor Andrew Good Day and he gave me a hard time about Yeah. taking away from Yeah. Yeah.

Great community and I'll miss it there a lot too. Yeah. Well, we're glad you're here. Yeah. Glad you're here. Thank you. Yeah. Thanks. Okay. Next, uh Rob Enders is here from Denman & Company to present the fiscal year 2025 audit. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Again, my name is Robert Enders, a partner with Denon CPA. I think most of you have seen me here before. You're looking so good tonight. Seriously impressive. [laughter]

We do have that audit report to share with you tonight. Rather than making you read the 45page audit document, we're going to do this over a PowerPoint presentation. Try to trim this down a little bit, make sure we can get out of here at a good time tonight. Um, jumping on to that second slide if you could. Uh, we'll talk briefly here about our independent auditors report. We'll look at some summarized financial information for that fiscal year ended June 30, 2025 and spend just a minute talking about our work uh, with the city on internal control and compliance. and then we briefly talk about some other governance communications starting with the independent auditors report which you'll find on page four of that big bulky document. Just a couple reminders here in that letter. Uh first the financial statements we're about to talk about look at together are management's financial statements. Management's responsible for ensuring that they're complete and accurate that they conform with accounting standards that internal controls are in place to support the accuracy of those financial statements. Our responsibility as the city's auditors is to perform that audit and to express an opinion. an opinion on whether or not we think management's financial statements are indeed accurate. We are issuing we call clean or unmodified opinions on those financial statements, which is the highest level assurance our profession can provide regarding the accuracy of what we're about to look at. I will remind you that the city does use cash basis reporting, which is very very common for cities your size, but that means you're not picking up accounts payable, cruels, uh capital assets. We're just following cash dispersements. Again, very common for cities of this size, but something important to note as you look at these financial statements. Taking a quick look at some of those financials here. Here's a very short snapshot of the activity for that 12-month period ended June 30, 2025. You got the prior year to compare against as well. Total cash receipts 47.5 million. Big jump. That's because you issued bonds this year. Two two uh geo bonds were issued during the year. Otherwise, modest growth in some of those revenue streams. Uh relatively stable outside of that bond issuance. Expenditures, total cash expenditures, 44 million compared to 48 million last year. Capital projects are going to really swing those balances year-over-year. Uh overall though, you're seeing modest growth through those uh principal governmental

services. In total, change in cash position uh up 3.4 million. That's going to happen. When you issue bonds, you're going to have cash on hand at the end of the year. Jumping to the next slide here. Just gives you a chance to look at Sorry that came in a little quirky uh uh cash position. Uh as to your fund balances. In total, there's about $42 million in cash on hand at the end of the year. A lot of that is reserved for capital projects. Your utilities are carrying a fair amount of capital project funds. So is your capital projects account. Uh that's sitting on about 11.1 million. So that 42 million good bunch of it is earmarked for capital projects. Uh but overall good healthy cash position. The next slide takes a quick snapshot specifically of the general fund that core fund of the city and how that cash position sits compared to your annual expenditures. As a general rule of thumb, uh, cities typically want to land somewhere between 90 and 180 days in cash on hand, which puts Norwok in a very sweet spot there, right at 150 days, very comfortable cash position within your general fund. Along with those financial statements, you got a good 20 pages of footnote disclosures, which I am sure every single one of you have poured through already, word for word. Uh, so I won't spend too much time recapping it, but a couple of significant footnote disclosures here that provide a little bit more depth, a little bit more information on the activities of the city. Uh, the one that's unique and different this year, note four, related to Central Iowa Waterworks, a pretty significant event that many of our metro communities are going through this year. The city's share of that's about 5.8 million. That's going to be a cash dispersement here in fiscal year 2026. that's going to be funded by bond proceeds uh which may be looming imminently uh for that bond but a unique event that happened in this past fiscal year as Norwok jumped into that regional utility. Finally, moving over to internal control and compliance part of our audit procedures, we do look at controls. It's not auditing control. So, I do want to be clear on that. We're not performing a comprehensive audit, but we do gain an understanding of the city's control processes, environments, and if we identify deficiencies, we have a

responsibility to tell you about them. We are not reporting any deficiencies in internal control or compliance or internal control for the city of of Norwok. We do have one small very small minor compliance matter pertaining to budget expenditures exceeding the budget prior to amendment. That is by far and way the most common recommendation uh compliance finding that we find with cities. It's very very hard to get that right every single year every single time. So a very small minor item there. Final slide here. uh along with what we just talked about here, we have some responsibility to talk to you guys as as members of governance about other significant matters that our profession thinks is important for you to be aware of. And I'll highlight all those nos effectively. I don't have anything to talk about, which is the best information I can give you tonight is the audit went very smoothly. Staff are very very prepared. Uh they know what they're doing. Uh and they are fantastic to work with. Uh make our job quite easy, which I am immensely grateful for because I'm sure if Gene was up here talking about the audit, they would not tell she would not tell you that I make her life easy. I make it quite difficult. Um so I do appreciate that fact. Uh um and again I don't have anything noteworthy to talk about from a governance perspective. I do believe council was also given a recommendation letter that we gave to management. Uh just to put that into perspective here, this is the lowest level of recommendation that our profession can issue. It's purely to management talking about a minor item pertaining to a vendor where the city has a cost reimbursement relationship with them. The vendor sending invoices, he's paying on those invoices. uh but the city isn't getting enough information to substantiate whether or not that cost reimbursement basis um contract is being executed as intended. So that was simple recommendation saying hey we really would recommend that support be given along with those invoices so the city can document that the execution of that cost reimbursement uh contract as its intention. Can I answer any questions from council? I know I went through that relatively quickly. Uh any questions I can answer from the group? So with the exception of the one B for control measures that we have in place now do you appear to be accurate ad adequate?

From everything that we've done the procedures we've performed the city's controls seem very very reasonable and appropriate for a city of your size. There's always risk involved with a city and county staff of your size. Uh it's just not that big of a group, right? Uh so there are going to be some control risks associated with that. But uh for a city of your size and and capacity uh the control procedures we have noted seem very very reasonable and appropriate. Thank you. Question. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it being boring. All right. Item number six, consent agenda. Can I get a motion to approve the consent agenda? What? I think Jean. I'm sorry, Jean.

That's okay. I just want to make a few comments. I know I'm down down later, but I want to do this while Rob's here so he can leave and not stay for the whole um shebang. But I just want to uh thank our administrative staff for everything they do uh prepping the documents, getting the everything ready. Really appreciated it. Uh really appreciate it. Um Denman team, great. Rob, his staff, um they come in early. We we prep early. We're we're ready to go. We get it done. It's November 6. This is pretty good timing. So I appreciate them. you don't make my job hard. Um, it's been it's smooth. I just want to comment a couple things on the audit real quick. Um, he talked about the letter um for it's m it's called maintenance of sufficient supporting documentation. This relates to sportsman's solutions. We have a naming rights and sponsorship contract with them. um when a um a sponsorship is received or agreed to, they buy signage and we're supposed to split the cost and they do send us an invoice, but the invoice um is uh pretty general. It doesn't have the behind the scenes information. Um I guess what the auditor referred to as source documents um that we need. Uh, so like who they're actually paying and um the vendor they're paying and in the amount and then like what our split would be. So we're just going to send them a letter and um indicate that we need that information going forward in order to pay invoices. Um and then just another thing um on page 25 of the audit it talks about concentration um and certain contingencies. This was mentioned in the audit last year. Um, a note by Denman indicates changes in state law, including potential limits or reductions in the city's levy authority, could materially affect the financial condition and operating results of the city. Um, administrative staff, we we get a

little bit concerned that we're not conveying this sufficiently enough to the departments because the level of requests still come in um as if it's prior to the legislation. And we keep reading time and time again that this is a top priority for the state to reduce property taxes. Um, and it it's a great thing for taxpayers overall. It's not such a great thing for people trying to provide those services, but the reality is we have to live within that. We're willing to live within that. Um, I think one thing that we will be recommending is that we wait until the legislative session is over. Even though we're going to go through the budget process and we have to have our budget certified by April 30th, we would like to wait until the legislative session is over till we commit to hiring any new people. Um, you know, staff is our greatest asset, but it's our biggest expense. It's super easy to hire people. It's terribly hard to let them go. Um, so just a thought uh as we're approaching the budget process would be something that um I would appreciate if the council would consider that uh during the process and that's all I have unless you have questions.

What have you been basing the reimbursements on if they don't provide source documents? Um, well, we just reasonable sir. Basically saying we're not going to pay the bill until we get those. Good. Good. Anything else from Thank you. Now we'll do the consent agenda. Can I get a motion to approve the consent agenda? Motion. Second. Okay. Motion by Brown, seconded by Miyen. Would you please call RO? Council member Baker, yes. Brown, yes. Cool. Yes. Mine?

Yes.

All right, that motion carries. Item seven is bold and new business for consideration, discussion, and possible action. So item A is the first reading of an ordinance amending chapter 176, subdivision regulations, by amending section 176.08, design standards, and 176.09, 09 construction of improvements providing for amended road construction requirements and warranty and maintenance bond requirements for public infrastructure. So several years ago uh council had concerns about condition streets within within the city uh with fairly new developments. Uh they noticed that several newish streets needed maintenance uh more quickly than they should. Uh at that time, council asked for a change to put in subdrains and subsurface to bolster the longevity of our new streets. Uh after some feedback from the HBA and developers, uh it was decided that we would have developers conduct a geotechnical analysis and based on that analysis decide whether to add the subdrains and subsurface to the streets. However, geotechnical analysis fails to take into account any irrigation that might be done by new homeowners, which in some cases is significant, and we continue to repair newer streets. Uh since we are still seeing newer streets that are needing significant maintenance, council has again asked community development and public works to modify our ordinance to require subdrain and granular uh subsurface to new streets so we can be more comfortable with the viability and longevity of our new streets. council's tired of putting significant tax dollars uh at the cost of all of our taxpayers towards repairing streets that shouldn't need to be repaired uh since they're fairly new streets. [clears throat] Uh yes, the cost of the subdrains and the subsurface is going to be passed on to the new homeowners, but that cost in

general is less than sign is less significant than the eventual cost to repair new streets in poor conditions. So Wayne, I'll turn it over to you.

Thank you, Mayor. The two issues that kind of ignited uh the debate again were timberview platform. We had significant issues on the bottom of the culdesac and then if you recall the blue stem pur sage assessments of a that's a fairly new development. We special assess reconstruction that drove a lot of residents in here to express frustration that the road is less than 20 years old. It shouldn't need reconstruction yet. The city should make sure the standards are appropriate. council asked staff to come back with standards. It's easy for me to pick a standard um to improve our road network. Every project the city undertakes on their own. Every project we do has every road has granular subbase and subdrains. We don't ever do a project without it. It has value. It has cost, but the value uh we feel is worth the cost to it. If you recall, we recently had a we're doing a subdrain retrofit out on High Road. That cost for that project is about $15,000 per lot. We'll probably and that's just the, you know, the subdrain and the road. That doesn't take into account impact lives, impacts, irrigation, mail disruption, any of that stuff. That's just the cost of the subdrain. Same thing when we look at cost of rebuilding roads later. The rebuilding the road has a cost. That doesn't take into account the disruption of people's lives. It's tremendous. The noise, the shade, vibrations, dust, all that is is a lot for homeowners to deal with. For those reasons, I think our proposal has a lot of value because we can extend the life of the road. We can debate how long the val or we might extend the life of the road. I mean, that's debatable, but it does have value. Um, I did there was a post on a public works forum. There's a number of other cities that also require it. Locally, Clive and Ankeny require it. West De Mo requires what's called continuous reinforcement.

It's a different thing. It's it strengthens the road network, but it's not subdrain subbase. It's just continuous steel steel reinforcing, and that's at the cost of the contractor. uh statewide Cedar Rapids, Haywata, Marian, Davenport, Cedar Falls, uh Sous City in some situ situation that requires it. A lot of those communities require 12 inches. We're proposing four. Interesting. Marian said they've been doing it for about 20 years. They continue to see value in it. They've continued to see growth. It hasn't dried up. Uh their community hasn't um you know, seen everybody leave town. [clears throat] That's all I have at this time. Happy to answer questions. Jim was uh speak to the bonding requirements. Yes. Jim, what do you got?

Oh, another aspect of this uh ordinance is increased bonding. What a bond is when the city accepts a final plant with infrastructure in it that's been built by private party require maintenance cost, four-year maintenance fund. That requires maintenance uh for four years to make sure if there's any issues with it. uh the the developer who built it takes responsibility. Uh that's very common. I mean all cities have made requirements. They aren't all uniform and and exact, but we've run into uh a number of issues almost every time that we need to get u major repairs done. It's just it's a [clears throat] lot of work because uh though the developer is responsible for that u what the custom is is to get maintenance bonds from subcontractors and understandably subcontractors won't always step up and say yeah it's my problem I'll take care of it there's a number of them on there and you know whether it's concrete or whether it's uh something happened under the concrete is always a matter of debate and a lot of times the contractor will just stand back and you say well you know talk to my subs and figure it Well,

sometimes it's impossible to figure out because nobody, you know, I'm each of them stand behind their work, but something else caused it. And we've uh we've run into a lot of that. And um so reviewing our bonding requirements, uh we've always required a four-year bond. We've always required in our bonding the developer is uh is responsible for it. And um but we wanted to clarify that because we have run into a lot of where developers will be under the mistaken impression that once they get their subs give a give a bond that they can step away they wash their hands of it. And you know I'm not saying that's all developers. I mean we have a lot of really really good developers in town and the majority of them take care of their business. Uh but you know there there are some that don't and u so we're rewriting this. Originally we uh the original way this was written is a we had changed from requiring allowing subcontractors bonds you know so each subcontractor would give a bond for their portion of the work um to say that we wanted one single bond provided by the developer. So, we've gotten input on that. I've gotten input on that. I welcomed input on that. Uh, and we we met with some developers and I talked to some other people in the industry and u we've made amendments to that to not require just the single bond. Uh, I I feel that, you know, once I talked to everybody, it might have created a burden that uh, you know, we're not trying to create a huge burden here. I think we might have been creating more than we wanted to on that. Uh what we're looking for is responsibility where the developer if there's something matter with the road our engineer can say there's something

matter of the road developer agrees with it and the developer goes back takes care of his subs makes make sure the repairs get done. So we don't care who makes it who makes the repairs we just want the repairs done without having to be the mediators and the decision makers and the approvers of who uh who's doing that. So, uh, we since the initial version of this, we did I I did make changes on it. The wording that we have in there right now is pretty much straight out of Urbanale. I thought the Urban Dale people and they've got uh, you know, it's the same environment that Urbanddale has. U, and I can clarify it further. I've gotten some more information on this version where some people felt that it wasn't clear that we were going to allow multiple bonds. So I guess I would suggest before we finish for the three readings that I'd be allowed to, you know, add another sentence or so just to be clear that we could have multiple bonds or single bonds have that option there. Uh but but ultimately it is does emphasize very much that if there are issues, the developer is responsible. The developer better, you know, is going to be required to contract with their subs to make sure that their subs are responsible to the developer. um because we expect the developer to handle issues. Uh we have another aspect on it that we're going to u incorporate a just kind of an agreement. It's going to it's a platting agreement that when a preliminary plaque comes in, we're going to make a developer just acknowledge what's in our code so that we don't run into, you know, two years later once everything's done them acting surprised that, you know, we're expecting them to stand behind their work versus pushing off on their subcontractors. So, there's going to be an agreement that gets signed at the time of preliminary plat just basically addressing that and also addressing that if we do get into the situation where we get into litigation or we have to pay extra engineering fees to enforce the

guarantee, well, that's going to be have to be reimbursed to the city also. in our right now talking to West Mo City attorney about this. A week or so ago, they're in litigation right now doing that where they had to uh sue a bunch of subcontractors and a developer because it was there's a bunch of fingerpointing basically not I not I not I and they had to go into court and let the court try to decide that. They're in the middle of that right now. So I think this definitely takes strides going beyond what our previous code said. unhappy with the ordinance amendment. Uh but but we have we've cooperated with them because I think the first one was more harsh than perhaps we perceived when we first talked about it. And u so uh we have compromised somewhat. It's definitely not as uh it's stronger than what our old code was, but it's not as as rigorous on the developers as our first version of this was.

