City Council - Regular Meeting

Interview for Transit System Advisory Board, Christina Letch. Please come forward and tell us a little bit about yourself and why you want to serve.

Did she ever find out what the reason for the two-hour delay was?

JJ, are you on the civil rights commission now?

I was going to say that you can drive either from a rider's perspective.

I think both you and Christina bring a nice user perspective. Are there other applicants, Heidi? Not at this time and there's two there are two open spots, correct? Okay, you thank you guys.

Thank you We'll go to the consent agenda, which is items 3 through 17 l Constituted consent agenda items passion anonymously unless a separate roll call votes requested by a council member if you want to speak on an item Please come to the podium as I read that item Be sure and state your name for the record. If you want to speak on an item not on the agenda, please come up under citizen concerns. I'll move the consent agenda. Second. Reading of the city council minutes of August 20th, 24th, and 25th, 2026. Four is a motion appointing Matthew Johnson to the Yamanashi City Sister City Committee

Okay, thanks Vicky. We had a chance to review the materials that were in our packet, so you don't need to go through it literally line by line, but I think it would be helpful, especially for the public and for the media, to get a sense of what this phase of the scope of the project is. So if you could maybe address the primary components of what's being done. But the one question I do have, I know there is a recognition of odor control, and that has been an issue that councils, since the start of time, or at least since the start of our wastewater treatment facility have asked. So can you add

So are the demolition items part of phase one as well?

There's a pretty significant amount of demolition, correct?

Thank you. Eight is a resolution scheduling a meeting on the authorization of loan and disbursement agreement and the issuance of water revenue capital loan notes. Nine is a resolution assessing unpaid skywalk operations charges. against 707 4th Street, Amera SL of Sioux City. Is this Tiffany?

Can you help understand? I know that part of the detail that you provided was that there's a claim for $219,000 or so. $65,000, $66,000 has been paid, leaving a balance of $155,000. Is that correct?

So there is an additional assessment? There is, yes.

Is there a disagreement as to whether the assessment is correct or whether it's owed? No, they understand that it's owed. They don't dispute the amount or the requirement? They don't.

Thank you. Tenants' actions relating to grants. A is a resolution accepting the submission of the Sioux City Housing Trust Fund of a local housing trust fund program application to the Iowa Finance Authority and approving city funds as a match. I just have a question on that one, Mr. Mayor.

Here's a resolution authorizing an application through FTA under the low or no admission grant program. and the Grants for Bus and Bus Facilities Competitive Program.

So Jason, or I know you saw him sitting there. Can you just explain the breakdown? You're seeking an amount of $10,972,000. What amount will go to the zero or low emission units? And what amount will go to the facilities?

And what was the other question? And both with regard to the building and on the capital side, Mike, those funds are allocated in our capital budget?

And what's the window of... ordering and receiving the, the the bus itself?

11 are actions related to street closures. A is a resolution temporarily closing various streets in the downtown area on September 26th for the downtown tailgate event. B is a resolution temporarily closing a portion of the Grandview Boulevard and 13th Street on September 25th for the Bishop Helan Homecoming Parade. C is a resolution temporarily closing various streets in the downtown area on October 3rd for the hops and the harvest festival. 12 are actions relating to agreements and contracts. A is a resolution to approve an intergovernmental support agreement with the 185th air fueling wing

Wouldn't it make sense to change the language in the agreement? Because it talks about they'll pay up to $10,000. Shouldn't they be paying all of the cost?

Chief, the only thing I don't want to happen is that it becomes a $12,000 actual cost, and we're obligated for the $2,000.

Okay. But I'm curious, Sergeant Bluff, not a fireman, but they seem to have a really nice training facility south. of the 75 there. Why would they not? It's just as close to run over there. Why would they just not use theirs? I wonder.

Well, before we spend a whole lot of money, I mean, I don't want it.

Hey, before you move on, Mr. Mayor, can I back up one? on the actions relating to street closures. There's nothing to do with the agenda, but I don't want to lose the people. Is Gordon around? I want to talk about street closure on Nebraska Street, the construction that's going on there before everybody bails. Want to come up? The street's closed. The construction that's going there outside the whistle stop right there on Nebraska Street, Yes, Gordon Ferris City. Before you get out of here, we're about six weeks into that. I was looking back, it's about a four to six week project scheduled on

Is our contract required that as they complete, they're putting new pipe, right? Correct. So as they complete the pipe, aren't they required to backfill before you move to the next section?

Can you do me a favor? Can somebody get on that and monitor that? That street has been tore up. Those guys are taking a beating, those businesses along there right now. And I think their expectations were a little bit better than where they are right now. And to me, I see they've opened up. Around the corner, they're gonna bust into the next phase of that project.

Okay, I'm just saying either way, if they're gonna move forward, let's get behind cleaned up, back filled, so those guys can open up those businesses behind them. Because to me, it looks like they're done. I went by it twice then, took a couple phone calls on it. And I looked, and there's not a lot of activity down. It just needs to be... Right. Put back together.

In that in that first section, yes. OK, so I can tell them that they're going to concrete for other places and then not if you get an inch and a half rain every night. Yeah, you know what I'm saying? But that's it's been. It's been it's time on there, so I'm just asking who's watching. It sounds like you are. I just want to just I'm just feeling phone calls before you got out here. I want to talk about that. So thanks. Sorry Mr Mayor.

