Council - Regular Meeting

And we're live. 6.30 p.m. August 12, 2026. Calling the City Council meeting to order. Jeff Bindle? Here. Amanda Baskin?

Here.

Scott Hilbert? Here. Randy Johnson? Shane Light? And we have no public input. So we move to the consent agenda. Do I have a motion to change or approve the consent agenda? A motion to approve the kids and agenda. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Do I have a motion to open the public hearing on the change of the fiscal year 27 budget amendment one?

Make a motion to open the public hearing at 6.33 for the budget amendment number one for fiscal year 27.

Second.

Baskin? Yes.

Okay, so we have our first budget amendment for fiscal year 27, and this was detailed for you in a memo that amends 25,000 to our culture and recreation and put it in under parks property for the parcel for the downtown that was purchased. Um, the 25,000 just simply gives a little bit of extra room there, um, closing costs or fees or anything like that. And then I, this is a screener error. I forgot to include this year, uh, the approval of wages, FY 27 for, um, the county portion that is contributed each year. I forgot to include that. And then the council also approved the additional 10,000 to get through the high library hours of programming at the June meeting, I believe. So was it June? I think it was the beginning of June. So those are the items that are on the public hearing and budget amendment, we did not receive any comments or phone calls via the city clerk's office, and none sent via email to me from council members either.

Do we have a motion to close the public hearing? I'll second. Beaver? Yes. Basky? um moving on to new business do i have a motion to consider resolution 2027-006 to approve the fiscal year 27 budget amendment number one

Resolution 27-006 approving the fiscal year 27 budget and then number one.

I will second.

Bendall? Yes. Maskey?

Yes.

Hubert? Yes. Lightfoot? Yes.

I have a motion to consider the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission for rezoning parcel ID 21039200 button drive. The, considering the resolution 2027, setting it down, okay.

So 2027013 for the Hutton Drive rezoning to set the date for a public hearing for the rezoning from M1 Light Industrial District to C1 Commercial District. So this resolution is simply to set the date for that public hearing.

That's setting it for next month at 6.30. I'll motion to approve Resolution 2020. three setting the date for next month's meeting i think september 12th nine nine six thirty i'll second yes yes

Sorry, this one's kind of confusing. So under the same rezoning, I included a memo from the building inspector as well as the draft resolution 2027023, which has been discussed with the city engineers as well. And we feel that it's in the best interest because the developer would like to move forward with the site development And since the rezoning is still in process, we are issuing a resolution to approve that preliminary site development work with the at risk grading. I think this is our first one since I've been here.

I don't know if Matt was around, if he had to do it with us at all. So it's for situations like this where the formalities take a long time, especially when they're rezoning, where they want to and is when their lease is up over there. So the contractor wanted to get a head start and just began site grading and underground utilities. And I believe Doug specified that in the resolution. So it's still at risk. is essentially our risk um because then you know they do all that work for nothing but they're willing to take that risk um we have reviewed their site plan in detail it was a well put together site plan um you know these are the only review comments we had on it they've actually started without the engineer reviewing their plan and all of a sudden, you know, they get too far ahead and we have to change something significant. But in this case, their site plan's pretty well buttoned up. So they have limited risk as far as us changing something on our view. So really the risk involved on their part is, like I said, the rezoning doesn't go through. But we felt, and normally because I think this might be the first time you've heard about this project in detail. I'm sure you've all heard about it, but we felt, or Shane Wicks really felt that this needed to come to you guys for consideration. rather than us you know we didn't want to step on your toes or anything and um not clear about anything until you know obviously you set the public hearing date but then they really get into the discussion next month's meeting uh with the resulting and they're already moving dirt around up there and throwing their flags out with you guys so um you know because this is what we're resulting we thought it should come

I will make a motion to approve resolution 2027 and 23, authorizing an adverse development activity for the proposed Veritas Church. I'll second.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. I have a motion to consider Resolution 2027-015, authorizing the transfer and repurposing of the 2017 Ford Explorer for general city purposes.

Motion to consider.

I'll second.

Mendel? Yeah. Bassey? Yeah. Eber? Yeah. Light? Yeah.