Jim, I want to add a clarification. I know sometimes we look at who's in the room. We have a lot of professionals from the industry, I believe, in the room, people that understand all this stuff forward, backwards. We do have people that watch YouTube, they watch online.

One thing that I would like to explain is that when you're talking about a failure, you know, when when a when a development happens, there's a sewer pipe that goes in the ground. Likely on top of that, there's a water line that goes in the ground. And then up a little bit further is the pavement. If something happens with backfill or some issue between that sewer pipe, the water line, it can create some settling and the pavement then starts to fail at the surface. We all see the street failing, but when Jim's talking about fingerpointing, the reason for that is very likely it could be that the person, the contractor that built the road, it's not their fault. And so they're saying, "Well, you're telling me to fix the road, but the problem's underneath." And so that's the fingerpointing that goes back and forth that becomes difficult because then the city is putting in a significant amount of time of trying to manage who's at fault and who should make the repair.

So I just wanted to make that clarification on where that the the term behind gender point. Okay. Question discussion. I guess my question would be do you think that this will adequately protect the city so that we still have a hammer when something does go wrong to be able to ensure that the general is solving the resolving the situation for you. Yeah, I think so. I'm I'm happy with where we're at right now. That'd be my main concern, I think. Yeah.

Not right now. I will comment. Who do we have?

I I'll go first since you mentioned HBA. Uh I'm Dan Kop with the home builders association and we do have a couple of uh Norwok res or property owners down here tonight uh that are part of our world and helping to build your city. But I will start by saying thank you because Norwok has agreed and has been very eager to host our home show next year and I haven't been down here to say thank you for that. Um, and we do talk a lot about, you know, how great housing is and and you know, Norwok's on a big high right now. There's no doubt this undeniable. We just want to make sure we're not doing have causing unintended consequences, right? Um, I don't want to steal Vista's thunder, but we've got 12 contracts already in next year's show. So, we're excited about that. We want to continue that momentum. So, that's good. Um, we we do have some data. We've got some pricing. U, attainability is is is paramount to us, right? How expensive is a house? How expensive is a lot? Right? So, we always try to balance that. But we're coming into this really with the lens of how do we help both sides come to that common ground that meets the needs. Uh we did meet with Jim, we met with Wayne, we met with Luke uh a few days ago, but we've only had about 15 days to digest it. We've had one day to digest the new language uh that we got yesterday. Uh so ultimately, we're going to ask for a little bit of grace and a little bit of time. So, I'm going to let them come up and speak. Um, but our hope is that you let us continue to work with your staff and uh try to come with that middle ground that's good for the development community and housing and is good for the city to give you that hammer that Ed was just referencing. So, um, we're uh we're we're we're not taking the same approach that maybe you expected from us. So, hopefully you recognize that at the end of the end of our time here speaking. So, thank you all.

Thank you. Thanks, David.

Who's next? Mayor, Council, Dave Harmire, Vista Real Estate. Uh, good, good. 2400 86th Street, Urbanddale, Sweet 24. Um, thank [clears throat] you for helping us with the home show. We're excited about that. Um, [clears throat] we've been developing property, if you're not familiar with us, for over 40 years, subdivisions in the greater de mo area, including in Norwalk. Um, and Urbandale, although we haven't done it in the last five years, so I'm not familiar with Jim with Urbandale having anything like this on a bond, but um, we just want to make sure. When I first read that bonding requirement, I had to read it again because I thought, "Wow, I don't think our company can even get this type of a bond because I've never seen anything like that in any of the communities we've developed in." So, I [clears throat] expressed that concern to a gentleman at Homes Murphy that does bonds for us for basically sidewalks. And he said, "Wow, that's very unusual." So he sent it to um the shy association and a letter was sent by him to you guys. Uh his name was uh um Andrew Hawk and he's the president of the uh Association of Iowa and he sent a letter to you guys November 4th. I'm not going to go through all his points but I hope you guys have read that and given it due consideration. Um when we first had the opportunity on October 22nd to meet with Jim and the staff um I brought up um this bonding issue because um again I thought we wouldn't be able to obtain that kind of a bond and I don't think we can the way it's written. So, I hope we don't pass that tonight, the

language, and that you give us a little bit of time to try to massage that before you go through the passing process and additional readings. We do want to work with the city to extend the life of your pavement and and make that work. And we are not developers. I hope the staff feels that we're not developers that walk away from problems. I think we come to try to solve solve issues. at least that I believe is our reputation and I want that to continue but I'm not going to speak towards all the costs uh issues and all of that. Um we we I think as a group of developers have come up with some ideas that we do think will help extend your pavement life and and protect the streets and everything else. Um, but I continue to have concerns with that bond. Um, as it was rewritten, uh, Jim, and some of them are, from my own perspective as a developer, uh, it it significantly increases our risk profile to develop here in town. And unfortunately, we're, you know, in the middle of a development or fortunately in Saddle Ridge, we put in 61 lots and we have 85 more to go. And I'm concerned that I can't get that bond. Um, you want me to put some cash up, uh, like 25 grand for maintenance if it's not getting done by the the subcontractor's bond, which is clearly the industry standard, then hold some cash from me if you don't think I'll come back and help fix the problem. But I don't think I can provide that bond and and the things I'm concerned about it in is um in addition to what Mr. [clears throat] Hawkley said was you guys are asking us to warrant the design. It's the city spec that you guys provide

and the licensed engineers we hire that do the design and your engineers approve. I'm not an engineer nor an attorney. So, um, you're asking me to warrant it. I'm I'm fine warranting through the bonds, the workmanship, and the materials that are being provided, and even provide cash if I need to do that. But going and getting the bond, I don't think I can get. Um, the language is very unclear. It says that we not only warrant but we maintain um this the infrastructure for four years from final plat but we don't do once from final plat we don't maintain the streets or the sewers the city does. So when uh Wayne had mentioned some failures out at the estates on the ridge that we did at Echko on Autumn Summit Drive I'm like boy I didn't know that. So, I drove around and I even brought out Sternquist, [clears throat] our contractor that did the paving out there, and he's actually here, Brit. And [clears throat] it looked to us like that any damage that occurred around there, and there's only a couple areas probably happened by a pump truck pouring a foundation uh or pouring a pool. Um, again, I don't build the houses. We just develop the lots. Now, some of the developers build houses. We don't. But I don't want to be held responsible for a pump truck that I'm not inspecting the work as a guy's building a house. Um, I don't think that should be my responsibility or a plow truck chips a curb. Um, I don't think that should be our responsibility. We we put the streets in and yes, we should stand behind if compaction wasn't good and all that. the bond should stand

behind it and they and they should. Um but uh and again we'll we'll we'll come try to help solve that problem but I don't think the way this is written is very clear. Uh and and I think that we're not going to be able to get a bond. The other part in the language is hold harmless hold harmless language. And again, not being an attorney, but it appeared to me that the language is making us liable for any direct or indirect costs. And I learned a long time ago as a young person working in the construction industry to not sign up for consequential damages and risk losing your business over it. And I'm very concerned with that language. again, not being an attorney, that we could have somebody trip and fall out there on a street and and the city would want us to hold them harmless for that person that falls and hurts themselves. I don't think that's fair to us as developers. Um, and I'd be worried about having to take some kind of risk like that that is not quantifiable. And I don't think any of you guys would want to do that yourself individually. Um, I know I wouldn't knowingly want to do that. So, I think the language is very uh it's not tight. So, I hope that we have an opportunity to um to really work with you guys to do it. And I think you'll hear from some of the other developers that are going to kind of touch some other subjects. We do want to try to help solve this problem because you guys have expansive soils in the area. you all know about it and there are some things that can be done to improve the design and the workmanship to extend your pavement life. But I don't think this bond um the way it's written is practical um or even our ability to implement it. And I do

believe to your question down there on the hammer or the enforcability, you guys have currently the ultimate hammer. So if a developer isn't responsible like we hope we are and I think the the the people that are here in in the room tonight and so if they want to wash their hands, you guys can just quit issuing building permits I believe in that [clears throat] subdivision and very quickly that developer is going to get a lot of calls from people and they're going to come to the table to try to help solve that problem. So, I'm not sure that the bond's going to do anything except add costs and potentially limit your pool of developers that are going to be able to come come to the city and do work. I just don't think it's possible for that to do. I'm not a bonding expert, but if you'll give us the time, we'll bring those people in. We'll sit down with you guys and we'll get an effective solution that that we can support with you on on a new ordinance. So,

thank you. Good evening, Caleb Smith, Hubble Realy Company. Um Dave held off on the cost side. That's really what I'm here to talk about was the cost piece of this puzzle. Um so when I first looked at uh the proposed ordinance, the you know, obviously you try to figure out what the impacts are. And uh I did want to note looking at the staff report, there's a discrepancy between what staff thinks believe the cost impacts are and what we believe it's what they are. And I think that Delta is enough. They're saying that they think it's around 2,000 per lot for a 60 foot lot. I'm telling you, I think it's twice that at least. And I know this because what I did is I analyzed our two subdivisions we got at Holland Point. I looked at Hallpoint Plat 3, which we just built. I looked at Holland Point plat one. And the reason I looked at them both is that cost for a lineal foot of street can vary for how many lots you have. Holland Point plat 3 is very efficient. There was not a lot of street given the number of lots we had. Great great subdivision to have plat one less so a lot more street for the amount of street we had. So the cost impact on that one specifically was much more. So what I did is I took a look at all those requirements talking with our with our contractors what the pricing would be to implement and just said hey here's the quantities here's what it is. And I did an analysis on it. Uh Dan I don't know did you share this with them yet?

No. Either way, I did analysis on what it would come down to be uh per lot at Holland Point Plat 3 to implement all the items in here just from a construction side. We're talking the modified subbase, the subdrain, the CD baskets. Um at Holland Point Plat 3, it would have costed us $4,000 a lot. That has no markup. That's just straight cost. That's what we would have paid our contractor at Holland Point Plat One because it's less efficient of a project. It would have cost us $5,000 a lot. And this is important because what this does is it starts to push the price point of lots in Norwok out of the point that I think you're going to be competitive with the rest of the market. Part of the reason people come here isn't because hey, we can get away with bloody murder on you. It's because the price of lots are reasonable where we're at. If you look at $100,000 lots in Hall Point Plat 3, those aren't going to sell. That's the pricing you would see about only in West De Mo. In every other community, those lots should be priced what they are here in one. And one of my biggest fears is is implementing these these standards, this these prescription standards. There's no science behind it. One of the things that says in that you're going to do a geotechnical report that does a design for that that road in that specific location. You're going to look at the soil. You're going to look at the data and then you tell us exactly how to build the road. It just seems a little disingenuous. What what's the point of the geotechnical report if you're just going to tell us what to do? And I think you're just going to add a ton of cost. And for when I asked in our meeting when those failures happen were they at a section where we cut a bunch of earth out where they actually put a bunch bunch of fillet there's no answer and I get that was a spur-of-the- moment question but that's important when it comes to the value and intent of what subdrink can do for a road and so I think while intending to try and drive a 50-year design life what we're really doing is adding a bunch of costs we don't know if it's going to drive any value so what I'm here for is this is we're having a chance to discuss this and try and figure out how do we work

how can we make this work and I think we just started this conversation. I think buying us a little time to continue to work with staff to kind of word smith this in a way that makes more sense I think is reasonable. The other thing I wanted to point out is you mentioned inkeny you know is requiring subdrain and all their roads. they're also paying for it. That hasn't been brought up on the table here at this point in time and I understand this the complications right now with city finances that that's not an easy conversation to have. I appreciate that. But my point is that a lot of cities that are implementing these things are finding ways to help offset that to make it possible. And I think in this way this proposal is, it's just a this is what you got to do to make it happen. So we want to find a way to help roads. I I drove like Dave said, I drove the Legacy. I drove Holland Point today just to see what what are these roads that we put in 30 years ago. How are they doing? And certainly there's there's been needs to repair some of those situations. There's been roads that have been worse than others. And in those situations where the roads were worse or usually situations we took a lot of dirt out to put the road in. And that's where my point is. I think if we just be a little bit more scientific in our approach and how we apply these construction techniques, there may be a need that exactly what's in here has to be put in for a road to make it make sense. That part I think we can be okay with. But when you're required in an area that we clearly know is going to be great because we put the dirt in there. It's the best dirt we could find. That's where it kind of it just doesn't seem like we're trusting the science. So, um I will leave this here. Obviously, I can share all my calculations with everybody. Um, I think I think what we're asking for just give us a little bit more time to work with staff to come up with a solution that I think will drive the most value to the city but help keep affordability uh in in place here for so we can keep that the growth in activity that we're seeing. So,

did I ask a question? Yeah. You use the term 50-year design lag. What does that mean? Uh, 50-y year design life. It's in the engineering process. You try and figure out a design in the road section based off of the subs soil surface conditions, water conditions, things like that that allow the 50 years roughly last 50 years. Doesn't mean you won't have maintenance on it, but the road section itself should roughly make 50. But some of the areas over in the Holland area that I looked at yesterday, it's less than two years old and it's got longitudinal cracks all over it. Yeah. And some of that we're still going to have to fix yet. See, as part of the maintenance bond that's there, we will go back out and we'll be taking care of a good chunk of those.