He is resolution amending statement of work agreement with Civic Plus or social media archiving services. He is a resolution approving a letter of understanding with the explore soon and in the city of for a two year contribution to provide tourism convention and visitors Bureau services and authorizing fiscal year 2027 contribution.

So on this item and I know Stacy's here. What I'm wondering, and I had a chance to visit with Mike earlier, and Stacey, when we had the Sports Commission meeting last week, you're welcome to come up if you'd like. When we had the Sports Commission meeting last week, we had some dialogue about Explore Siouxland and what its focus is. planning and strategy would be. And I'm just wondering if maybe it makes sense to not do a two-year commitment and have you start visiting with Mike and his team to get a better sense of what Explore Siouxland needs to be as it relates to the Sports Commission and

I think if we demonstrated anything, we showed that we can bob and weave pretty effectively. when the rules changed that quickly. And I know that Ike and Julie and I were part of the group that was working with your team to redefine and better understand the application. So we'll continue to work, Bob, and we even do the best we can, right?

I'm going to agree with Craig. I'm not really ready to do a two-year at this point either. And actually, I'd like to bring it back.

I think that makes sense. And to that point, Julie, what I was gonna ask is because, or Stacy, Mike and I did have a good conversation and I think so much of what we're looking at to help fund and support Explore Siouxland ties into what Mike and Teresa are doing in our budget cycle right now as we speak. So I think to Julie's point, if we defer it for a week, give Mike and Teresa some opportunity to rethink a little bit about what I've shared with him. and then visit with you and see if we can maybe refocus and redirect how we think we're going to manage Explore Siouxland and whether it invol

E is a resolution approving the terms of service and the submission of emergent service applications with Elevon. C is a resolution approving a post-construction stormwater management plan maintenance agreement and easement with road machinery and supplies for a detention basin and accepting a permanent easement of the property at 5700 Alhaines Drive. F is a resolution approving a post- construction storm sewer management plan maintenance agreement and easement with Catholic Charities of the Diocese of the Sioux City for a detention basin and accepting a permanent easement the property at 1601

So I have a question on both E and F and it really as it relates to all post construction stormwater management agreements and maybe it's my maybe it's my interpretation of how I'm reading the language and the obligations, but there's dialogue that talks about if it's not properly maintained that the city will go in for a year and maintain it. What happens after 365 days?

That kind of thing, and maybe it's the come and I'm not criticizing the verbiage, but the follow up. It's it's if we're required to go in out of necessity because for that one year period, theoretically you haven't worked through the issues with the property owner and their obligations on the detention pond. So what happens on day 366?

I don't have a problem as it relates to these documents, but maybe work with Nicole and see if we can rephrase the obligations after that first 365-day period.

I want to be cautious about we assume the obligation when they've defaulted on the obligation and then do we then go in for the second year and the third year and continue to just assess it as a cost? And is there a risk that we've assessed that we're maintaining it and then it becomes simply a cost to the city? If there's an abandonment, and again, it has nothing to do with these two properties. Right, right. But it's the same language every time we look at the post-construction maintenance agreement, and there just may be a circumstance where they don't maintain it, we go in, we maintain it, we incur the cost, and can't be made whole.

Maybe just find some time to visit with Nicole and see if we can work through that language. Thank you.

She has a resolution awarding and approving a contract with A&F Construction for the Transit Maintenance Garage Parking Lot Improvement Project. H is a resolution approving a pre-construction agreement for the primary road project with IDOT for Iowa 376 right turn lane at Lincoln Way. I as a motion authorizing the city manager to negotiate a development agreement with DC Realty regarding an industrial spec building in Expedition Business Park. J as a motion authorizing the city or the staff to enter negotiations with Norton LifeLock to serve as the provider of the city's identity theft protect

Why she's coming up, Mr. Mayor, you buzzed right by. Take a victory lap. That's your item. That spec building is getting built. Well done.

We took eight, nine years to get it. Well, you know what? You got her, though. This council got her for you. You buzzed right by it. Take your victory lap, man.

I'm like, man, you got a spec down there, and you know what it's going to cost? You already got to rent it. Let's do it again. It's like a fine wine. It shouldn't take us another eight years to do it.

Janelle Bertrand, Human Resources Director, yes. It's up to them if they want to. Participate in it or not. They're already out. They have to opt in.

They have to opt in. They're not automatic.

They have to sign up if they want it. Right.

And the cost is incurred by the employee or the city?

Kay has a resolution awarding and approving a contract to Steve Harris Construction for the River Drive storm sewer repair project. L is a resolution approving amendment number one to the Consulting Services Agreement with Felsberg, Holt, and Ulving for the Fifth Street and Court Street Traffic Signal Replacement Project. I have questions and I should have asked them. I'm sorry.

Is it? It's still there. Okay. But we spent $23,000 to see if we should do something with it. Now we're going to spend another $35,000 or I might be $25,000 and $33,000 or whatever. Why?

I don't even know why you have a signal there. It's not...