I'll wish to approve it, but I don't know what the answer is.

I will take the vote as an approval to consider it. Discussion from the city administrator. Okay, perfect.

Okay. So I... Let me go back here. Okay, so I sent a memo regarding the 2017 Ford Explorer. We have had our discussion involving the 2023 Tahoe. And previously, I believe last year, we started a discussion with Benton County, with, sorry, not Benton County, area, not area, North Benton. I'll get it right here. North Bend Ambulance and that kind of tabled and they didn't get funding. So I just wanted to open this back up again, depreciation of the vehicles that are just sitting there. We've had two incidents already this year where we've had to have our like public works employees, three of them had a training in the morning, but we only have a vehicle that would take one group. So two vehicles have to go for them to go to a morning training. I mean, otherwise, city purposes would just include simply the deputy clerk goes to the bank every day, goes to the post office every day, rarely, but once in a while has to go to Benton County, to Benton. We have been doing a lot of driving for nuisance complaints, and I just feel that it's time for us to consider possibly using it just as a general city purpose vehicle rather than having it sit in the bay with no use at all. I did have a question from a council member regarding what the cost may be to, I don't even know. There you go. Decontent the vehicle. This particular vehicle does have like a police cage in it. It does have probably radar, things like that. There is someone that is over at county that does that. When county was here, they said that they could contact that person and find out how much it would cost. I do believe it is not much, and I say that meaning that something like that is well under $1,000. In terms of decal, we do have heat guns here at the city, which I believe that they would be able to easily remove the heat gun or with a heat gun to remove those decals. If we wanted to have the city just general logo decal placed back on it, they use a place out of Cedar Rapids, which already has all of the decal and graphics there. So it would just be for the application and purchase of the decal if that's what the city decides to do. I did do some research on the 2017, which I don't know that I even have that in here. But as you may know, the value of that is not as much as just, using it and repurposing it here within the city. Once in a while, I go to trainings that are out of town. I think the intent is not that it just gets dragged around just to drag it around. There would be general just municipal services that we would use that for.

for using their personal vehicles on that point. And the other one was in our discussion with the Sheriff's Department in removing police equipment from the police department rooms. They indicated that they'd be willing to remove the content, and I am presuming

So I was waiting to hear back from county. So the council doesn't have the official conversation recap of that. So I was waiting to hear back from county, but yes, August 5th, I think it was, the sheriff, the deputy chief and a captain, all three of them from county did come. over to the police department here so that we could take a look at the Tahoe, take a look at what different things could be negotiated. And in that conversation, which is what I was waiting to get back from county, there was discussion in there regarding just how different things have been left and the liability that is kind of on the city right now with how things have been left over there. which would include everything that you can think of. So there's destruction of evidence, there's evidence files over there, there's case files, there's ammo, there are weapons, there are things over there that hasn't been recapped in an email to the council just yet. But again, those are the things that the mayor is referencing in terms of how we're going to kind of package that negotiation contract with law enforcement services for FY27, offsetting that with the Tahoe. But then once we got over there, there was a lot of additional things that would require manpower, things like that to really take care of that space and The liability that's left over there, which is exactly what the city. Would like coming to do, and because we do contract with them, they're the only ones that come in to be able to do that because they do have access to all of that county information, things like that. So. Long story short, yes, I believe that part of that conversation then was. taking out the content of the ford explorer if that's what the city decides to do in this negotiated process so not meant to not update you but i just had not heard back from county in terms of a recap of our meeting just yet but we don't have anything solid back from that county no which was what i was waiting for so that i could i think i just had sent the draft email to you

i think it's probably the right thing to do i just we should be mine we should just pay attention to how much use it's getting and if it's not then we unload it whatever way we can i don't think it's a bad try it out the gate because it is it's not like we're gonna i don't know what kind of demand there would be for that as as it sits um i was gonna say can anyone drive it as it says well it's nine months old already correct right nobody can drive it as it says and no one can drive it no i mean offer it for sale to another small community as a police

Um, I'm not, I'm not sure the answer to that. I just know that because of that older vehicle, what was in the vehicle in terms of maybe the computer, not have any of the bells and whistles that the newer vehicle had. So there really wasn't a lot in there that would carry value other than the vehicle itself. Meaning like the cage. Yes. But like how he didn't believe that there was a lot of. value if we were to just sell it off to someone else i they would have to give upgrades yes yes whoever would take the vehicle would have significant upgrades because like even the radios and that nothing everything is obsolete i think is the word they used wasn't it stuff's been upgraded past that and what's in there wouldn't match Even the AED in it is obsolete. So we can't even like repurpose the AED in it.