So, I guess I'm it's not really a 50-year. I'm talking Okay, after the four years is up, the people that live there and it happens at 6, 8, 10. That's the part that's killing us. Okay, let's talk about what kind of drive. So, you just reconstructed that. What, 10 years ago? That's I just drove that today. That's pretty rough. I also drove Colonial Parkway that goes out to the industrial area. That's 9inch concrete. There's sections out there that that are failing. The thing with your soils in Norwok, and I get we're trying to figure out how to take the risk off the city's cable, but I think I think what's being done is we're wasting money. We're throwing money at something that's not going to drive any value. There's rock and there's sub drain on Colonial Parkway. We're seeing issues out there.

So, you're saying a new life expectancy for concrete is [clears throat] 20 years? No, we It's always been 30. Always been 30. Yep. And so I'm just saying I'm not saying that this stuff won't be implemented or shouldn't be implemented. What I'm saying is is that I think there's a lot of things in here that there could be a more creative solution that will accomplish the same thing that's a more cost-effective solution to keep affordability in in mind as we think about these changes will help provide more protection to the city. That's that's all I'm suggesting. Okay. One of the things I heard was is that you're adding $4 to $5,000. This is going to what we're suggesting or proposing is going to add $4 to $5,000 per lot.

Mhm. But we also heard that our repairs on one road that is failing early is $14,000 per lot. How do you how do you how do you justify that?

Well, I mean, repairs are always going to be expensive. We know that. The reality is you got to look at your entire network. So when I say four to $5,000 a lot, I don't know specifically the project you're talking about, but how many lots are in there and you start looking and adding up all the roads that you got that are in really good shape, you know? So you're going to spend 4 to 5,000 on those that you don't have any problems with, you end up in about a better spot by doing the repairs. And I'm not saying there's certainly areas that we've got problems. I was driving Holland. There's a certain there's a couple things that we're just we just need to fix now instead of waiting just we just need to do that for our salailability. But if you force it across everything yes you will have some comfort level but even when you do it on your repair products you're having problems. So what's the guarantee that this is going to sol solve the problem for you?

I kind of go by probability. If you've got shale and expansive soils and everything everywhere drainage seems to like it's a big deal. Uh you don't think this is applicable for that? It it depends on how the subsurface water works in a cut situation where you're taking dirt out to put a road in. You're right because you're still in that natural terrain. You're going to have that groundwater. When you go and put fill in subra is way less effective. In fact, hardly even needed in most situations that every geotech I've ever worked has told me that. So this is where it's like you're saying put it everywhere. I'm saying let's put some science to it. You got a geotech that's going to do a report. It's going to give you design. Let's see what they say because if they say put tile in everywhere, then that's what we got to do.

But realistically, how often do you see a geotech giving you that recommendation where in retrospect later, wow, we should have had that recommendation, right?

I'm going to ask you a question. How many pavement design reports have you received for a subdivision in the past five years? Because I we don't do them. We do a geotech report for the community, but we don't do a specific one for the BLA. Used to be something we did 20 years ago. Here's my thing. I [clears throat] I just think there's a there's there's a lack of looking at the conditions that you specifically have for your project, designing a road that meets your standard, whatever that ends up being that meets that standard. We've gotten away from that. I remember specifically as I was submitting some legacy design stuff way back in the day that we always had a geotech report specific to the plat that we handed in. Now, there's some roads in the Legacy that we've got some problems, but there's a [clears throat] lot of roads out there that are in really good shape, too.

You know what? My concerns, I guess I've got a few of them, but we we put a lot of streets in last few years, and you would hope that most streets would have maybe a 30-year life. That's probably reasonable. So if you think about all the streets you put in over the last five years, they're all going to come due about the same time, right? Yep. And somebody somewhere in the future is going to say, "How could that council be that stupid? They create all these problems." Another thing that personally I'll probably be the only one around, too.

Well, you might be right. You're a bit younger than me. The other thing, not to be personal concern, is I watch these things go by my house now really fast. Some of them got two wheels. Some of them kids are standing on hold on to nothing, right? They're just right down the road. No helmet, no pad. We know that when you're young, you're going to live forever, right? Nothing bad's going to happen. That's the way you think.

Yeah. I just got done driving some of these streets. I saw a catastrophic street failure that totally surprised me in a new addition. Now, it's not your guys, right? But it's there. And that is a finished street with houses on the sides of it. Wham. Right. No, the slightest little bitty thing with a situation like that, we get somebody killed. Right. Right. How do we address that as a community? I mean, that's part of the concern,

right? And we've got other subdivisions that, you know, my god, it's a nightmare, you know, and and it's not your guys'. This is somebody else. Okay. But nonetheless, why are we letting ourselves get stuck with this stuff? You see our fault. No, I totally get it. And that's why we're not here saying scrap the whole thing. And I appreciate that. But I think the reality is is that you're taking a couple problem situations and then you're painting us all in the same light. Well, see that's but that's the world we live in.

Okay. But it'd be like having someone who doesn't mow their lawn and says they can't do it. You're just going to mow everything. I mean to me that's not what you do. You take care of the lawn that's a problem. You let the people are doing it right function as they should. Maybe in this consideration and this is again where more time could help us develop this is maybe if if you've performed effectively five plats I don't know just throwing this idea out five plats and it's gone well that maybe your standard is different than someone who's new to the community not saying you get away scot-free that some of this stuff likely will still be required but maybe we're treated the folks that are here tonight trying to say hey we've done a lot of good work in this community maybe we get treated in just a slightly different light. Well, I think a lot

by the way, we have a development agreement that's being proposed, right? You have the mechanism to do it. I think there are a lot of good things that come from talking. Okay. I think it's a good idea for people to talk because maybe we got part of the puzzle. Maybe you got part of the puzzle. Sure. But when it ends, I want to walk away from this feeling that I protected the citizens of Norwalk. Yeah. Both physically and financially. Right. Yep. and feel like we got a fair shake and we're not left holding the bag on anything when I think it's a fair perspective and honestly I don't think we're here to No, I don't believe you are trying to find that that right middle ground here.

I'm not that you are right. Maybe some others might be right. There's some good people out there in this audience right now that are good developers, but my experience hasn't been that they're all good developers. And when a community sets rules, it has to set a standard. And the standard applies across the board. I mean, that's fair, right? And we always try to protect ourselves, not necessarily from the competent people, from the incompetent people. That's what we're trying to protect our community. So, understand that there's one standard that applies across the board, right? And that's what we have to come to, whatever that is. I mean, do you understand that?

No, I agree. And that's why I said there's still things in this that I would expect we're going to have to do no matter. Okay. Well, I got no problem with people talking. I just think I think what's been presented and the inability to even consider any discussion on this at the staff level and I think they believe they are trying to deliver what council wants and I appreciate that.

I I think I think there's still some time here to refine this in a way that'll make way more sense for both sides. It'll give the city the protection they need and it'll help keep the affordability as as good as possible in Norwalk. My honest fear is that if at $5,000 a lot once I'm done at home point like I if this stays in place and we and we're not compete we can't compete with this price. I mean I I'd be in Norwalk I'd be in Walke because they don't require us to do this. it' be an acheny because they're going to take care of the sub

and that's where it's a it's it's a there's a double-edged sword here with all this. I'm just trying to find a way to get the city what they want and allow us to be able to build things in at a price point we know can sell and in conversation there may be some way that we could work that out in conversation too, right? because we've presented some legislative changes past tax abatement and that sort of thing. But, you know, it'd probably be good for staff to sit and talks a little bit with you. I'd appreciate that. Anything else for me? I think we might have one other person before I forward them. Thank you.

Jennifer Ellison, 3900 Westtown Parkway. Good evening, Mayor Phillips and council members. I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight and want to begin by expressing my support for some of the comments that have been shared this evening. In addition, I would request or respectfully request that the council consider extending the review period for the proposed subdivision ordinance amendments. Um, this would allow extra time to provide uh more clarification and refinement based on stakeholder feedback and also would allow time to assess the broader impacts that these changes may have. I can tell from the discussion that there's still a lot that we can discuss and work together on. In review of past updates in 2020 specifically, it looks like the city had hired a consultant to go ahead and oversee the changes that would be made to the subdivision ordinance. As part of that process, they did have a stakeholder group. Uh they held meetings, it looked like for about four months leading up to the first public meeting that was held at the PNZ. uh as part of that process, they really opened up the opportunity to do a deep dive into some of the solutions and opportunities for changes to the ordinance, but also to hear about some of these impacts that impact the development community. I do feel this process is slightly different than what had been followed in the past and would like to see an opportunity for the stakeholder meetings to occur as well. There's several developers in this community that have made significant investments in large land holdings based on feasibility studies. They've got approved master plans that align with Norwok's long-term growth, their strategy and vision. These property owners are interested in having these conversations with you and working together being able to coordinate and make positive change. Uh the challenge is a lot of these developments occur over a longer period of time. So they happen in phases, sometimes 10 years or

more on some of the developments that are are here in Norwok. I think it's a balance where we have to find a um being able to have a sustainable development over time and be able to balance the market as well. The proposed ordinance changes, although well-intentioned, I do think could substantially affect the viability of some of these long-term projects. And so I would recommend a phased roll out similar to what had happened in 2020. uh would allow developers to adapt responsibly and would provide a grace period for existing developments under the current ordinance. As part of the 2020 update, there was an implementation timeline that was provided. As part of that, they allowed it looked like six months from the date of the first PNZ meeting to allow any preliminary plat submitted to continue to build out using the previous standards. Then there was a full implementation date that was provided 5 years later in which all development projects regardless of when the preliminary plat was approved would have to meet the new standards. It would be great if we could extend the review period 60 to 90 days so we can continue these discussions and I think the implementation period is is part of that discussion. This transition period would allow flexibility and ensure that existing investments are not unintentionally compromised. I would urge you all to consider these recommendations as part of a collaborative effort to support thoughtful growth. Uh protect existing commitments and maintain the integrity of Norwok's vision. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Who are you with? Jerry's Homes. Thank you. Long time no see. Long time no see. Uh Dustin Miller, I am the legal counsel for the developers uh council that is a a part of the homebuilders of Greater De Moines. Uh so appreciate uh seeing some of you. I've worked with Luke now for over a decade. I was just thinking about an integrated resource plan we did in Boone a decade ago. So I think I come to this table. Do you appreciate seeing me too? Yeah, absolutely. Um because I do appreciate seeing you. Yeah. Yeah.

Uh and I hope you appreciate the the posture that you've heard. Uh truly the group um we hear you that there is a problem and and I will also say I appreciate you sticking us first in the agenda and I should lead with I had it I had a I had a I had a mentor who once nice of us. Yeah. I had a mentor. Sorry for everyone else. That uh

uh Julius Caesar was a great man. He gave long speeches. his people killed him. So, I will take that advice and not replplow any ground you've heard. I I hope you've heard from us. It was an active approach from the membership uh of the developers council uh to hear the problem that you're trying to address and to not come in here and say, uh the sky is falling. You have to stop this. This is about a conversation. Uh and really that's what we come here with is, you know, certainly what you want hear from us is a practical aspect. uh and affordability, the reality of people moving to your community and we want to help with that. Appreciate some of the the edits related to the development agreement. I think it's a suggestion from some of our folks, you know, getting those those hooks into people so that you have the ability to address it. We just think again the quick turnaround especially on the bond language. I think there's some real practical hindrances in that language on the the the subdrain uh the differences in soils you have from the north of the metro to where we're dealing with here. Uh and I didn't get to say that from a proud Warren County resident uh grew up in Lacona, live in Indianola. Understand uh what you're dealing with with with soils around here. Understand the road issues but at the same time we want to be part of the solution. and not see every single developer and every single road as the problem, which it seems like at least the initial approach was very aggressive. Coming back, uh we appreciate that, but as others have mentioned, time would be great, especially as I say, a 24-hour turnaround to look at the new bonding language. I will tell you the bonding language that was initially out there, you've piqu the interest of everybody in the state. Um, and there is a lot of people looking at this because it is not a regular thing that anybody has seen. Uh, and as you say, the people in this room, uh, are folks that stand behind their work. Um, they don't want to be hard to find. They want to keep doing work in your community. So, that's just the main thing we want to come here with

is a posture of wanting to be collaborative, wanting to find a solution that is good for your community. Um, and so just please give us some time to to work with folks that we've worked with a long time to do that. Thanks, Dustin. Anybody else? I got a question for you. Do we not do we not require a geotech report on streets?

We do. Yeah, we have specific geotechnical reports for each side. Yeah. And quite a few uh since the last one kale. You bet. But we don't typically see anything. And the reason, you know, we're still, you know, it's it's our goal to still require a geotechnical report. the these are the minimum standards that that we're asking the council to consider and so a geotechnical report could could you know could recommend more than that you know so okay

today we require a geotechnical report and we have a little bit different minimum standard but that geotechnical report you know in in some circumstances could require an 8 inch pavement on the road for some reason set of seven or subbas and subdrains but but we've rarely seen that anything above you in terms of geotechnical report or or a pavement designed more than our minimum standards ever. Okay. And so u so that's so yeah we still required either geotend report um and we want to continue to do that

Tony on the on the road that's already experiencing some some problems. We had a geotech report and it gave us these standards and it's already failing. Am I accurate there?