Why are we being asked to review and approve something when we're getting a presentation at the end of the meeting? Wouldn't it have made more sense to vote on it later? Because I have the same question. I don't know why we're committing to $53,000 to shut down a signal. Just shut it off. I was going to ask if we could just pull it.

But why did we not know all that going in? Why did we get the change orders greater than the original contract?

Yes. Should we defer it or can we move it to the end of the meeting to get the presentation first?

Let's just move to defer it a week then. Bob, you want to do it for the end of the meeting or a week from today?

No, the end of the meeting. I'll second. I just don't understand the whole process. We knew we were going to do all this stuff. Why didn't we get one contract to begin with? It makes absolutely, once again, no sense to me, but nothing does around here anymore, so I'll let it go.

Aye. M is a resolution approving accepting the purchase agreement for sure meets for the property at 1401 Bluff Road. N is a resolution... Approving a change order number one to the contract of the RP constructors from the Bridgeport West Lift Station Emergency Repair Project.

And you're not going to ask the contributing industry to pay any of it?

O is a resolution authorizing and approving the development agreement, minimum assessment agreement with HSLF properties for the property at 421 Pearl Street. 13 are actions authorizing payments. A is a resolution.

Mayor, can we go back to O, please? Who is HSLF properties? Attorney's out of Sioux Falls.

And I understand it's a law firm with some commercial activity. Yep. I do think, candidly, I think the development agreement's a little rich in terms of the rebate on the property taxes. So I'd like to have a little more discussion on that.

I think I would like to defer it and get a little more background on the project itself.

What percentage is the incentives on this?

Yeah, it's 24%, 25%. It lines up with the other stuff. So just for the record, what he's putting in there and what he's spending, I mean, he's spending like 3.8%, isn't he? Yeah, 3.87%.

What we've been kind of working towards for all the packages. Yes, we have.

We've been pushing everything towards that 24%, 27%. It fits in there. So again, if we want to discuss it, that's fine. We talking about deferring it?

I'd like to defer it and get a little more information.

Is that going to slow him up? Where's he at in the process?

I don't support a deferral. If we've got to work through something, let's work through it right here.

Why would that slow you? Are they going for... You need your name. This is part of our bank financing. I'm sorry.

But you can start demoing because you're not going for historic or anything, right?

You can't start demo and tell you we can start a project They can gut it. We can gut it.

That's it. Yeah, they've done most of yeah, we're not slowing anything that part of it But no they're talking about he's watching his financing rolling so then he can then proceed with the credit applications on that because that one triggers the other and

I don't want to negotiate your development agreement in public, so I'm going to ask that it be deferred. If I don't have support, I get that. But I'd like to have some opportunity to visit with Clayton, get a little bit more understanding. I respect that. No, I just know that I think we're going to end up in the same place.

I mean, I've been on that side of the microphone, and you're just like you're locked and loaded, and you've waited this. He's waited two weeks through the delays, and now we sit here in his development agreement respectfully. Again, we're on the same page. it fits the criteria, but we're all trying to gain with Renee and everything with the window. So I don't know what we're going to, what we're going to change other than a timeline. And again, I just, I want to get it out the door, just like most of these projects. So, but we can vote it.

Is there a second to the deferral? Second.

I'm going to vote no because I don't think it's going to change dramatically. Again, I'm not getting on the guys that want to do the deferral vote. Should have done it over the weekend, I guess. I don't want to stand in the way and somebody will go in and clean up that building that Bertrand made a mess of. All that infrastructure I put in, I don't want to see go to waste.

I'm voting for you as you're going to clean that up. I vote aye on the deferral, but I understand it failed.

13 are actions authorizing payments. A is a resolution approving the Simcoe annual membership dues. B is a resolution approving payment of back wages and benefits. C is a resolution authorizing payment to Sioux City Engineering Company for the Big Sioux River Erosion Repair Project. D is a resolution authorizing payment to Mark Albanese for the 1110 Larson Park Road Flood Repair Project. 14 are actions relating to property. A is a resolution inviting proposals for the lease of land in the Donner Park Urban Renewal Area, announcing the intent to accept the proposal of Burlington Short Line Rail

Aye. Bob, I don't have a problem with this staying in the consent agenda because I know this is inviting proposals, but Nicole, can you take a look at the language In the development agreement it talks about when the minimum assessment would begin and I think it's confusing because I think in some of the language it talks about it beginning no later than January 1st of 29 and then in other language it talks about it being the minimum assessment beginning when they do the work on the project.

If you could just make sure there's consistency, that would be great. Thank you.

Actions relating to purchasing A is a resolution awarding a purchase order to Keisler Police Supply for ammunition. B is a resolution awarding a purchase order to Ray O'Hearn for ammunition. C is a resolution awarding a purchase order to Conepler Chevrolet for a Chevy Silverado 1500 pickup. D is a resolution awarding a purchase order number 362790 issued to Burt Gurney and Associates to increase the purchase order due to specification requirements for one backwash pump. Did I do the D? I did. I don't think I did. D is a resolution awarding a purchase order to Ed Stevers Ford for two Ford Maver

And as we get ready to vote on the consent agenda, Mike, can you follow up on something for me? The Human Rights Commission minutes include. a summary of the director's report. Can you check with either their chair or with Karen herself? Is that a complete summary of her daily line item activities or is that a specific summary of meetings and visits with constituents?