I'm sure we've never kept, and we've probably kept up with it. You have to like do every six months checks on those AEDs.

Right. The AEDs we did not. We did, we have over the last two years, we have kept up on the maintenance. We have, but again, not enough, you know, taking it out and driving it once every six months and taking it to get it I mean, I believe that's considered obsolete a couple of years ago. Yes. I think so, too. I think so, too. That's why, I mean, I can do further research on that. I really didn't just after a conversation with Benton County, I thought, you know, we don't have a general purpose vehicle that the city staff can even use. Like I said, you know, you wouldn't think going to the post office and doing that, but when you do it every single day and then you drive around town to do nuisance abatement or you've got to take records to vent county, I mean, the mileage does add up. Myself, I could, honestly, I could do without driving and it doesn't make a difference to me one way or the other. I just feel in terms of the best decision making when you have a vehicle like this, it does nothing just sitting there. So,

My point being, if we put the city logo on the side, because I went out and took pictures of the nuisance property, and one of the neighbors said, there was somebody over there taking pictures of that property. Now that you say that,

We have a very busy building inspector right now and allowing the building inspector to have a vehicle where he is going to sites and being on site because he also goes to do inspections. Having a vehicle like that for him to use is a great idea as well. So, I mean, just the general purpose of it and the flexibility of having it available, I believe.

We can put it to use.

I do think it would get put to use. Yes.

I will make a motion to approve Resolution 2027-15, authorizing the transfer and repurposing of the 2017 Ford Explorer for general city purposes.

I'll second that. Betsy? Yes.

Okay. So this is where I'll ask the question too. Do we open the discussion with a vote or do I just go ahead and go? I mean, when there's a resolution, we go through the motion. So if not, I'll talk. If so.

Okay.

All right. So it was a little bit ago. I believe it was the end of June. I sent an email to, I believe to the council and to the mayor about, starting to review the peddler solicitor transient merchants ordinance and application. I did that because as you all know, we do still have individuals that do come in to get a peddler permit. Aside from the food truck type peddler permit, things like that, we do get merchants and solicitors that do come in or we get them reported to the city because someone has seen them in town and wants to know if they have a peddler permit. I believe that it would be good for us to start a review of this process. I'm not sure when the last time it would have been reviewed, but when I started looking at it, it was actually a Facebook post that I believe was out of Manchester or something like that, questioning an individual that had a peddler permit. And currently how this process works is someone is either told to come to City Hall, or once in a while you get someone that comes in because they know they need to stop at City Hall, and they can fill out an application for a PEDDLOAD permit or a license. It requires them to give us their name, address, the company name. They do need to give a driver's license, I believe, and that's about it. And according to the ordinance, it can be approved within the office and off they go. And I just feel like after reviewing this, after seeing, you know, concerns of people in town, that we should really review this and have a more thorough process for this. You know, somebody shows up at City Hall and then expects to, within 10 minutes, be able to go out into the public, knock on doors, and the city has given approval for that. And I in good conscience do not feel comfortable doing that. because I believe maybe there should be a more thorough process, whether it's some kind of background check, you know, insurance checks, things like that. I do believe they have to get a copy of their insurance, but even then, we don't get people in here that have a copy of their insurance with them. So I just put together something. I put in here the current ordinance, the current... license, then try to just produce something that look like where there could currently be gaps within our ordinance and the current application and how we may be able to look at this. There's so much stuff in here. You could be really thorough where they have to pretty much, it's 30 days, or it could be the length of how long does it take maybe for the sheriff's office to do a background check. I don't know. But after I got to looking at this, I felt like before we have a discussion, I wanted to just be able to provide you with a packet of information, possibly some suggestions that we could do. I will do some more research maybe to see what other cities do in terms of their process or neighboring cities, because as you know, If they come to Urbana, they're probably gonna go to Center Point, they're probably gonna go to Palo, they're probably already been to Vinton, whatever that is. But I can send this because I feel like it probably wouldn't be done in the next month or so, but I wanted to make sure that when the active season came around again that we would have a more up-to-date and thorough process of people that come into the city and how we want that to look in the future. So I thought before we discuss it, and I know I put it on here as discussion, but the more that I put a packet together and feel like maybe I would like the council and the mayor to take the packet with you, review it, maybe see if there's some different suggestions that you could start emailing me or questions that you may have, different things that trigger a thought for you in some of the information that I've included in there.