That Yeah, that's accurate. But but understand we've got you know there's there's construction related issues and there might be design you know and you know our subdivision regulations are kind of kind you know our changes that we're recommending are trying to address kind of both of those things you know to improve our design standards so that we have have less construction failures but also anything related to design failures as well you know so and there's not I want to preface by s you know also O saying there's there's not a right or wrong answer here. I think the communication in this discussion is good. I'm not suggesting that uh that anybody here is is is necessarily wrong, you know, wrong or in their you know it what it comes down to really is the is the reasonleness of of of what what these recommendations are

and and sometimes that might vary depending on who you represent, you know. So engineers are conservative by nature, you know, and so um you know that's that's uh ingrained into us in our education and and so

overbuild. No, even though some of these things might seem conservative to some people, overly conservative, uh we think it's reasonable based on our experience, based on our histories, based on what we've seen for failures that we believe is both related to construction and design. We're still going to see with these new standards. It's true. We're still going to see construction issues. We're still going to see failures related to construction because that can happen. We have, you know, and but in a lot of ways, these minimum standards are really designed for optimum optimum conditions, too, you know, and in Iowa, those conditions can vary significantly. Our specific conditions on on a a on a construction site can vary and and our weather conditions can vary. And we're not always working at optimum conditions. In fact, you know, it seems like, you know, if you're out there, you know, watching the subdivision being constructed, seems like we're rarely have optimum. I don't even know what that is, but we're working at temperatures close to freezing and where we got to have cold weather protection and we're working with temperatures in the nights and and and all kinds of different, you know, specific conditions on sites that that impact the quality of our infrastructure. And these, you know, and some of this is, you know, helps us to, you know, ensure that we get a better product. You know, do we are we are we seeing fail, you know, are we seeing more failures recently in our subdivision subdivision street infrastructure than we think we should see? Yes. I mean, are other other cities uh you know have have the same standards that were recommended or even more standards?

Yes. Uh do we think that there's value in this and that the long-term benefit of this is going to outweigh the initial cost of this? Yes, we do. So, we think it's reasonable and this discussion is great because uh we you know we want it to be reasonable to everybody. Wayne, have you gotten any emails or communications from other sources that may show that the that may indicate that having these standards is reasonable? [clears throat]

I've had email communication with Sudas director and the Iowa Concrete Paving Association. I don't know if either one has come out and said definitively this is a great thing. You should do it. The tone of those was these are reasonable improvements. They're not unusual. I did see an email from the Holmes Murphy. Uh there was a chain through there and they even indicated that I believe an attorney with Homes Murphy indicated the city should look at requiring subbase and subdrains instead of the bonding requirements. So there's even indication there from a legal entity that these aren't unusual or unreasonable request. And I think Tony's right. It's a lot of opinion. Depending on where you sit, your opinion is probably going to be different. I think they're reasonable. The fact that Ankeny requires it and they're willing to pay for it makes me pretty comfortable that they see value in it and it's quality uh requirement. It's council asked for uh suggestions on how to improve our road network. I think these are fair.

When we, you know, when when when Caleb talked about the the the cost per lot, you know, you know, I um, you know, I I would I would not uh um I don't I don't doubt his numbers. I mean, I guess I I you know, when we when we put the cost, staff put the cost together, we specifically looked at, you know, a straight section of payment, assuming you have lots on both sides and and cost and and recent costs from uh uh for those items for recent projects. One of the things we didn't talk about, you know, we did we didn't have a cost in there for for uh uh for our uh our CD baskets, you know, which is our which is our load transfer joints that that uh that we have here. That's something that we're kind of on the

really staff's kind of on the fence with, you know, we want there are situations where where we think it's it's going to be a value the student aspect, you know, uh really leaves that up to the jurisdiction for seven pavements. Uh but that's something that that we can be that uh that can be, you know, maybe up to the up to the city engineer or based on a geotechn report. Maybe that maybe that's in specific cases, maybe it's not. You know, we have a lot of subdivisions that some streets function more as a collector's street even though it's they're seven inch inch pavement. You know, these streets get a lot of lot of uh you know uh get get beat up during the construction of of the sub subdivision infrastructure. They get beat up during home building and they get beat up with with the next ple because they have to use that for access, you know. So, there are specific areas that we think it's of value and and other areas maybe it's not necessary. So we want we I think we want to maybe keep that flexible. Um but uh but but the cost you know when one of the things we did consider the cost is is the efficiency of the development itself in terms of lots per foot of street you know so you're going to have a lot of a lot of areas of street where where you don't have lots you know park dedication areas etc etc uh um you know maybe storm storm water retention areas uh but there but so you know in terms of efficiency you're not not going to necessarily have have two lots for 60, you know, two residential lots per 60 foot properties, you know, it's something less than that, you know. So, so, you know, we had a cost of of I think around $4,000 for six feet to say we have lots on both sides. Is it possible that's more that? Yeah, I don't want to get into that debate, you know, but it's, you know, it's it's that that's a reasonable range, I think, for most subdivisions in that in that say two to four to $5,000 per lot. And our goal, you know, I mean, again, I

mean, one of our goals here is, you know, and and to me, our, you know, our engineering and public works goals as well as well as uh uh this council for our community should be to, you know, over time maintain, you know, at a minimum standard, maintain the average condition of our of our pavement infrastructure in our city and and ideally improve it over time. Yeah. And we think, you know, without the without um these changes uh that you know in the future we're going to struggle

I'm I guess when I hear the four or 5,000 I'm thinking that's on a $300,000 home that's one and a half%. It's not that dramatic or deadly. I currently live on a street that has failed in 10 to 20 years and the cost to each of us are dramatically higher. I'm spending we're looking at on average our neighborhood at anywhere from 15 to $25,000 per family to redo the sidewalks and the curves driveways. I'm not hearing a lot of bad news with the four or $5,000. Now we have bigger lots. So, it's obviously it would be 10,000. Well, right now I would have traded you a lot for that. We have bad soil. We have crap soil here in Nor. Um, it just seems prudent. I I don't know. I I do have a question on the bonding. You're prefacing on changing the wording in that. Uh, did that address what uh he was referring to from Vista? Um I

or not I it addressed more there. The fir the change that I made I believe did address a lot of that. Uh I'm certainly open to making some more changes. We got a from bonding association. I was forward an email late yesterday and I tried communicating with him asking him to call me today. He was in South Dakota hunting so he couldn't. Uh so I'm not blaming that's don't take that as derogatory but I reached out to him to communicate with him too because I I am anxious to take it but I was happy to take that but on the first first meeting I mean clearly um are we still trying to get a bond on the developer themselves and on the

no uh the intention that I and that's one I think major thing that everyone was worried about first is that is having the developer provide the bond uh so Uh the intention here is and how Urbanddale handles it is that the uh is that they do allow subcontractors to provide the bonds for their own part of work. You know that I think developer still needs to understand that we're looking at this as a fouryear warranty on the roads. So if there's gaps in coverage between assembling the different bonds, that's on the developer because ultimately the developer is warranting the road.

But what about the maintenance port? maintenance maintenance portion that is u other cities have that uh you know but even from the input I heard today I mean if we have worries about what type of maintenance we're talking about I don't disagree that they shouldn't be responsible for damage done by the city with snowpaw um or a pump truck or whatever that makes sense

well I don't know about the pump truck we'd have to discuss that and you know they've developed a private business where they're selling lots and if their private business results in damage to our public roads you know, maybe they need to work with their people that they sell lots with to figure that out. And I'm not I'm not even saying that. I mean, I'm you know, I'm swinging from the hip here, but uh I I certainly will listen to it. And I see your wrinkle brows there. Uh so, how do you control that? I'm sorry. I don't you don't I don't know how you control that, but but you know, the question is, do you require the city and its citizens to assume that risk or does the private businessman who's putting it together assume that risk? I don't know.

The guy putting in the pool means to us that risk, you know. So maybe we make laws that you don't allow that that heavy of equipment on our roads once we own them. We could have limits and then they'll have to use smaller cement trucks and things like that. I don't know. I don't know what's practical. I know a lot of things I'm throwing out are probably impractical, but uh we're just brainstorm right now. So what I'm hearing is is that We as a counselor kind of set on the minimum standards as far as subdrain and the subfase. I think that makes sense, but we're but we're still have questions about the bonding side of it.

Sounds like we're a little invasive.

Yes. So I I I I think my suggestion and maybe one of you guys can most do it for when ready uh to table, but to to direct staff to go back and start and and talk about the bonding side of it to get a little bit better language back to you guys to consider. I think we I I like the idea of a phased in approach as well. You know, like just you guys uh well Hubble also that they have developments that they have started and with with plans with current standards maybe we phase them in uh rather than slapping them down with these standards. I don't I that's that's something to discuss and

that's what we did last time. What's that? I think we did that last time. Yeah. Yeah. So maybe have staff talk about a phased in approach as well. Know what would seem appropriate and they can talk to Tony as in regards to that. Wayne uh ice cream also and and and and we may want to also maybe uh delay any new preliminary plat until this issue is resolved so that we don't start anything new

would be unfair to someone. That's that's a good point. Also, I like the idea that a couple of them have said there's um there's science out there, but maybe we have not besides just the drains. I think the drains hold a lot of promise, but if there's something else, you know, we we can change the future if we find a silver bullet that right fixes it. You know, other evolve over time. You have to move techniques as well. Well, we've evolved to to to where we're at today because we did not have we didn't have

before for min for minimums. Then we decided then we moved to uh a few years ago we moved to the the okay we're going to base it on a geotech report and the geotech report doesn't take into account a lot of other environmental factors I don't believe and so we're now at this next step. So we are evolving as we go. I want to follow up with a question Tony. We've never had a geotech report. May maybe just because it's not as expansive as I thought it was. Would say you have to raise the standard. They've all been minimum standard coming back.

Yeah, we don't we don't typically we wouldn't typically get a a uh a recommendation to raise the standard. Now do technical geotechnical report or could could recommend uh you know an 8 inch pavement or could recommend sub above our stand. That's why we're skeptical. We never hear the animal in the room is we never hear it actually goes down the developer. But when we build streets they say oh yeah you need an 8 inch base you need a big base. Yeah, that's the part that is perplexing to us.

The ones that we the ones we take, you know, I want to say that that kind of, you know, more general in nature and and and and not necessarily specific to the, you know, to the site, you know, we want we want to make sure so we want to make sure that that, you know, I think these these new changes in that geotech report, you know, are are trying to ensure that it's more specific to the site and they and they take all those things in into consideration. So that's uh that's something that we haven't seen in the past in the reports and and we rarely I won't say rarely because there's been a couple situation you know examples that I can think of that that we did get something over our minimum requirements and there's two that I can think of uh but it but it's but it's been rare you know so I did want to point out one more thing on the costs too iscept because there's there's there's definitely some things that offset these costs that we're talking about too and so if you look at some of the some of the subdivision recent subdivisions that we talked about sadd for example we talked about that there's a lot of subdarin in s ridge based on our current regulations so when we talk about the cost per foot additional cost per foot that we're already requiring some of these improvements in in a lot of our subdivisions now that varies you know based on the site conditions and then and and some of the specific requirements that that are necessary to to prepare that site but you know might be from you know 10 or 20% that required subdrains to 70 or 80%. Um but but uh but that's going to offset the cost. And the other thing that these these changes do is it allows us to use uh what we call a footing drain collector as as that sub drain too in some places. So virtually all of our subdivisions have a section sections along the pavement beyond the last intakes for for storm water collection where we have to have an 8 in 8 in sewer essentially for sub drains for uh footing drains and and

sump pump collection right so that has to serve every every lot essentially. So some of that subdrain we can use that uh we can we can eliminate that and use that 8 in pipe as what we call a subdrain footing drain collector uh and and that that offsets the cost that's that those those pipes are virtually in every one of our subdivisions. So that offsets some of that frontage cost as well. So, so uh you know in in some ways um there you know in some situations there's increased cost you know per foot or per lot but but in other situations you know like salage for example uh there's less cost because our sub you know the cost is still there but we're already required

you know the gentleman from Hubble mentioned u that in the house. They used to do a specific subdivision. What what you call it? Pay the design report.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Is something like would something like that be helpful to focus on specific terrain that you know and and the conditions because it varies so much here. I mean, I know we got soft soil, but even like when we built the police station, we did a study on the ground, right? And we still had a soft spot right in the middle that we had to to build a bridge for basically to construct the building. So, I mean, you can have surprises certainly when you go through. I understand that, but would that help to focus more on each uh development that's going in? I mean, would that be helpful or not? Sure. Yeah.

And may may maybe that's one of the things that we could consider looking at too. I'm sure it' be more paperwork on both sides, but I would just comment the concern there would be it'd be like the geotechnical report where come back as the original city standards are fine. I mean, it's just going to take

we get a geotech report. you need to be a soils engineer or somebody to really understand that or confirm that what they're recommending is accurate. We don't always know that. Um but again, like Tony said, rarely get reports that say anything above the city standard requirements. I can only think of two we've ever gotten. I don't think the my concern is the payment design report may say the same thing. It may not be valuable. It may be.

[clears throat] I'm just trying to imagine I don't think in the future we're going to be able to spend money fixing streets that are prematurely, right? Yeah. I I think I think I've been thinking a little bit about that too, George. I mean, obvious tax revenue, but we take on future liabilities with everything and and you know, right now our [clears throat] our ability to collect revenue that's going to keep up with those future liabilities is decreasing. So we can have a slow year and then we have a big year get six% growth like we did last year. We only get three right from the legislature, right?

Which is like putting news around our neck and tighten. So each time we go 3% we're just tightening a little bit more. Yeah. So I mean we got to be real prudent because we're in an area that's going to grow. Do we like it or not? Well, we like it. We Well, yeah. Some people don't, but uh but most [clears throat] but the point being uh we have to do it smarter or especially with that 3% limit or we're not going to be able to provide a safe environment over time. But

that builds up over time and eventually it's going to go from probability to reality that we're not going to be able to hire police officers. Right. MS fire whole bit because we're spending on other things only about 15 minutes. That's my whole speech. Yeah, I was thinking I was thinking about that. I'm asking questions.

Well, I'm an I'm an expert in soil substrate. Um, so but that would be boring for me to go into some of that stuff right now. I'm just trying to imagine Jackie's voice here tonight, which I'm going to have to get used to her not being here. Uh, but I imagine her being very passionate about um good streets with a lot of longevity for sure.

Um, so I miss that voice. I'll say that much. Uh, because then I get to show up as myself and be a little bit calm. Um, but I can imagine her being very passionate on behalf of our our citizens and our future citizens and our future expenditures and things like that. So, what do you guys want to do? You want to pass the first reading and have the bonding language massaged a little bit for the second or would you prefer to like table with the direction staff to work on the bonding issue? It sounds like we got a lot of stuff up in the air.

Yeah, I think tableabling it seems like the proper is it? I mean, it's only going to delay things two weeks. Yeah, we're not Yeah, we're not in that great of a rush and I'd like the right and feel comfortable with what they're doing. Uh I certainly don't mind [clears throat] taking more input from the public so that in a way you guys are taking more input from the public. I I'd like to table it so we get the best product that I think we can produce. Yep. That said, you want to produce a product. Yeah. Yeah. Status quo is not a pain is correct. I'm just gonna want to have staff work on a phased in approach to this.