Recommendations of Planning and Zoning and Board of Adjustment. 18 is a motion acknowledging the Board of Adjustment Actions of August 25th, 2026. I'll move it.

Consent agenda passes 5-0. Now the motion to acknowledge the Board of Adjustment Actions of August 25th, 26th. I move it. Passes 5-0 at 19. A hearing and ordinance amending chapter 25.05 entitled site development to update the requirements for off-premise advertising signs and to repeal the interim sign ordinance petitioners of the city of Sioux City. PNZ recommends approval. I'll move it.

Public hearing is now open. Anyone to be heard?

Sean, you have any thoughts? You're welcome to speak.

Is the distance 1,000 feet or 5,000 feet? 5,000.

No, no, you said 5,000, Sean. I thought it was 1,000.

Part of the problem is can they take that to Board of Adjustment if they want to or not, or is that lock them out?

I think what we've seen is that people spend a lot of money to run a business in our community and they put a sign up and then somebody gets a little 10 by 10 patch of ground puts up this monster sign that blocks the whole next shopping center, which is not fair to those businesses. So I think I'd leave it that way, and you'd have to go get a variance to put it that you're going to prove that you're not blocking somebody else's sign. That would be my vote. What happened out at the Pizza Ranch is unacceptable. It should have never been allowed to go in there.

Chris, do you have those capita numbers with you?

Yeah, you did. I don't care if they have the right to do a board of adjustment and put it on. If they put that on the back of that property where they still would add visibility and not. They didn't block the pizza ranch sign. They only blocked the neighbors across the road.

Is it more efficient to manage these questions through a site plan review and approval or through a variance through board of adjustment?

I don't have a problem with that. I just wondered if maybe we thought it might be more efficient to manage it through this form of discussion rather than through the formal process of board adjustment.

First, let's talk about this for a minute.

Right. Is it best to have the comparison on a per capita population analysis or a square mile analysis of the size of our community? I understand the per capita and I'm sure that it probably is relatively similar, but when you consider the size of Sioux City and our layout compared to Des Moines or Davenport or any of the other communities, and then try and understand the number of signs, it's really not the number of people that we have and our density, it's the space of our real estate. And the street, whether it's Singing Hills or Gordon Drive or floid Boulevard, Hamilton Boulevard, and oth

This is a question of their population base, not on their physical real estate size. And Sioux city has always been considered to be a relatively large physical community, even though our population base is smaller. So your per capital numbers are going to be a little bit off 85,000 people compared to Des Moines Davenport Cedar Rapids and otherwise The number of billboards that we have is going to be I think going to be a little bit skewed I'm not saying that it's wrong But I think the per capita analysis on a population analysis is going to be skewed and I'd rather see it on a Per square mile

Omaha, Des Moines, all of these other cities are huge, right?

What difference? They're square miles. We're doing a fine ordinance for Sioux City.

We are, but I'm just saying that even though these cities are massive, we're still above them in the number of signs.

We charge these guys with doing it. If you've got the major sign guy here and he's only got a couple complaints, I'd say you did a reasonably good job. This is a lot of work.

So one of the other comments that we heard was that when certain sign companies go to a community that others will follow and often times and there's a theoretically there's going to be a process where they can apply for up to ten locations. We've been told that their intent is to acquire the locations, build the poles and the signs and then sell them. Would it be a consideration that when a new company comes in town, acquires their locations, builds their signs, that we have a, not a moratorium, but a hold period of two years, five years, that we prohibit the sale of the property?

I think you can create conditions and covenants on the sale of real estate and the development of real estate in a real estate contract. I don't necessarily personally think that it's an issue, but if one of the things that's been shared with us is that one of the concerns is that companies will follow, they'll acquire space, they'll build locations simply for the purpose of selling. If that's an issue for us, then I'm curious whether we can manage that by contract and by ordinance.

Another quick comment. First, I don't think anybody said it. Your signs look great. I'm sorry? Your signs look good.

Yeah, painted them, cleaned them up. It'll look good. I mean, that should have been the first thing out of our miles is thanks for that. Yeah, certainly.

They built way more than they should have.

And that's why those percentages are like that, but go ahead.

So that was the warm and fuzzy. So my question to you is you've got boards around the country, and the only question I have is you guys build billboards where? Where do you place billboards?

No, just where do all billboards go? Yeah. They go on public infrastructure, right? Most of the time, they mirror... Well, they go on... But they mirror... Your goal is you want to hug private and public infrastructure, right? Roads.

Yeah, that's just common sense. So my question is, when you look at the tax base on those, and we can't play with that, is there any other community that goes out there and says... And puts an annual fee on it or some type of an inspection or... I look at it from... When we reviewed the tax base, I was like, man, the Averys really did a good job of beating down their tax base over the last 40 years. Because, man, them should have a lot higher taxes on them. They did a really good job of lobbying these councils over the year. So my question is, do other... states have any type of an annual insp

Something like that. Okay. And what was their reasoning behind it?

Okay. Okay. I know we took, cause I know, did that even come up Andrew at PNZ at all?