is that fine or how do you how do you guys want to do that would the council like to forward emails to the city administrator during the next month and then have a more in-depth discussion during next month's meeting you know give us that review everything did incentive point just roll out a new one too

Possibly. I think I saw something, but I am not going to challenge them again.

I think I saw on the line that they did.

It was either right around when you sent this, I thought I saw that. Yeah. Well, and I just think, again, the more that people are out there and they believe that the city has given them permission, then I feel in good conscience the city needs to know who we're approving to be out there knocking on doors and I would have to look that up, actually, but I do think it's something that... Like I have seen that there are towns and cities that have no soliciting Oh, trust me, I know they've come to my house and said the same thing. And they try to get around it. And they said, No, you don't understand. I'm actually the city administrator and you cannot be here without a permit. And they did peddle up here. But again, I just think I feel like it's time for us to review it. I think I'll look at those options. Maybe there is an option that there's no soliciting within city limits, and I'll look to see.

I mean, obviously, like, I think trucks and stuff is a little different, but, like, going up to a door, knocking on the door. I really have problems with that in today's world. Just keep them on.

I pulled in and kind of the first round or. City population side.

So I will do a more thorough process on that and kind of put together some more information. And I will also reach out to EC COG to see since he's obviously been working on our code of ordinance. He also knows the model code. So I'll reach out to him and see if there are cities that have been soliciting in city limits. And if that's the case, and that's the route that the city goes, definitely signage, things like that, I think is important because it's interesting because we've even had businesses that come in that their business name that they put on the application doesn't match the business name that they have on their insurance. And I'm like, that's interesting. Which leads me to believe that we should have some kind of background check or something more than people just coming in and expecting to pay the $10 or the $30 and then off they go into our community. So I feel like more and more it's a safety issue and that's why I wanted to bring it up for consideration. So I'll do some more research in the meantime. If you get going through your packet and more things come to mind, please send them via email is probably the best way to do it. It allows me to keep everything and make notes and have it for possibly The September meeting, we'll see. We've got a lot of stuff going on in terms of construction.

Well, we could have a committee to make recommendations as to whether or not we have solicitors.

I don't know that we need that. I feel like if we find out that we can't.

It's not something that we need to decide tonight. It's just that's another.

We need more information. Right.

I can always put something on the website. Like if you feel like you want community feedback about it, we can always put something out and see what the community's feedback is about the solicitors. Obviously, I feel like it's, I think like you mentioned, yes, I feel like the, permits that we get for like food trucks, things like that. I feel like are a little separate, but should go through a background check as well, or at least the business or such, um, but is a little different than the door to door soliciting. And, um, and also looking at legally or how that works. Um, I do like the support I personally, so that would be totally up to other people, but I do like supporting local, um, organizations like pre-K through 12 that I do know go door-to-door and how is that different than, you know, this type of thing. So I feel like there's a little more research there, but if you have specific opinions or you talk to other people in the community and you'd like to add some input to the review process, please send it to me and I'll try and compile more information. Otherwise, you can take the yellow packet that I have put together for you if you'd like to take that with you tonight.

Do I have a motion to adjourn?

We'll make a motion to adjourn.

I'll second. I'll second.

All those in favor?

Aye. Opposed?

Meeting is adjourned. I thank you all. Thank you. Is the meeting all adjourned Saturday? Um,