Right now we we kind of have a little bit of a phased in approach in that uh these standards uh would not apply to I believe it's uh when plats approved prior to this coming January 1st uh and final plat a year finished a year later. So I mean that's that that's not as far as they want. I mean when I met with them personally I I asked them to look at those and talk about fuggest you know take a take a look at that. Okay. So I I do in that second draft we actually took that out it's not in there at all and uh

so anyhow I think it's great if you guys would look the table because we we will come to the table. It would surprise you. We we want to see this uh done right for the city. Uh we just think it's at this point there's a lot of changes that go through and pass then you have to amend amend and we'll we'll be okay. And do you want to delay any preliminary plans from being passed until

I think I think I'd like to have the staff provide us a recommendation on that. You know what they think maybe is a part of the conclusion of what they're doing. Dave, Dave, I too, when you come to the table, could you you I really appreciate the way you came tonight, everybody. Thank you so much. Thanks for leading it, too. Uh it's fantastic. I mean, we have had occasional not so pleasant

exchanges where there's an assumed like somehow all of a sudden we're two separate teams who are engaged in a battle here. is like, "Wait a minute. I I I think we're all on the same page." So, thank you. I really appreciate that. And Dave, I would appreciate that continued. Like, I'm really going to put myself 15, 20 years out in a city council person's seat, in a Norwok resident seat, and just what would you want in that situation if if that were the only hat you were wearing? what would you want? And if you can come with that sort like that helps me also listen too. Does that make sense?

So yeah, it's like I'm not saying you can't represent yourself too and I hear a lot of goodwill, but I always appreciate when people like strongman rather than strong man. And you didn't do that tonight, so thank you. But when they strongman the rationale for this thing that they would like to see change. So you know if you can continue to operate like all right I'm a Norwok resident. I'm 15 years out. I'm 20 years out. What would I have wanted my city council to do? Even if it was difficult I'm taking off my developer hat for a second. What would I have wished for? Um, and I'll do the same for you. That's what we did tonight. We listened. We heard. We'll t We're going to table stuff.

Yeah. I didn't think Yeah. No, thank you. What uh another I think we're kind of a little bit hypocritical here. I should throw that there. If we're going to do the uh the phase in not that I want to pay for it long term, we change the standards. Change standards. It's what it is. But on the phase in part, wouldn't we want to upgrade it to what we should it should be because that's going to pay off for us 30 years down, you know, next 30 years, 40 years, 50 years, whatever it is.

That'd be my take. So otherwise we if we we just let it slide and go under it's like okay we think it's not good enough but we're going to phase in not good enough doesn't make sense to me. So mayor agree sorry go ahead. So I I would say yes I think we want the phased in language and then let's have that discussion to see if we want to be off. Go ahead.

George tell me if I'm hearing you wrong. One of the things that I wanted to comment on and I know that Gan probably won't be happy to hear this specifically but if we are going to do a phase in as strongly as I know public works engineering feels about this if there's a phase in we might think about an immediate action but the city fund the difference up until that point that's what I heard you saying is that accurate y okay I was going to bring up theory I hope we'll know the cost of that point, right? So, there's some unknowns there, but if there's a phase in, I was going to throw that out as something to consider. So, we would participate for a while, right?

Okay. to alleviate some of the surprise. But let let those standards immediately take realizing which the other thing I wanted to comment on um appreciate the kind words you pass along because it seems so productive and truth.

Yes. And true. Uh what happened Dan? I appreciate you pulling folks together so quickly. Uh just so you know, Dan reached out uh pretty swiftly and explained that he was pulling folks together to re review the changes. Staff talked about how we wanted to let the developers know early and we even adjusted some time frames of when this even showed up on council agenda. So I know there's some disagreements on this, but I do believe that both sides are working together. Yeah. and and we'll continue to work with you folks to do the best we can uh for something that's agreeable. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Motion to table.

Thank you. Second. Okay. So, I got a motion to table from a second from Baker. Any further discussion? On the table to a date surf back at the next meeting. Um, so I we're going to move I don't know how that Wayne push this we'll push this along pretty swiftly. Great. Okay. But I do think that there's probably a dotted line

in this that uh we we are not interested in approving uh you know any more situations till we get this figured out. So we don't have more situations we have to fund or subsidize. Correct. Okay. Just as a So we're delaying any other for until this issue is resolved. One more thing. Okay.

Um there's going to be a period of time that we're going to work. Um Dan, his team. Um I appreciate uh Dave also uh being involved. That's helpful. This is likely to extend past January 1st. Uh, just so you know, um, Brian Baker, Jackie Livingston won't be here after January 1st. Kelsey's in the audience. She's one of our new council members coming on board. Congrats. And Andy had reached out to me earlier um, asking about participation and I explained to him that after the meeting tonight, I will email him because he couldn't be here. Andy Bourjon is our other new incoming council member.

He already sent me. Yes. Oh, perfect. So, we'll find where this conversation starts on YouTube and I will send him so he can go back and watch this discussion as well because they'll likely be involved in whatever vote takes place after January 1st. All right. Thanks to everyone else for sticking it out tonight, too. God bless you. So, Kayla, would you please call a role? Uh, Council Member Brown. Yes. Cool. Yeah, please. Yes, that motion carries. It's table next. All right, thank you. Good.

Thank you guys for coming on. Why don't you talk about

Okay. I didn't see anything, did I? No, no, no. I'm No. Okay. Okay. So, item 7B is public hearing on proposal to enter into a water revenue loan dispersement agreement. So, we'll open up public hearing at 7:42 p.m. At our last meeting, council uh passed a resolution to move forward with uh this public hearing to get feedback on borrowing funds needed for the central Iowa waterworks buyin. Jean?

Yes. Thank you. This is a public hearing to approve and secure a loan for the city's central Iowa Waterworks member buyin costs. Um, this we will utilize the C uh state revolving loan fund through the Iowa Finance Authority. The loan amount is $5,924,000 and um plus origination fees of 296 which is what we'll pay to EFA for financing the loan. The rate will be 3.26%. 26%. It's a little lower than the third quarter rate. Um, so a little bit better uh closing at this time of year. The loan rate is 3.01% and then there's a servicing fee of 0.25. So that's how you come up with the 326. We will close on this loan December 19th. Our last meeting in December is actually the 18th. So we'll have the check prepared and ready for approval that night. Uh the loan u the funds will go in our bank account the next day and we'll mail the check out. And that is all I have unless you have questions.

Right. Kaylin, have we received any oral or written comments on this? No. Any public comments? All righty. Uh, we'll go ahead and close public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Item 7 C is resolution taking additional action on a proposal to enter into a water revenue loan and dispersement agreement. We just had a public hearing on the resolution. Uh, Jean, you need anything else? I do not. All right. Any discussion from council or public comment? Moved. Huh? Moved. Okay.

Second. Motion by Brown, seconded by Mini to approve the resolution to secure the loan for the central Iowa waterworks buyin. Uh, any further discussion? Kalin, would you call the role? Council member Cool, yes. Li, yes. Baker, yes. Brown, yes.

All right, that motion carries. Item 7B is public hearing on a proposed conveyance of city-owned property. We'll open up public hearing at 7:44 p.m. So, with one of the first plats for Warrior Run, Parkland Dedication uh set aside a lot at the corner of Shady Lane and Warrior Run Drive. Uh when Diligent decided to convert the golf course to residential development, there was discussion on how to get Shady Lane extended into the into the new development. Uh it was decided to increase the amount of parkland dedication in the new development to match the area. uh in the current park and then that current park would then be uh transferred to Diligent or conveyed to Diligent so that they could extend Shady Lane into that new area. Uh this public hearing is to get input on the conveyance of that park to Diligent development. Uh the city will receive the equivalent amount of parkland in the new development in addition to any parkland that needs to be dedicated due to the new development. uh DLET gets access to their new development and we'll get a bigger park for residents to use. Luke Nelson, I'll turn it over to you.

I think you did a great job summarizing that. Did I draw that correctly on the map? So, a lot of

Oh, it's uh above the culde-sac. Oh, is it just off the map up here? Yeah, just north of lots 36 37. Oh, okay. I see. All right. Incidentally, we didn't get any maps in the packet or somehow I didn't that would be helpful in the future. They were it were several items down just included in the warrior. Okay. Run that the ex. So, what I have open here is the infrastructure associate with the infrastructure acceptance. So you're talking about this narrow as outlaw Y. Yeah. Okay.

So the one that I crossed out, this was the land that had previously been dedicated for parkland. That's the land that's being turned back over to Diligent. That's what this item is about. Mayor did a good job summarizing. Thank Kaylin, have we received any written or oral comments on this? No. Do we have any public comments? All right, we'll close public hearing at 7:46 PM. Item 7E is a resolution approving the conveyance of city-owned property to Diligent Warrior LLC. So, we just had a public hearing on this resolution. Luke, do you have anything else? No. Okay. Uh, any discussion or question from C from council?

Give me a curious layout on that ground though as to how park and rec might be able to resource that right one area. Outlaw Y lot I think connected by a trail or whatever between the two roads remember yes there is yes uh I think it's between lots 46 47 and then I think we've got additional plan there looks like you have can kind of see is this identifying easement there this is where you're talking yes any other questions Can I get a motion to approve? Who's that? George.

Anybody want to second it? Second. Okay. So, got a motion by Miki, seconded by Baker. Any further discussion? Would you call roll? Council member Miki? Yes. Baker? Yes. Brown? Yes. Yes.

Okay, that motion carries. Uh, item 7 F. Okay. So item 7F is a resolution approving an agreement for public improvements regarding warrior run estate spat 4. So now that we've comp conveyed the old parts of diligent, this resolution is to accept some shurities that public improvements are completed. Uh this allows community development to uh issue building permits once the following resolutions pass which accepts the public improvements that are in currently in place. Uh the shies will cover the cost of final grading the seating for the new park. Uh the cost to rough grade and apply erosion control seating for the new park and the cost of putting in sidewalk along the new park. Anything else? Anything else?

I don't have anything to add. All right. Any discussion or comments from council or public comment? Motion. Second. Okay. Motion by seconded by Brown. Any further discussion? Kaylin, would you please call RO? Council member Baker, yes. Brown, yes. P, yes.

Yes. All right, that motion carries. Item 7G is a resolution accepting infrastructure and approving the final plat of Warrior Run Estates Plat 4. So now that we've con conveyed the old part to Diligent, well, we've approved the acceptance of assurities to complete public infrastructure, we can now accept the new public infrastructure and the final plat for Royal Run estates platform 4. Luke, anything to add? Uh Tony and Wayne, how does public infrastructure look that's out there?

We had our final walkthrough on the public infrastructure improvements on October 24th. We established a punch list of items needed to be uh uh completed by the contractors. Uh most of those items have been completed. There's a few minor uh things that still need to be completed. Our recommendation is for final acceptance of the public improvements and release or approval of final p for release upon concurrence from us that uh all the punch list items are completed. Cool. Questions, comments, council or public comment motion. Do we include what Tony just said in the motion or not? No.

Second. Okay. Motion by my be seconded by B uh Baker Bird. Uh any further discussion [clears throat] hearing? None. Kaylin would please call. Council member Brown. Yes. Yes. Mine? Yes. Baker? Yes. All right. Motion carries. Item 7H is a resolution approving the city of Norwok fiscal year 2025 financial audit report. Had to sit around for that long for nothing, right? Pretty. Uh, great job.

Okay. So, 2025 financial audit report. So, we had presentation at the well 2025 public audit at the beginning of the meeting. Jean, do you have anything to add? I do not. All right. Any discussion, comments, questions from council? Grateful for a good audit. Public comment. Yeah. Can I get a motion to approve the resolution? Motion. Second. Okay. Motion by Brown. Seconded by Cool. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Palen roll. Council member P. Yes. Ricky. Yes. Baker. Yes. Brown. Yes.

All right. Motion carries. Item seven. I it's a resolution approving purchase of a 2025 Backler combination sewer truck. Wow. Wayne, I'm just going to let you explain this. Who's excited? I love the picture. Yeah, that's accurate. I was thinking about buying one. Well, they're on sale now. That's why we have the [laughter] on sale now.

Um, this is in our CIP. It was previously or it's currently in the CIP for next fiscal year. We did in the process of getting updated budgeting to go through the CIP process. The salesman has made us aware they're they have some on the lot. They're trying to get rid of it. So, they're saying we could save up to $80,000 if we buy one now versus waiting to July. The reasoning is it'll be a new model year. There's just inflation. There's tariffs. It's probably exaggerated a little bit too, I'm sure. Um, nonetheless, there's significant savings to be had if we do a food purchase now versus waiting to apply one. It is a critical piece of equipment. This is what we use to respond to sanctuary sewer backups. Uh, we use it on water main breaks, use it for cleaning sanctuary sewer, storm sewer. It's not used every day, but when it's used, it's it's important.

Um, it's open council. I I think it makes sense to make the purchase now. If you feel the we want to save the money and and buy it later, that's fine. To check with Gene, we have money in the in the funds to make the purchase now. It's council chief. They said it just wasn't for you. Oh, wait. There's more.

Can we see this in a parade if we get it? [laughter] The guys would love that. What are you going to do? What are you going to do with the old one? Is it resale value? Are you going to pay? It's included in the price. It's uh 100. They're allowing $100,000 for trade in of our existing unit. It's 10 years old. 469 is the trade after, right? Okay. I heard you had to use it a fair amount in Luke's neighborhood. Uh Nelson's. Yeah. You don't I can't tell if you're joking or not. Uh, are there any property is there any property tax used for this purchase? No, sir. Okay. Thank you.

Well, it's something we're going to do anyway or plan to do. Yep. Of all the equipment we have, this is probably the most important. Yeah. Uh, any public comment? Can I get a motion to approve resolution as presented? Second. Okay. Okay. Motion by cool, seconded by Micki. Any further discussion hearing? None. Uh Kaylin, would you please call roll? Council member Mine? Yes. Baker? Yes. Brown? Yes. Yes.