I mean, I just look at like with the cell towers and I look at what they pay in tax for about the same footprint. It seems like that they pay a ton in. I would just like a little bit more love for stuff that's sitting on public infrastructure. I think there's an opportunity there. So this is only first reading, right? So we've got two more readings on this? So this is, and maybe we'll come back and discuss this. I would like to just throw an amendment on vote for there. Pass it, pass it. Just to throw, I'm going to put a stupid number. Let's just say $1,500 assigned annual fee on it as an amen

I got some bad advice from Mike then. What's going on over here?

I wouldn't mind just opening a discussion on it, if that makes sense. When would that happen? How could I do that? Two weeks?

Okay, let's do that. Let's come back and talk about it. I want to do some research on it, too.

But Chris, doesn't this new ordinance, though, basically put, isn't this like a de facto moratorium?

But I'm sure my proposal just sounded outrageous, but at the end of the day, we're going to have a finite amount of boards moving forward if this gets read. No, no, I get that. They need extended so nobody can get in there, sneak in there, get approved. What I'm saying is that... As outrageous as it might sound to put a fee on each billboard, the reality of it is that if this passes as is, there's going to be no new billboards from any other companies.

No, there will be in a two-week period if we don't do that.

No, I know that, but where I'm going with this, Bob, is I know we're trading. I'm saying is that if we've got to extend the moratorium for two weeks.

I think we've got to extend the moratorium.

What I'm saying is that if this passes on its third reading, you're basically putting in a moratorium on any new companies coming into the city. Who? How? It's going to be replaced, isn't it?

No. No, there's still other locations where they could...

So you're blocking out any new customer any new any perspective? That's that's the little intricates of this thing, right or if they buy it they can Lamar doesn't sell

Well, it's not just our signs. We have some Avery signs still around the city.

No, we don't. No, no Avery signs, but there are other.

You see where the discussion I'm going with this is that it's going to become a finite amount of signs, if not less, moving forward, correct? Correct.

Yeah, but I don't, I'm kind of a free enterprise guy. I didn't realize we were saying no more sign. Yeah, I mean, you're not. You're not. You've done a better job than the Averys, and I didn't think anybody could do that kind of job, so you've done one even better than those guys.

All I'm saying is it caps the city's ability to grow more revenue off of that industry.

But the taxes are tiny, that's what I'm saying. I mean, that's one reason. The reason is, I didn't just conjure this up.

We have identified 1,100... potential sites that billboards could go on. Is that true, Chris?

But they're located in one area, aren't they?

But to say that you can't go to a board of adjustment, a sign company, and compete against you really is...

I'm the one guy that screamed the loudest about that mess on Highway 75, but that doesn't mean I don't want any.

I know most people think I'm a real liberal, but when it comes to free enterprise, I'm not.

And as the city grows, then maybe there's more opportunity for more signs. Not if you've got this sign. Well, that's how you bring it back.

I agree. I'm going to approve this because I know we've got a second and third that are coming. If we need to extend the moratorium for that period of time, we will. You're going to have two weeks where they're going to be banging those in, just so you know.

Thank you. Thanks, Sean. First reading then. Passes 4 to 1. Bertrand votes no. 20 is a hearing and ordinance amending chapter 2505 entitled site development to provide an extension of the interim signed ordinance petitioners of the city of Sioux City. I'll move that. Second. Public hearing is now open. Anyone to be heard? Seeing none, the hearing is closed. Passes 5-0. Is anybody opposed to waiving the statutory rule? No. I'll move. Second.

Aye. 21 is a resolution accepting and approving the final plat of Bowmeyer second addition and minor subdivision to Woodbury County. The petitioner is JD Legacy Farms. PNZ recommends approval. So this is because it's within a two-mile jurisdiction. It's not the ground that farm sold in two pieces. Correct. So it's the east farm that they're doing.

Hey Dan, thanks for spending money. Appreciate you guys spending some money out there so keep building. Gonna build some more.

5 0. 22 is a hearing and resolution approving plans and specs for the Expo Center Drive sanitary sewer main relocation for the Gordon Drive Viaduct. I'll move that. Second. Public hearings now open. Anyone to be heard? Seeing none, the hearing is closed. Passes 5-0. 23 is a hearing resolution accepting the proposal of Siouxland Developers for the purchase of a vacated portion of Cone Park adjacent to Line Drive in the Donner Park Urban Renewal Area and authorizing and approving its development agreement and a minimum assessment agreement. A motion is requested to defer this item to September 2

I'm going to go on vacation that day, and I have real strong feelings about, it passes 5-0, about. Deferring it? No, not deferring it. Let's hear it.

What do you got, Mr. Mayor? You're not going to be here, so tell us what you got.

If the council doesn't mind, I would like to be here for that.

I have no problem to bring it to when Bob's back.

Aye. So I would move to... October whatever that is.

Yeah, that was and we've got to move it to October 5th. 6th?

October 5th. I'll move that we defer to October 5th. Second.

Aye. 24 is ordinance amending title 10 of the municipal code and title traffic to increase the rate changes of hourly, daily, monthly, and bulk parking in the municipal parking ramps and parking meters to increase the overtime parking fees and other related parking fines. I move first reading. Second. Anyone to be heard?