All right. Uh that motion carries. Item 7J. Oh, where do I begin? is a resolution approving an agreement of shity for trail construction for valley view plat 3. So as stated on an earlier earlier item assurityity is used as a guarantee that public infrastructure is completed and allow the developer to begin building houses. Uh for Norwok a lot of times normal sidewalk is 5 foot wide. If we decide to that we want to put in a trail uh and make it eight foot wide, the city usually covers the cost of that additional three feet. Okay. Uh so council required 8 foot uh trail for this area and Cooper Crawford agreed with that and we agreed that we would pay for the additional 3 ft. Cooper Crawford didn't put the 8- foot trails in their drawings. Okay. And we didn't c we didn't catch it on the drawings and and so Mr. Larson built it according to the incorrect drawings. So it's sitting there at 5T. All right. Uh staff discussed this with Larsson and with Cooper Crawford and we think a a a fair way to go about things is to uh split the cost three ways. Uh you have a revised resolution in front of you and I am going to turn it over to Jen at this point to talk about

changes. Okay. Well, basically what

after uh further discussion late this afternoon or everything, we look looked through it and the original agreement that was put out there was basically the city not necessarily participating in it. That was the first draft. Uh also when reviewing the estimates, it appeared that they weren't 100% complete. Once we went through them, we found that there was another section that wasn't included. So, the total cost of removing existing five foot trail, which covers three houses that have been not the entire length there because the sidewalk hasn't been built the entire length, but this represents basically three houses that it runs by and the city park that's been dedicated to the city. And with that, you take out 5T and put it in an 8ft trip. That's 460 ft long. Uh and the amount that that would cost for uh replacement is 33,185. Agreement that we have right now says that the city would participate in onethird of that cost or $11,6167. uh with the developer taking care of the rest of it uh however we choose to do that. Uh so the amount of cert we talk about you know basically a bond for completion is that we we would accept then check for TW 2/3 of that 22,12333 to guarantee completion of those sidewalk repairs and as a result then we can pass uh Valley View Plat 3 final plat. I think there's still maybe one of the there's an easement that's outstanding to access the park on the south, but I you we don't need the bond for that. I understand the developer taken care of that and we would before

final platting documents were released, we need that easement. I don't think that's an issue. Okay, I'll turn it over to you. I I think him explained that well. Um, I've had conversations with John Larson, uh, and he's here. I believe he does want to address council. I also spent a little time talking to, uh, Brad Cooper, uh, Kevin partner. Um, I know also that staff was involved in some meetings earlier with them about this topic. Just ask that you allow John to speak. Yeah, come on up.

Thank you. Don Larson down Iowa uh developer for plat one two and three at Valley View. So they're all done differently. I think the preliminary plat was addressed to a different developer other than myself. He walked away from the project and then we came in and bought it. I originally was just kind of a silent partner with the people that kind of spearheaded this. Um I bought them out two years ago and finished plat two and three. So what we're talking about here is shy for plats that have been passed in the past. What I'm asking for tonight is valu plat 3 where there's no trail. So I wasn't required in value plat 3 to put in any trail at all. The trail was put in in the first plat in plat one and like you said is put in perspects which was passed on the construction drawings. There's also three houses that have been built. 100 Valley View Drive, 101 Valley View Drive, and I believe 716 is the address, the one there with the red.

They all submitted building permits. It might have been a custom home. It might have been a spec home. I'm not sure. But the builders submitted building permits. You have to do a site plan in every city. None of the site plans showed a five show all showed a 5ft sidewalk in front of their house and on the north side of it. So, none of those sidewalks got put in. So, if you want to back up and say that I should be responsible for those, I really don't think the principle of that is right. I had 107 108 ft that I was supposed to put in plat one, which we did. And if I would have known at that point 3 years ago that I was required to do it, it would have been pennies on the dollar. Meaning with Luke and Elliot, they said the city would also participate in the extra three feet. So, really at that time, it wouldn't cost me any more money. So, I have a little bit of hardship saying I have to post shy for $22,000 when I did what I was supposed to do. I've had three walkthroughs um with BNK, with Tony, with Elliot. They're not here. Elliot, Luke, we all meet out there, do a walk through, do a punch list. None of this was ever brought up. I did Orchard Hills to the north. You can see right above the red line. If you go up, there's an outlot there. There's a sidewalk there. Now, after Orchard Hills 4 was passed, those houses were built, Luke called me and said, "Hey, we missed it. Can you just please put in a sidewalk there? I'm really not required to do it, but in good faith, I did it." But I didn't ask for any supplement. I went in and put it in. Is it going to change my lifestyle? No. What really hurts me is a principle of this. when you're asking me to pay for sidewalks that need to be ripped out that I didn't put in and was never required to put in. I told Luke the

other day, I said, "I'll rip out this right away. I don't care. Let's I need to get this plat passed. All these lots are sold. They're not all going to close this year. They're on a takeown period, but I know there's 12 lots that are waiting to close this year." I got an email today is like, "What are the addresses?" They're going to start pulling permits. So, I'm just little hardship as you said earlier. Let's work together on this.

Um, I'd gladly pay my part on on the trail. I don't care. But $22,000 is a big nut to crack for me for something I didn't do wrong. I I knew about this a week ago on Thursday. Friday morning, I met a concrete guy out there and we walked this and wheeled it. And evidently something I don't know if Luke didn't get all the emails, but I turned those in by Friday afternoon. So, we've had those and I walk in here tonight at 5:35, 5:40 and get handed this paper that says now it's 22,000. Earlier, let me back up. Yesterday afternoon at 4:00, I got an email from Luke that said, "You're I'm asking you to post $24,000 and some odd sense." Thought, well, I don't know how we're getting that number. So, we had some conversations today. I know you have with Luke Nelson. Um, I didn't call you Jim because I talked to Luke, but is it going to change my lifestyle? Probably not. But it's a principle of it that really stinks. I'm open for questions. And when John and I did speak earlier, the there appears to be the the discrepancy here is it looks like the distance in front of the parkland that existing trail. It appears that this portion right here is what was not included in those estimates. And we know it's 107 ft.

Right. So the numbers that Jim that you have in this agreement, I believe what you did, you simply took the linear foot of those other estimates which all seem to match up and just applied it as if this additional 106 ft that you mentioned were added in there. Okay.

And the same premise that you and I talked about earlier, which as I mentioned see it seemed reasonable. uh talking to Brad Cooper, they also were willing to participate. Everybody recognized there was some oversight and each person participate at a third. So what you're seeing here, let me switch back over to that agreement. So, what you're seeing here is what I told you over the phone today is that I would be willing to come to council and suggest that $8,000 figure, which was a third of the $24,000. With that additional distance included in there, we simply added that to this cost. So, instead of 8,000, the city's portions would still be a third. So, what showing up here matches what we talked about earlier today.

It does, but I'm still have heart over it. Understood. Because I'm requiring to do something that I no other developer does. And who's going to contact these people? Uh, and if you go to the east side of this at Macinch Park, it it dead ends. There's nothing there. So, what's the city's plan to move forward with that? Is there a plan in place? Is it is there a comprehensive plan? And that's great, but it it's just really hard for me to stomach the principle of it. And when you say there's an easement on plat two, what is that that you're needing? Well, from what I understand, this is just brief. Wasn't there an easement on the south end of the park that extend basically extends? There's like a little

We brought water and sewer up from the south in case you guys ever wanted like a trail easement or something like that and I wasn't even involved in discussion other than there's a trail. I'll let Kevin speak and I'm more than happy to come back. Right over basically coming off what is going to be city park ground over probably that I think it's over the the parcel that ends 8,000. Is that correct? Maybe Kevin knows. Kevin Crawford Cooper Crawford Associates 475 South 50th sweet 800 West De Mo. The easement in question is along the east side of out lot. I'm gonna get the the number or the letter wrong. It's on the east side of that kind of oddshaped

piece on the on the south side. So, it's the east 15 feet of that. So, I just need to provide his attorney with with a legal description. We can get that done. But isn't that already in the parkland? That's not parkland. You own that and it's part of the your storm. Oh, the east side of that property. Yeah. I'm sorry. Yeah. Right. Yes. [clears throat] It's graded on the post contours. It was graded for a trail to go there. So, you're actually you aren't liable for the 22. You're liable for half of that 22. You're going to pick up the other half, right?

33 of us, you and you. So, you were saying, right, 22 is unfair. It's his shy bomb that that he's gonna have to provide. My name is Shawn. Okay. So, yeah, that's between you two partners. Yes. Got it. I just wanted to make sure. And I'd say it is now. Yeah. Quite frankly, I don't think it's quite as many lineal feet as you have. Um I just added up the lot dimensions across the plat and it's like 415 or 420 or something like that. So, it's a little bit different. So, I think everybody's expenses are going to come down. But for the sake of getting plat three done tonight, this is where we're at.

That sounds like a fair deal to me. Third, third to third. And who will be responsible for contacting the people, the three houses that are being built or that have already been built or lived in? Well, keep in mind all of those sidewalks are within the rightway. So, for that work to be done, there does not need to be authorization. It would be nice and it's always polite to contact the property owners when we can. Um, but that's not required. You wouldn't unless um Wayne, I'm guessing maybe there they might have to get a little on the private property to replace that sidewalk, but maybe not.

Yeah. And if they have irrigation systems in place, there'd be an issue there. So, there's we're going to want to have communication. a letter if anything or door hanger would be great. So Wayne, why can't we just add on three feet? That's a construction issue and we don't see jointed longitudinal joints on anything under like 12 feet, especially trails. An 8 foot wide trail, you don't see a longitudinal joint down them. If it would have been the only way I could ever probably get on board with it is if you had a saw cut joint where that joint is like a nickel wide, but it's a tool joint right now. You know, the edges are rounded on that sidewalk. The edges are rounded. So you to pour up next to it, you're going to have a pretty significant longitudinal trip hazard. I'll call

it's a scooter catcher. I think it would be that would be my concern. Electric scooter catcher. Yeah, we put subbas. Can't do it. And drainage. Yeah. So I I I find myself very sympathetic to John's argument.

Y I'm just going to say that. I think I'd feel very similarly if I were him. And I think we make very few mistakes like this as a city. I mean, this is like highly irregular. Um, when I think about who should own this, who should like who should really step up and own what happened here? It occurs to me that we should play the lead role in that. Now, I may be swayed. I'm just saying right now um I would feel good about us taking a great deal of ownership in this oversight.

I disagree that we approved the plan to begin with us. It's great. Yeah, I'm I'm I'm ready to hear George informed him it was 8 feet. Yeah, it was 8 feet in I think the three-way split is fair. I I think it's back up. I mean, you informed it in meeting, but there's no comments any developers agreement. There's no comments that went back to the civil engineer. Maybe that there were comments to civil n you know, I don't you know and I I don't Jim, I wasn't called. I'm just

I know I know I don't know if it's productive to point fingers or not, but I mean you go back to the original meeting and the city council talked about that 8 foot trail. Uh, city council member Cool in fact said, "I don't think we should be approving this until we see it written on the on on the plan itself." Uh, Brad Cooper representing the builder and I, you know, I until I heard you talk, I didn't know what I didn't know if it was you or somebody else. Uh, basically stood in front of the council said that would take an awful lot of time to do it. I will make sure that gets into the plans and under the code Norwok code's quite clear that the construction plans should incorporate the preliminary plat and any conditions placed upon it by council at the time of approval of the preliminary plat. And uh so I mean it was it was crystal clear that you know if it was warranted to the council that it would be included on you know and like I said uh certainly the city has some blame there too because the city should have reviewed that after Brad submitted it and said wait you forgot the trails. But that being said, the first obligation to get it on there is the individual who stood in front of the council and said, "We'll put it on there."

And the code says that individual should put it on there. Then we've gone through three P&Zs. Well, yeah. Yeah. You know, we're that that's why that's why you don't hear me jumping up down saying don't pay a third of them because I, you know, I I think there is some delay and I think the city council recommended that uh recognized that and accepted that. But I mean, you asked where it came from and there was any requirements. Well, quite clearly there there's recording. Yeah, we're sympathetic with you clearly. And uh Brad Cooper is not denying what was said in the council meeting at all. Yeah. So clearly,

but the way the math works out, the 11k that you guys are going to be putting in is roughly your three feet that you were obligated to pay for anyway. So I that's that's no different from a uh cost standpoint for the city. Yeah. And I would put out, you know, I didn't want to have that conversation because I I don't want to make it sound like we're blaming Brad. I mean, you're the engineering company. I've known you forever. Brad was one of the first people I met when I came to Normal. Uh and mistakes happen. And you're the measure of someone who makes mistakes how they fix it. And they've stood up and you know, full disclosure, I signed the construction [laughter] drawings. It's me, not Brad.

So, it's how you handle the mistakes. And you know, we're But you you understand the other point, the 11,000 you're offering, I appreciate that. Thank you. But that's no, you're not doing any more than you originally planned. What What do you think would be a um a third of the cost of removal of the concrete?

It's on those a third of the cost of removal. Usually when you tear out concrete, it's about half the cost of new concrete. I mean, the same cost to tear out as it is new to dispose of it and get rid of it. And then also in here, he added some grading because we've got to take it out wider. And then I don't know if you have those handy with you, the estimates. Yeah, I need to find And then he also did add some base.

Well, that's the that's the Google doc that he created. Let me see if I can find that. I mean, if you would take the 11,000 off and then split it in thirds, I think I'd be happy with that because you're really going to pay 11,000 anyway with the addition if we started from scratch. This may be heresy, but what if this section is only 5 foot wide and not 8 foot wide since it ends at Minich Park anyway? Yeah, I couldn't agree with you more. I mean because if you go to the I mean I'm brainstorming here but go to the west

five foot is pretty wide. It's not a 4 foot regular standard sidewalk. Five foot wider than standard. Well no five now it is I got that but compared to a lot of a block that's three. I appreciate the creativity, Brian, and disagree. Um, only only because it's supposed to be a trail. I mean, I like I actually really love heretics, so I do.

Just wondering what if the trail was squeezed, only skinny people could use this trail. put up a sign there. That that might get us in trouble, but probably I think it needs to be 8 feet.

The dollar amount just doesn't seem very big to me. Which dollar amount? The 11,000 or the 33? The both. It It just doesn't seem like a lot. that they match. And you can take that either way, right? Because it doesn't seem like it a lot, then split it. Great. For the size of this subdivision, you could also say because it doesn't seem like a lot, Lindsay. Total of 128 homes, correct? Or lots, not homes yet, but between the three flats. That sound right? Say that again. I think there's 128 lots total in value. One, two, and three.

I don't know off the top of my head. number how many total. Um, if so, John, what what you had suggested is if we were to take off the $11,000 that would be the city's portion for the additional 3 ft. Split the remaining, which is 22,123. Divide that by three. Add that to our 11,000. Lindsay, what did you get for a total? 18,457. And so then what would be the remaining shity? 7,395* 2 apologies for that.

15,700 779. So what did we tell if you say that again? 14,790 790. You take the the total, we'll take the 11,000 off of it, which leaves you with roughly 22,000 and then we take a third of that. Why would we take the 11,000 off? Because that's what we were agreed to originally.

Yeah, what did I just do? We know that 3 ft of cement added onto a 5ft trail would be 11,000. I mean I not not so not that I'm Yeah, correct.

Some of that cost is removal cost, you know. So based on their based on their total cost 460 ft. Uh, and I mean they're and and what I'm calculating is our square yardage price, you know, it's about there's probably about I would say about 9,000 that's related to the to the to the three-foot cost or whatever, you know, so so close to that. Some of that's some of that I think is the removal cost. So, do you feel that um [clears throat] do you feel those numbers that we came up with that that is a that is an accurate number for the city to be covering a third of the removal cost at

a third of the removal or a third of the overall cost?

A third of the removal cost. Well, I think there's there was a cost. You know, I think there was clearly a cost, but you know, initially for the city, if it was constructed today, you know, the city would have covered 37% of of the cost of that 8 foot wide trail. The difference between between 5 foot, 5 foot, and and 8 foot. So, that cost to me in today's dollars is in the range of $9,000. So we are we are you know so if if the city is considering contributing to to this to this uh this change or whatever then then you know maybe it should be something you know something more than that

uh because we were we were we were in for that much already initially.

So would it be appropriate since we were in for 9,000 already we take 33,000 185 take out the 9,000 because that was already at the sunk cost that we' agreed to previously. All right. And then that difference between 33,185 and 9,000, we split that three ways. Onethird of it would be the city's contribution towards fixing this problem. The remaining twothirds would be the developer and sounds good to me. So the city portion being $17,61

it takes 9,000

I agree 17 to 33 people in discomfort here. Is that this is [laughter] how quick do you want to make changes in there so they can tell that you want this? So once the numbers come out to

here I'll read them. So basically what we're talking about total cost of 33185 uh city would have spent 9,000 anyway. So subtracting that out that remains a a really kind of a cost of mistake is 24,185. Uh we divide that by three. The city's obligation on that would be uh 8,6167. That's the 24,185 divided by 3. So when you take the 8,6167 which is the oneird and you add what the city would have paid $9,000 that means towards this fix and the estimated $33,000 the city will pay 17,6167 with a remaining amount of 16,12333. Is that right? Everyone track that. Sound fair?

Yeah, I got it. I like it. I have a couple other comments, too. To the back. How are we going to portray this on the rest of plat one? Uh plat two, I think there's only two houses at Fax. One's Gun Forest Street by this sidewalk soon. I know he stopped last week. Yep. I think he's been notified. That's got to be that. And I think um I think at the time of uh building application builders will be informed that that that's you uh yes and then the building department will be notified also. Yes.

And then they need to turn in that difference of cost as the city reimbures for that additional three feet. Yeah. I'm trying to think which lots are sold along the front right. I don't know right now.

And as far as timing, we're getting into that time of year. Look at cold weather costs, which we're figured into this starting next week. I assume I have till spring of next year to get this done. Yes. Otherwise, we're going to have more cost in there with covering [clears throat] Jim says yes. And then how does this work? So if I bring this money in now, does it get deposited or is it held in check or I mean there might be one it it gets deposited and we hold it and then once uh once it's all complete I got to do it all at once and we're not doing driveways. Correct. Correct.

There's only one part. So you are going to What's that? Yeah, you're not doing driveways. No, we're just talking sidewalks, right? So there there have Go ahead. Go ahead, Jim. Well, so there is an area like the existing driveway you're thinking of. There's going to be we got the trail. It's going to have to narrow down there because if we did the driveway, there's no way we can put the wider trail on there without Well, how far out do you want it to narrow down? We do these details. Yeah, I was going to say that's a detail that Paris has already has an idea of how to work that out and he can handle that with you folks. Well, if I've got to show it on instruction drawings, then Wayne and uh Tony,

I'm kind of a bad [laughter] are going to review that anyway. So, yeah, this is a Yeah, we're way into the weeds. So, yeah. Can we get around to making a motion on this and get it done, please? Motion as as uh read by as amended attorney by second. Okay. So, I have a motion to approve the resolution as amended by Jim uh on the table. Who did Baker and Mike? Okay. Uh any further discussion? I just want to say one thing. Yes, ma'am.

Uh when this premium plant was approved in 2021, the council approved it with five conditions. As we learned, those are a bit hard to track. So, it might be better to not do that in the future. That's a good point. Behind conditions. Okay. Kaylin, would you please call it? Council member Baker. Yes. Brown. Yeah. Yes. Mish. Yes.

All right. That motion carries. Item 7K is a resolution accepting infrastructure and approving the final plat view plat 3. Since we have the shy for the replacement of the trail, we can now accept the public infrastructure and approve the final plat. Luke Nelson, what? I have nothing to add. Nothing to add. Tony, how's things look? Looks good. Yeah, we had our final walk through on September 30th uh of this year. Establish a punch list. Uh I believe most, if not all those items are completed. We'll verify that that's correct. Uh recommendation this time is final acceptance of the completed public improvements and approval of final flat. All right. Thank you. Any discussion, questions?

Motion. Thank you. Mo motion by Brown, seconded by Miki, would you please call roll? Council member Brown. Yes. Yeah. Yes. Baker. Yes. All right. Motion carries. 10-minute recess. You made it, George. And thank you very much.

Kaylin and Lindsay, are we ready to go? Yes, sir. We're ready. All right. All right. Here we go. We're back in session. It's 8:36 pass.

We are on item 7L which is resolution accepting public infrastructure for Holland Point flat 4 and modifying the completion bond. So council accepted a shity bond or a shity for some of the public infrastructure in Holland Plat Holland point plat 4. A portion of that infrastructure has now been built and the developer would like council to accept the completed infrastructure and then to lower the completion bond amount to an appropriate level to cover the public infrastructure that remains. Luke Nelson, I'll turn those I don't have anything you explained it well. Thank you.

All right, Tony, how's Yeah, that's um that's that's pretty accurate. Yeah. So, this one's a little little bit strange because we're because we've already approved the final plat and at a performance bond for the public improvements. There's a couple items that aren't done yet. So, we've got so we've reducing the performance bond uh for for for those items. I'm satisfied with the cost in that reduction. Part of it's for a trail. Part of it's for um um some uh paving that that uh there's some issues with. So, uh, so yes, I, uh, that's all I got to add. Yeah. All right. Questions, discussion from council or public comment?

Making a motion to approve the resolution. Motion. Second. Okay. Motion by cool, seconded by Baker. Any further discussion? Kaylin, would you please call roll? Council member Cool. Yes. Miki, yes. Baker, yes. Brown. Yes.

All right. That motion carries. Item 7M is a second reading of an ordinance amending chapter 92 water rates and chapter 177 rates and fees of the Norwok Municipal Code providing for amended secondary or irrigation water rates. So earlier in the year, council decided to establish a tiered rate structure for irrigation water rates and there were some unintended consequences to that action. So staff is suggesting to move to a flat rate for irrigation water water metered [clears throat] water. Uh we're also starting to see attention drawn to irrig irrigation across the metro is cities are seeing the cost of adding capacity through central Iowa waterworks which is our regional water authority. Our last meeting the first reading of this ordinance was passed. Jean, do you have anything to add?

Just quickly the ordinance states a date as soon as passage which is November 20th. We're just asking formally to approve January 1 as the implementation date. 2026. January 1, 2026. Correct. Okay. So, January 1, 2026. Good point. Amend. Amend the effective date to that. Any questions or discussion from council? Motion. Thank you. Any public comment? Hearing none. I got a motion for Baker, a seconded from Miki. Uh Kayla, would you please call roll? Council member Miki, yes. Baker, yes. Brown, yes. Cool. Yes.

All right. Motion carries. Item 710 N. It's final reading of an ordinance amending the official zoning map of the city of Norwok, Iowa by reszoning 1.6 acres of 848145th place and 848545th place from AR agricultural reserve to RE1 single family rule estates. So, at our last meeting, council approved the second reading of this ordinance amendment. Luke, you got anything to add? Nope. All right. Any questions, discussion from council or means public comment? Second. Motion by Manei to approve the final reading. Seconded by Brown. Kaylin, would you please call roll? Council member Brown. Oh, sorry. Council member Baker. Yes. Brown. Yes.

Yes. Mine? Yes. All right. Motion carries. Item 7, it's consideration of a proposed decision on apparatus maintenance and or purchase for the fire department. So, this item is to discuss what to do to repair and or replace our tower firet truck, uh, which is 17 years old and is currently out of service. Chief Porter and her team have done a lot of good research on this and they are asking council to decide which option to pursue or [snorts] if you need some additional information, they'll bring it back to the next meeting. So, Chief, I'll turn it over to you.

Thank you, Mayor Council. I appreciate the opportunity. Um, as it says in the agenda statement, the fire department currently operates and maintains a 2008 100 foot aerial platform fire truck. Um, that piece of apparatus is critical to emergency operations. I know that it seems like we use that mostly for structures that are tall, but that's not the only use of the aerial apparatus. Um, to include down to residential structure fires where we use it as an elevated master stream. All those additional um uses are listed in the proposal and in the agenda statement. Um with the agenda statement, I did include um kind of a proposal that outlined a couple of options. Um in those options, we um were citing NFPA uh safety and operational considerations, financial considerations, and risk risk factor, excuse me, risk factors. Um happy to answer any questions at this point. I guess chief, I was doing some thinking about that. Yeah, you know, I know we planned on having a offline conversation a little bit and maybe we still should do that. [clears throat]

Had a little breakfast this morning with Luke. He was kind enough to grace me with his company and this is one of the topics that we discussed. So, a couple things come to my mind, right? If we look down the repair side of it, right? There's obviously there's an expense to repair. There's also an opportunity cost of the decreased value of the of the truck as the hours and the years go by. Right. I'd like to know the ballpark or the estimate what those things are. Right.

Okay. The other thing remembering how heavy a lift it was to get this truck to begin with and and I was here and I I got to see it firsthand. Right. That'd be an even heavier lift this time. So, what I'm wondering is could we get with our insurance people, find out how it would affect the rating for the people that live in your service area, right? That rating will affect insurance rate.

It absolutely will. So, we've already reached out to ISO. Um, that's the um the the rating that we get for our city, the insurance services office, and we get a public protection classification. Um those ratings that we get look at um fire department and we look at the water and we look at emergency communications. Um with that they do a grading of our city. They give us a code for that and that's what insurance rates are built off of. We are currently an ISO rating four. We contacted our um ISO agent and said if we were to remove the tower from our um fleet, what would that do to our ISO rating? He said it would drop us four points or more. And I know that's difficult to determine what that would do, but it would drop our classification from a four to a five. ISO is on a one to 10 rating. One being the best rating that you can get, meaning the best protection that you have, 10 being the worst.

Okay. Here's what I'd like to know about that. Sure. Okay. Um, while this rig can be used on residential fires, and I understand that, uh, it also has great value for us for commercial buildings, especially the larger buildings. Absolutely. Okay. Now, if that rating changes, then those insurance premiums are going to go up for those businesses, right? Yes.

I'd like to know how much of an increase that would be. I mean, maybe not the exact dollar, but approximately, right? And I'm wondering if in my mind, right, I'm wondering if those businesses would be willing to place a grant to the city that would be equal to or relative to that cost increase because they would have that expense one way or the other. And you figure that the life of that truck, how long do you think that truck would would live? So NFPA um suggests that a truck of this um size or of this um recommendation would be 20 to 25 years.

Okay. So if we're looking at that insurance premium over 20 or 25 years, we're probably talking a lot of money, right? If it was removed from service. Yeah. Yes, I would assume so.

Okay. So, what I'm wondering is if there might not be an avenue there to be able to take down some of that expense for the city and make it more affordable to be able to replace this with a new unit. So, I' I'd like to know what those numbers might be. Now, that's looking at your full service area, right? So that's outside the city as well as inside the city. The um yeah that apparatus is used within corporate city and then for the city of coming that does not go into our rural district at all. That why now it doesn't go into our rural district at all.

The tower stays um into corporate city and to the city of coming if those uh storage facilities over there coming right for the large grocery chain I think. Oh yes. Yeah. They would be utilized there. That's correct. Okay. All right. So, that's what I'm talking about, right? So, I'd like to have that conversation. I'll bet those people would like to have that conversation because they probably wouldn't want to pay increased insurance rates. I would guess. But are you trying to because otherwise it'll go by the real estate taxes, property tax will go up.

Is that what you're trying to alleviate? No, what I'm trying to offset insurance and the property

they're gonna Well, that would be there, too. I guess I hadn't thought about the property tax sites, but you know that they're going to have a known expense with insurance coverage that that would increase. We don't know what those numbers are, right? And they're going to pay that increased insurance rate for a number of years until that unit would be replaced, right? So, if they're out the money anyways, would they be willing to to put it to the purchase and the replacement of that unit so their insurance rates don't go up and they have that protection there. I hadn't factored in the increased property taxes and and that's that's interesting there too. I guess I didn't think about that, but that's a good point. But that way uh it might offset some of this expense. Otherwise, it's going to be a tremendous lift for it to try to do this going forward. I think just given what the state has done to it. [clears throat] I think there was three options that was kind of on the table here. Um two that were kind of outlined, but there's really kind of three directions that we could go today. One is to fix the current apparatus. It's 17 years old. Um, and to fix what the major problems are right now, it' be about $50,000. There's no guarantee that we're not going to have further expenditures moving forward. Um, the second option would be to do a refurb of it. That would cost us about um $500,000. We got two quotes from two different vendors. They were $400,000 each. We thought about 20% of additional costs that we could be looking at. So almost $500,000. That would buy us another five to seven years on the apparatus just by industry standards. at the end of seven years that would get us the truck would be 24 years old at the end of its life cycle there. Um so then right now also know

that build times on trucks are about 48 months um at $2.5 million. So if we look at it just the math of it, if we do $500,000 for the next five to seven years in 36 months we potentially be back asking for the purchase again which would be a 48-month build. And one of our vendors um indicated that over the past three years they had a 12% increase. So if we're increasing 12% again over the next three years at $2.5 million we're going to see a $300,000 increase on the purchase of that apparatus. So aside from have that forward. It's been a dramatic last couple years. Agreed. Agreed.

Yeah. Aside from the funding source, I think it's just it's kind of at a a tipping point of what's the best use of of the money here. Do we just fix it? Do we refurb it to to get us a little bit further down the road? Do we go ahead and sign a purchase agreement with money not being due until 48 months when it's delivered at a lower cost today than it would be four years from now? Um, if we look at that truck operationally, that truck again was bought 17 years ago. We are still running with volunteers. We are turning out 10 to 15 firefighters. That truck was built then to have a large turnout. Today, we're turning out two to seven people for structure fires. So, the new fire trucks come with new technology that makes them um safer to drive. They got airbags on the inside. They're smoother to set up. We can operate them with smaller staffing models. Um and that's what we're operating on today with cross staffing and the smaller staffing models. a new build would suit our community, our growing community, and smaller staffing models.