I just want to make sure I'm clear. You're saying that the sense is that the council will not approve removing the one hour free? I just want to make sure I'm clear on what you're talking about.

Your thought that it's in the ordinance to delete it, but you're thinking the council won't approve that.

Teresa, question. On the ramp itself, so the people that live downtown I'm gonna be ignorant here. I don't know this answer. They have it. They buy a monthly permit, right? Correct. I knew that part. Yes. And is that different than like a if you work downtown permit? Is it the same?

That's my question is, does this affect the development agreement to a tenant that's already down there? I had that question from two people.

You didn't reserve the right in the development agreements that the monthly rate would change in the event that the ordinance is changed. Correct.

So let me ask you, Teresa, can you identify that group or it's not an identifiable group? I mean, someone that actually lives downtown.

So is there a way for them to identify themselves that they as a tenant downtown that it can stay there with their ad or not?

Okay. Yep. So I'll hit her back and just say get a hold of you. Yeah, absolutely. Again, if you're living down there, I think they feel like they've got a flat rate that was worked in. I don't know if it was going to fall back to the landlord. It depends on where they live.

That should stay there. Yeah. That's fair. They live down there.

So when you looked at adjusting the rates, either Tiffany or maybe this is for Reagan. How did our rates compared to other communities?

I always include Sioux Falls because everyone always says we should be more like Sioux Falls. Those things come along with it.

Reagan, is it your sense, having your finger on the pulse of the downtown sector, the owners, the merchants, those that come down to the community, the customers, that this will be an issue to raise the rates?

No, we're not taking it away. We're not. We're keeping it in place. Wonderful.

And I do think the most salient point is we as a community have to figure out a way to revitalize our downtown and we as a city council staff the community we need to start rethinking this because the reason I ask the question whether the five dollar increases or such are consistent with other communities is because I think it's fair to be consistent with other communities at the same time we have to find a way to to better utilize our downtown our downtown sector I think when we start getting a little bit more direction from others when we look at the entertainment district on the walgreens s

Block by block. That's the goal. That's it. Already got it. Three votes. Who's going to step up, right, Reagan?

Passes 5-0. Is anybody opposed to waiving the statutory rule?

No, because I would like to have some additional discussion, but I respect wanting to move it.

25 is a resolution amending resolution number 2026-0360 relating to the hearing on a manager's report and resolution declaring a structure to be dangerously dilapidated and authorizing a 90-day delay in demolition. The property is 1416 West 3rd Street. Property owner is Freda Bream Estate. Carol? Carol?

Perhaps it's 5-0-26 resolution waiving the requirements for sidewalk insulation at 2827 Hamilton Boulevard. I'll move that.

Is the proposal that it actually include from the corner where the small Hy-Vee is located all the way north to the McDonald's or just in front of the Hy-Vee?

So you'd be requiring a sidewalk to the street... and then the property in front of Minerva's and as it extends would not have sidewalk.

Correct. Okay. Question. Why did it not get triggered when they did, I mean, name it, UnityPoint, Wilmus Hardware, those all had to have building permits. How did that not trigger it?

Yeah, and he paid, when they did the Hy-Vee, he participated in the cost of that. Yep.

Sidewalk on the east. We put billboards in that garden there? All the way to Outer Drive.

There's plenty of area to walk in that area. I mean, it depends on how you define a sidewalk.

There's sidewalk there all the way to Outer Drive. So I agree with waiving it. Thank you for getting that in.

You may. We're honored to have you in the chamber, Mr. Gleason.

So you know it goes back. That time never existed.

So that was a compromise back then, huh, John? Pardon me, sir? That was a compromise back then to build the sidewalks on the other side?

If it were carpenters building it, I might be poor, but you're going to give it to the block layers.

Thanks, John. I got an invitation. They're also spending a lot of money at your place next month, I see, or two months.

I guess he didn't want to build the wastewater plant.

He didn't hear it. Passes 5-0. 27 is a resolution approving amendment number two to the grant agreement between the IEDA, the City of Sioux City, the City of Sargent Bluff, and the City of Lamar is adding a complimentary project and increasing the grant award by $94,400 for the Siouxland Regional Trail System project. I'll move that. Second.

Is there a match required on this increase of $94,000? Hello, Angel.

Passes 5-0. Citizen concerns. Are there any citizens to be heard? We'll do you before we go to the other presentations.

You know, I think we're more than happy to visit with you and have this dialogue, but I would strongly recommend that you apply to our effective fiscal management committee. You've got great aptitude to understanding the broad scope of property taxes, fees, permitting fees, and otherwise. And I think you'd do a really nice job sitting on that committee. Teresa's in the back. She could certainly give you some input on what the committee does. And in large part, what you're describing, the questions are why that committee was put together 25 years ago.

Well, I think if you look at that budget like you did, you're going to see that most of it's maintenance because we're an aging, older community with a whole lot of older utilities, and we don't have the luxury at this particular time, and we'll have less luxury in this next budget cycle for what the state did to us. So it's not necessarily going to fall on the burden of the taxpayers like you might think it is. It's going to mean some cuts in this community that are going to be not the kind of cuts that most citizens are going to want, but it's not what we want either. But we're going to be l

Jeremy, are you a resident of Sioux City? Yes. You are a resident of Sioux City? Okay. Yes.