I think everybody up here would like you to have the best equipment we can afford to give you. I appreciate that. What can we afford to give you? That's the big question. Understood. So I guess what I was looking for is see if there might be a way that we could finance that off city funds at least part to make it more doable for chief. Just so you know during the uh baby box dedication I had a conversation with somebody about the firetruck. We were just right there. We were talking about it and I mentioned the ISO impact and insurance. they are going back to one of their colleagues that works in the insurance industry and they're working on that right now.

Perfect. So, you may have some other resources to go to, but at least we have one that's uh supposed to get back to me with some information for you. Thank you. The the number I mean, you know, I'm not getting on eBay and looking at trucks very much. I was like, whoa, 2.5 million It was just shocking to me. That's that's all I say. And it's like maybe that's the deal. But

we reached out to four different vendors just to make sure this was not and it is industry standard. We were we saw um quotes anywhere from 2.5 to $3.5 million. Also understand it's a 25-y year piece of apparatus. So deprec depreciation on that. We're looking at roughly $100,000 a year to operate this piece of equipment to serve as, you know, it's protecting the the community. Um, again, with all of the the risks that we're bringing to the community now, whether it's industrial or anything over three stories, you know, we've got two hotels now. We potentially have more. We've got um the the apartment complexes. So, I think I kind of listed out those um risk considerations in the proposal as well. So though I appreciate the the discussion about what would happen to ISO or what would happen if to our ISO radian insurance rates if we took that out of service I think there was a community expectation to keep this in service as well

it's getting repaired getting it operate. Yeah. So if we if we just at the lowest amount right now if we just went to $50,000 um I reached out to um someone that does our um repairs. They had already came out and give us a quote on it. is right at the $50,000. And he said it I asked him how long before we'd be back in service. Then about two weeks on the mechanical side, but it would depend on lead time for equipment or for the materials for it. We're unsure about that. I I'm guessing about 30 days we could be back operational. How long did you say that it takes the rebur to do? About 10 months. 10 months. Y. So the repair is not a long-term solution. No, that's a temporary.

Gear box. Yeah, there's gear boxes repairs. Who did you have close? Relant. Reliant is um who was our sales reps for our Pierce Fire Truck and they have a service um station up in north of An or south of Ankeny and they work on our Pierce Fire trucks today. So you're down 10 months. They kind of refurbished How's that one once a year? Yeah, the the gradings come out I think every five years. We're due for a grading right now. I mean, but they would understand it's down for a reurb. It's a temporary that wouldn't change. It wouldn't change the grading. Yeah.

But if we didn't have one But if we didn't have one, no intention to have. Correct. That would change period. That's correct. Does that affect just a regular house? Yes. Yep. your homeowner's insurancees based off of our ISO rating.

I think it's going to take time to make a plan to do a replacement of So, we're probably just to jump out at 2.5 mil. Just write a check. Just write a check right now. So, we're probably looking at doing the other until a plan gets completed, right? Yeah, where we can afford it. I mean, for sure. Let's But I But I think our goal needs to be to be able to get them replacement unit. That's the end goal. Yeah. The this uh this replacement was proposed in um CIP for fiscal year 28. We just Yeah, we just didn't intend it to go down with mechanical issues.

So, right now, what's a boat anchor? What's what's what's the value on the open market as as a boat anchor? You know, I'm not really sure about that. I would have to check. And if we go through the refurb, what's the value on the open market then? I would have to check on that as well. I mean, we're again, it's a 17y old truck. And so, even if we reurbed it and got seven years out of it, we're looking at a 24 year old truck. And so, the residual value of that is probably not as much as we would like it to be. Yeah. Okay. I'm with her with with the political environment the way it is at the state house. This is going to be on everything you talk about. Yeah, I know. Yeah, it's it's it's a theme.

I just wonder if it's best to do the reverb and then see how see how things shake out three years from now. I think we'll know a lot more after three years. So I think in three years you're going to have to you're going to have to make the decision to buy. Yeah. Well, we should be working on something during those three years because that cost of that unit isn't going to go down, right? And um I I just threw out some ideas there of some ways to explore and see if we can defay that expense. Yeah. I think we we hope that the the state gets smarter and we hope they change their minds on how they do stuff, but hope is not a plane,

right? Well, yeah. I think I think going to some of the businesses and saying, you know, this is the Yeah, this is your expected increase in insurance if this goes away. Do you want to pay? Would would you help us out and keep from having that? We come up with that number for like a 300 $400,000 house, whatever that is. Different sit on that. It's a good question. It probably something both of us should should know. Agreed. Or will a new one move us to a three? That would be change. Probably not. Probably not. Yeah. I think it's the equipment regardless of how old it is. Yeah. Wouldn't that be great?

So, no. At least if you refurbished it and after a couple years you have something to sell. something out of us, but not much. A lot of small towns out there. I mean, we bought that used at 750. I remember that.

I mean, this is why it was a little bit confusing is because there are three viable options here that none are none are cheap. And what's the best use of the funds? You know, do we do just five just $50,000 right now to get us back on the road? Do a little bit of research. Um try to find some funding sources. see what the legislature does. Then we have a better idea if we want to refurb or purchase new. Do we go ahead and ship it off for 10 months for a refurb? I I feel good about doing a 50,000 immediately because again like the because you're going to need that for the reurb eventually. Well, you're right.

And it's like, okay, so now the reverb is 550, you know, if you do that. Um, and how I mean we can't sacrifice safety, so we just get this thing up and running and going. It's also like one of those pieces where it's like, okay, here's the decisions you're forcing us to make. Well, yeah. You know, and it's like that's okay. That's what you want. Um if we can get the data for the for the insurance.

Yeah. And and that would be good as far as a publication goes to actually give to the public to say, "Okay, this is what this means." Does this take a bond issue? Why does this take a bond issue? How do we pay for 2.5 for the 2.5? Definitely would be a bond issue. be part of one probably means to the public. Not a vote. Yeah, it's not a vote, but it's a vote. No, it's not. Yeah, it's essential. It would be part of a bond issue. If we did the 500,000, I would suggest uh we have an upcoming bond issue that it would be added to that one.

I didn't mean like you needed a vote. I meant you still have to sell it in the idea politically. I think I think we need to sell the idea sell it to the public, right? That's what I'm including. Okay. So, what you we got hotels. Yeah. You got to go up, but also you got these spread out buildings that you can actually go over the top like the school, right? And that I was trying to outline that in in the proposal is yeah, it's not just for tall buildings. It's for reach. Um it's for even just roof operations on a residential structure. Um, so there is a variety of uses here, not just to service our hotels.

I I would propose that we do the the 50k right now. I mean, just like let's get it fixed. The only thing with that is probably going to take us I don't know. We we don't know how long the unit will run off of that, right? I I don't think it's a long-term solution. But the thing is, I think it's going to take more than one year's budget to be able to make a plan and execute a plan. It'll get pricier as things go. So, here's a here's a question. Yeah.

Jean just said we're going to we're coming up with another bond issues soon. You want to do the 50 now to get it running. Go ahead and add the 500 to the bond issues so that we could do the refurbishment. So, we have the option to do So, we have the option to do the refurb. I think that's a good plan. And then and then start doing the other research on the uh that seem logical, mayor. I don't know. If you're putting 50 in the gearbox, maybe the whole refurbishing would be 480. It wouldn't be the whole Yeah. Right. Yeah.

Yeah. I would have to believe that some of these we put together. So, what's everybody think? Do the 50 right away. 50 right away. We put the 500 in the bond, right? I think it's a good idea. Yeah, that seems logical to me. Okay. But developing a program so we can afford or come up with a funding for the replacement vehicle. Okay. So, can I get a motion that actually says motion? A motion to fix it right away. Mo Okay. So, the motion would be to authorize authorize the spending to fix it right away,

authorize finance director to add $500,000 to the current bond, to pay for a refer if needed, and then to do and and to also do the research into the ISO ISO rating change effect on insurance rates so we can publish that at a later date. Is that right? Yeah. Yeah, that's just what I said, Mayor. So, I got by Cool. Second. Second by Baker. Uh, Alen, would you please call roll? Member Brown? Yes. Yes. Mine? Yes. Baker? Yes. All right. Motion carried. Okay. You good? Thank you.

You good, Chief? I'm good. Thank you. All right, Chief. I was making notes of questions for you, so Perfect. Thank you. All right. Item number eight, future agenda items. So, the purpose of this is for council to give direction to staff by way of motion to have items placed on future agendas. Uh, it's not for the discussion of the merit merits of this subject matter. It's just to get it onto agenda so that we can discuss that. Uh, we had a gentleman here tonight would like a $5,000 gift to youth shelter services. Uh, you want to discuss that, Adam? Mayor, I had some thoughts on that. Yes, sir.

Uh that might be an excellent uh things for 100 men in Norwalk to address and try that route before we put it on our agenda because if that would come to fruition, it'd be twice as much as he's asking for. I have a feeling about we take money forcefully from our taxpayers. Um, as far as contributions, I kind of feel like I'm doing that on behalf. I'm deciding who we give it to after we've forcefully taken the money from the taxpayers. Um, I don't think that's how cities should work things.

Okay. Yeah, I'm kind of uncomfortable doing that, but I'm not interested. No, I'm very interested in reporting. Okay. Not interested. Okay. Awesome. Any other I I like the organization a lot.

Yeah. very uh never mind. Uh any other item hearing? None. We'll move on. Item nine, council inquirers and staff updates. I'd like to remind everybody that this portion of the meeting is much less formal. Uh you may hear some back and forth banter and general joking around. Uh we believe this can build some camaraderie and cohesiveness between staff and council. especially hear some extra stuff after 9:00 because we're all a little punchy, right? Uh envision 2035 update. Uh you have information in your packet. Uh any questions about that? The writing was kind of small, but that's okay.

Okay, Luke update. Update. Uh, the only thing I had to say is I actually received a text message from Robin Leaper. She must be watching the meeting and there was a question during the discussion about that trail east of Valley View. And she said that it's in the Master Greenways plan to extend the trail all the way east down to Highway 28. I'm a little late because I didn't see a text until later, but she wanted to pass that along. So, I said I would uh tell the group. Go ahead. That's all I have. Jason. Yeah. Briefing. Uh Norwok boys team in cross country qualified for the seventh straight year.

All right. It's kind of amazing the program that's being built there. And the Norwok girls qualified for the first time since they moved to 4A. And uh they got 15th out of 15 teams. And the girls were just elated afterwards. How about that? They It was so fun for them. They didn't care. And I There was something about that that was just And even a dad was super happy to [laughter] Thanks, Lindsay.

Uh Highway 28 wall construction is not done for the year. They will be back next week to begin of the wall construction. They've been working on the columns, I guess, this week. So, um, people like, yeah, what was the delay? I mean, they just disappeared for two weeks. Any idea? I'm kind of getting mixed mixed stories. So, apparently masonries were there. They just didn't put up lane closures, but then I heard they weren't there. So, they were invisible. Yeah. Okay, good. You were doing work today. Yeah. Up on on the column. Okay, good to know. Now, I've asked a question in case anybody's noticed. Apparently, the columns look a little more tan than the wall. So, I've got a question out to the contractor about that.

I hate to ask this, but can we square up the tops? Yeah. Yeah. It was nice. Thank you for all the dirt. I mean, as much as we're spending, it's just like Yeah. It's on their list. They're aware of the issue. So, they haven't corrected it yet. Awesome. Okay. [clears throat] All right. Jean,

I did uh deliver a November December calendar of events for all the library activities to each one of you. So, we'd love to have you there. Um I would also like to again thank you folks for utilizing some of the uh forcefully taken uh property taxes from the citizens and allowing the library to utilize those. Um during these economic times, we are seeing an influx of folks who really need that. uh the regular assistance that we provide in resources and programs are being well utilized and it allows us to be the free public library although it's being paid for by tax money everyone can come in utilized for free and we appreciate that to to [gasps and clears throat] uh that I also wanted to mention that today we had a donation of a five shelf shelving unit that is now uh complementing our community fridge. So, we now have eight shelves in the pantry and a freezer and a fridge in the community fridge and food pantry. Um, when I left, I was walking out of the library and there were six people utilizing it and they we've had a lot of wonderful donations and we have been thanking the community for that. But it was very impactful to see um four adults and two children utilizing the food pantry by taking what they needed. So again, thank you for supporting what we do because we feel like it's very important for our community. So,

and the Norwok 100 men,

yes, they uh donated $9,500 and we are very excited. We're going to get some boxes. It's going to be like Christmas. Uh we get to use it to replace uh a lot of the technology that we got for the children during COVID times. So they will have some new tablets to use that they can check out and some box books which are the newest version of readaloud books. It used to be cassette book together and then it was CD book together and now it's box that's just this device that's a book. You push a button and it reads to the kids. It's great. So we're very excited for that and there was uh enough in that donation. We're also able to add to our uh Libby audio book and ebook collection just a little bit. So that was a big bonus. So, yes, we're very happy about the 100 men of Norwok donation. So, thanks. Yes.

Thanks. All right. Thank you, Cararissa. How's it been going so far? It's been great. I've learned a lot in two days. Thank you for the warm welcome, and I just look forward to being able to talk a little bit more in depth next time. This is a short meeting tonight. Yes, I I'll skip tonight, but call me if you want to know anything. All right. Good deal, Jean. No. cheap. I'll pass. Wow. Cheap. Um

the safe haven baby box dedication ceremony was held on Tuesday. So that equipment is now open and uh open in service. Um we will be working on some public service announcement to go out to make sure that everybody knows that it's there. But thank you for everybody that attended. We appreciate all the support. Wayne, nothing. Okay. Tony Car's not here. Nothing. Mayor George. Brian, no. Jim, no. Put some pressure on me. So, got peer pressure. I know we already did it, but congratulations to Andy and to Kelsey

on their win. Uh, welcome to the city council. It's going to be fun. They don't they don't always go this way. Uh, right. Uh, so I'm going to be sending out committee appointments next week. Uh, we're moving things around this time. So we'll keep these for the next two years. Uh, if you find some time conflicts, let me know and we can make some adjustments on those and they will be on the next meeting's agenda for public publication. It's not approved, right? It's mine for notification. get vote on that.

Nope. And then uh don't forget Luke's review is coming up. I'll be sending that stuff out as well. All I got I'd entertain a motion to adjurnn. Motion. Second. Motion by Cool. Second by Vaker. All those in favor say I. I. I. All post same. Rejourn 911 for