Can you come up and just simplify that statement from the mayor with what is happening with our growth in the percent cap on that?

Looking into as far as options that they're able to kind of implement in the city to generate that additional revenue so we're not you're not understanding if you generate additional construction in this community we don't get to capture that there's a two percent discouraging discouraging because they're they're asking you to not grow they're not asking you to grow right

And every other city in Iowa as well, not just us. All cities are very disappointed and very upset about those limits.

And we're hoping that they will rethink many of the parameters, but until they reconvene in January, we don't know what it might look like. And starting January 1st is when the imposition hits us.

We would strongly encourage you to do so.

See Jeremy, I'm a little more positive. Our best days are still in front of us. No doubt about it. We're in a girl phase right now. We've changed the way we are bringing in business way. We're paying for performance, which is a new way of looking at things. I also think that. We take in plenty of money. This idea that we don't have enough money to pay our bills is nonsense. We just don't prioritize it. We're going to have to go in there. Mr. Mayor is right. It's going to have to be decision making. What are our priorities? But from a community standpoint, we take in plenty of money from the ta

Yeah, thanks for asking them, man. Get involved.

You mean they're having it for employee parking and not for construction?

It's for, I think, I don't know how to say this. Is it already closed? Pardon me? Is it already closed for construction?

They back into the parking in front of the place is what they do.

So what you're communicating to us is if they weren't parking their vehicles there, that part of the street would be open?

But we'll direct Gordon to revisit this, especially if a large part of it is where the construction workers are parking. If we could reposition them and manage that, we'll ask Gordon to do so.

I'd just like to see them go in sections. I know a lot of the contracts are written that you don't proceed to the next 200 feet until you fill the other 200 feet. I'm going through it in Parkview right now in my neighborhood, too. And we addressed it, and all of a sudden they started to kind of clean up behind themselves. It's easier for them. From a contractor standpoint, it makes more sense. They want to mobilize all of their concrete guys at once and do it all at once. It's more effective for them. You see both sides of it, but from a business perspective or if you're a homeowner and it's i

Well, you've been patient, so I want to give you your time.

So Sam, let me get in front of you a little bit on this. So is there things that are outstanding right now that are just unresolved that are specifically that we can... Basically unresolved. A, B, C, D type stuff?

Rick and I are team leaders on public works, so we will meet with Tom, and if You want to have a meeting? We can do that.

And maybe we'll get together and let's go out there and let's just put it to bed. Figure it out, you know what I mean?

Never get as bad as it seems. We'll figure it out and we'll put a plan together. That's what I'm asking for. Thank you so much.

You've got our attention and Tom will follow up.

Bonnie, I think, did you talk about four or five months ago?

And is part of your issue also Lakeport?

When you and I visited, didn't you talk to Captain Bertrand?

I know that you did because I was part of that email string.

I think it would be productive for you to visit with Gordon. I think before you leave tonight, let's make sure he's got your contact information. Absolutely.

We'll have Mike get your... and Gordon will get in contact with you.

Thank you. All right. Anyone else? All right. Let's go Fifth Street.

Does your analysis and the warrant analyze foot traffic as well?

I've been behind people that for years, almost every day.

Are the issues that you've described and the accidents, I think you said there were 24 or 34 accidents over that four-year period, are they the traffic going east running a red light there or is it traffic going north-south running red light the north-south?

As they're coming up the hill and they're looking beyond Fifth Street's traffic lights, they're looking at Sixth Street's and they just go right through it.

Why did you not study 6th Street? Because if you didn't need the stoplights at 5th Street, I've got to believe this is probably too simple. I know you'll tell me that, but it seems like the people that go downtown go on 6th Street and the guys that leave town go on 5th Street. So why not dump the streetlights at 6th Street too?

How about crosswalks? Do we have crosswalks there now? Okay. Some residential across on the north side of the street.

So you're going to extend the curb out and make it two lanes then? Is that what I'm hearing?

Is it still going to be three lanes going down?

That bulb out is going to be where there's already a parking lane against the curb.

Yeah, it's just shadowed. We've got something else for our snowplows to hit, I think. Yes. Another wise decision that we'll be happy to maintain for the next 30 years, but what the heck.

So you've already said there's very limited pedestrian traffic on each of those corners. How many pedestrians a day do you think are walking across the street either to the north or south or to the east or west?

I'm struggling less to, well, I don't think I support the change order to increase the amount. I'm struggling more with understanding what the capital costs are gonna be to make the improvements that you're describing for limited traffic and limited pedestrian traffic.

Yes. And the curb work on each of the corners?

Per corner or total? So you're talking about a half a million dollars to make improvements at that location?

It's the stop signs that are leading us to the curb extensions.

Isn't that sushi? California roll? Isn't that sushi? Isn't that sushi? You better wear a pair.

Yes. They're all beat up. Go up to 19th and look around there. It's ridiculous.

I don't know why you can't do a drop curb there so that the snow plows don't. Can we do that?

All right, any other questions? We've got to get out of here by 7, so we've got to keep rolling. Want us to bring back?

12L is the amendment number one to the design agreement.

12L is a resolution approving amendment number one to the consulting services agreement with Felsberg, Holden, Ubley for the 5th Street and Court Street traffic signal replacement property.

Second Well, I'll second it so we vote And 30 25,000 for them to design the round the ball boats and Go through the whole procedure. Sure.

It was 23, and then this is an additional.

But when you're voting that way, you're voting to tailor that out. I don't know that I'm forward against it. This kind of comes up, and you don't have any of this information.

We are. Did we have dramatic increase in accidents? I know you kind of brush through that, but did we have dramatic increases in?

How did this come up, I guess? Was this a...

I was going to say, can you just reprogram the signals?

Wouldn't that be a lot cheaper than 75 grand? Yeah.

He's here for the next item. Waiting patiently. Well, let's vote, I guess.

You're saying all these lights, which I don't disagree, but let's get an inventory and do it. You're right. It's a typical Sioux City deal. We're going to hodgepodge and decide when and where we're going to do these things.

I get all that, but I would like to know where, I mean, somehow you picked this intersection out. I think we all knew it didn't need a traffic light. Mike brought it up because of bus issues. I know, but I'm saying I can drive you to five of them tomorrow that I wonder why we even have them there. The stop sign up on Cecilia Street as you come up off of Highway 20, I remember it like it was yesterday. It doesn't belong there, but Lauren Callender had to have that stop sign up. And so that's how we ended up. We've got this stuff all over. A little more in-depth, I guess.

Right, but that's what happened on Hamilton Boulevard when Pohu did that study. Was it Simcoe that did the study on Hamilton?

It was when we did Wells Fargo. They insisted upon it because I paid for part of it. They wanted to be able to get people through their money machines faster.

I think the negative vote is more to look for other alternatives that are less expensive and maybe more effective. Sure. Thank you. Let's go quickly.

We can vote on it and get out of here. I like yours.

We won't be voting. We won't be voting tonight, right? I paid like three months of that already because you've stalled so long.

Here's my question on the property tax side of it. Yes. The reason I like this, number one, it makes me look really good that I keep it at $295,000. And then the second thing, though, on the property taxes is can we play the come that we can find that savings off the levy? See, this is where I'm going. You know where I'm going with this. You got to think a little wider. If we keep the rate the same, but I get the first two years we're going to be, but we got to find $31 and 60. I'm more comfortable trying to find it on the backside because I know where the cuts are going to have to come on the

I hate to be negative, but it's going to be extremely difficult.

Well, that's the epitome of what's happened to us to this point.

Nonprofits have to pay this, and they should have to pay something.

Is that this option is the option what the fold does that cover everything or is that not that covers everything?

So, Teresa, I'm not going to be a smart aleck here, but why do you think that we can't find the $31 again on the property tax side of it? I mean, if we're talking about legitimate cuts.

We're 1.9 behind already. That's the point I'm trying to make.

Elderly if they make money or just elderly?

Because a guy like me should not get a discount. Right.

If you're a disabled veteran, you pay nothing.

Somebody's a disabled veteran, I'm all for 100%. I get that. But that'd be about the only one I would vote for.

The complicated formula in Iowa that the legislature will never change is not that. You don't have to make much and you're kicked out of the deal.

I would be for that, but I'm the guy that didn't go, so I still feel guilty that those people have have sacrificed like that and we're piling it on.

And before we get veterans all excited, it may not be legal, so we've got to do some research.

The difficulty in looking at all of these numbers is looking at the unit cost is a little bit, I don't mean deceiving in this, you're not trying, I know you're not trying to deceive us, but the unit cost, it's not as if somebody's paying $2.27 and their monthly is going to $7. They're usually multiple units and we had a number of people that appeared in front of us that their stormwater fees per month were $600 or more and they went to $2,400.

I can tell you that the dozens of people that called me over the last six weeks were not paying $2.27.

But they were paying $9. Their fees went to $9 or $27. So they were seeing a multiple of four. And then we were getting the calls from those that had large properties, large runoff. Yep. that their monthly unit costs were $600 that went to $2,400. And I think that's what we need to be cognizant of when we start looking at these numbers, because those are the real numbers. And I think it's intriguing whether we blend a property tax impact, I don't know that that's the right route to go, looking at the nonprofits that would pay nothing under a property tax increase,

whether there's a service fee component to that which I've talked to Mike about for other pro other projects I think those are things that we have that we need to make sure we're fully vetting well I mean you got to start somewhere because we're continuing to charge that so we need to yep this isn't something we're going to study for the next six months because everybody's already paying that and we told them we'd have some action so you make a recommendation and get it on and you guys can change it, but we've got to get it going one way or another so at least people know.

We'll make the recommendation and then we can put it on the agenda and get it going. And soon.

All right. All right. Thanks, Teresa. Council concerns.

I like the option four at the end there, if that's where you're going. Is that what you're thinking?

But I want to point out the property tax side of it. That way people understand that it's $8 million. It's real money. Conversation is real. That's why we have it. That's why I don't know That's why you present the 295 is because you got to see you got to show the people that Absolutely 95 because it's gonna get dumped in there.

We're gonna do council concerns. Get out of here Move we adjourn. Okay.