City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Did you unmute? I'm good.

I can hear you guys now.

Scared me. That was that was you okay.

The echo was me.

It was all there. It's I've got here. Well, I do. I think they are the kind of you know, it's not.

You can just mute your speaker to That's what I think. I think it worked. Yeah, I think it did too. Okay. Ready? All right. Let's call to order. This is City Council regular business meeting for Thursday, July 2nd, 2026. It is 6 p.m. Lindsay, would you call roll?

Council Member Borjan?

Here.

Brown?

Here.

Kuhl?

Here.

Meineke? Porter? Here. Mayor Phillips?

I am here as well. We do have a quorum. So we will move on. Item two is Pledge of Allegiance. Would you please rise and say the Pledge of Allegiance with me?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God,

sorry i have to make a quick change uh item three is approval of the agenda would anybody like to move in and again sent agenda items to the regular agenda very none can i get uh motion to approve the agenda second okay motion by cool seconded by brown all those fair say aye aye aye all those uh all those close same all right that motion carries item four it's a proclamation but

He's on his way.

Our guest of honor is not here yet. He's on his way. He'll just kind of fit that in whenever we can.

He's retired now.

Well, he is retired. He's on retired time. I can relate. Item five, welcome guests and public comment. Thanks for being here tonight. Appreciate you participating in your local government. We'll go ahead and open up the dais at this point in time. If you'd like to ask counsel for a non-agenda item. We'll give you a three-minute time limit. Realize we can't take action on that tonight since it's not on the agenda, and taking action would be a violation of open meetings law. Also, if you'd like to comment on any item in the consent agenda, now would be the time. Anybody like to address counsel? Seeing none, we will move on. Item six, consent agenda. Can I get a motion? Motion. Motion. Second. A motion by Brown, seconded by Kuhl. Lindsay, would you call roll?

Councilmember Brown?

Yes.

Kuhl?

Yes.

Porter? Yes. Borjan?

Yes. All right. That motion carries. Item seven is old business for consideration, discussion, and possible action. Sorry. Item A is resolution initiating rezoning, referring the proposal to the Norwalk Planning and Zoning Commission and setting a public hearing. regarding the proposal to amend the legacy planned unit development by adding 0.7 acres to parcel 21 and 1.4 acres to parcel 24, all originally located in parcel 28. This is an area along High Road that currently belongs to the legacy golf course. The golf course is now looking at developing part of the golf course in two homes. Elliot, I'm going to turn it over And then I have a couple of questions for you.

Yeah, absolutely. Luke, I sent you the vicinity map I made for this in the email. It looks like it didn't quite get into the report. So apologies for that. As some of you know, there's some, if you will, missing teeth along High Road and the Legacy Golf Course. There's about a single parcel width from the westernmost part of that road, a little bit to the east of there. about a two parcel width, a one and a half parcel width section of land, and then a wider one between Dorchester and Weathersfield Drive. Currently, those pieces of land are attached to the golf course. Mr. Matt Manning, who is in charge of the application, has applied for these to be rezoned to allow for them to develop. into single-family homes, similar to the homes that are adjacent to them. Currently, the Legacy Plan Unit development identifies these pieces of land as golf course only. So a zoning amendment is needed in order for those to develop. So that's the summary. Happy to answer any questions.

Do you know why Hubbell didn't develop these?

Yes, I contacted Caleb Smith, who was the original engineer on the project earlier today, actually. The westernmost lot was kept open because the golf course wanted to have access from the street in that location. The middle one was placed there in order to accommodate underground utilities, and the eastern one was placed or undeveloped because of the layout of the course itself.

Okay. So it looks like they've already brought in quite a bit of dirt to start building up the lots. If this is currently built as a drainage area, how will the new lots affect the overall stormwater drainage through the golf course?

So I don't believe any of the parcels in the map are surface drainage. They accommodate underground utilities primarily because... We need to go through the rezoning process. We haven't received a prelim plat yet. Usually the preliminary plat contains the stormwater management plan, which we will take to the normal platting process for these lots. All right.

Do you know if the neighbors have been contacted to see what they think of it?

According to Mr. Manning, he has engaged with six or seven of the neighbors, and he says that they've been supportive of the idea.

Okay. So is this something that council can reject and pass back to the developer to have them petition the neighbors to initiate the rezoning?

Yes. Council at their discretion can require the applicant to get a petition for this if they wish. Um, this is not a public hearing. So letters haven't gone out about the rezoning yet. If, uh, if council decides to go ahead with it, I will be sending those letters immediately after the meeting due to the short timeframe between now and when PNZ would consider it.

So, uh, just my position as mayor, I would strongly recommend council not make a motion on passing this, which is in effect rejecting the resolution. That would allow the developer to get the required signatures from the adjacent owners to put that on P&Z's agenda through a petition process. So any discussion or questions from the council? Hearing none, Anybody want to make a motion to approve that resolution? Hearing none, I will go ahead and save this item as we need to pass it back to the developer.

Yes.

All right.

You can require petition to be filed. So cool. All right.

Thank you. And thank you. Item 8B is resolute. No, I'm going to do this first.

since the water showed up it was fun trying to get through right 3580. all right sir thank you just tell them you're a cop here

Yeah, you know, maybe that's something that a retired police officer should be able to give. It's just, you get lights in your car, you just go. There's a secret password. Is there? Don't go. Okay. No, there's not. All right. So I have a proclamation here that says recognizing the distinguished career and retirement of Assistant Police Chief Kirk Westfold. Whereas Assistant Police Chief Kirk Westfold began his career with the Norwalk Police Department on August 2nd, 1993, and has faithfully served the city of Norwalk and its residents for nearly 33 years and Whereas throughout his distinguished tenure, Assistant Chief Westfold served with honor and professionalism as a patrol officer from 1993 to 1999, as a Sergeant from 1999 to 2000, a Lieutenant from 2000 to 2007, and Assistant Chief of Police from 2007 to yesterday, exemplifying steadfast leadership and an unwavering commitment to police service. And whereas, excuse me, whereas Assistant Chief Westphal is the longest serving police officer in the history of the Norwalk Police Department, leaving a legacy of dedication, integrity, and excellence that will benefit the department and community for years to come. And whereas his vision and leadership extended well beyond traditional law enforcement responsibilities, including serving as a driving force behind numerous technology initiatives, overseeing vehicle equipment installations, leading multiple records management system and computer aided dispatch implementations, and playing a pivotal role in the department's successful transition to Westcom Communication Services. And whereas Chief, Assistant Chief Westfold generously shared his technical expertise across the city organization by supporting cybersecurity planning, managing cellular technology, building security systems and electronic access controls, making him an invaluable resource to departments throughout the city of Norwalk. And whereas his commitment to community engagement helped establish the Norwalk Police Department's annual Bike Safety Day, creating a lasting tradition that has promoted bicycle safety and strengthened relationships between law enforcement and Norwalk's youth and family. And whereas during a period of leadership transition, Assistant Chief Westfold faithfully served as the department's officer in charge, providing steady leadership and ensuring continuity of operations until a new police chief was appointed. And whereas throughout his career, Assistant Chief Westfold has earned the admiration and respect of his fellow officers, city staff, elected officials, and the citizens of Norwalk through his professionalism, humility, mentorship, and unwavering dedication to protecting and serving the community. And whereas Assistant Chief Westfold retired from the Norwalk Police Department on July 1st, 2026, concluding an extraordinary career to public safety and the betterment of the City of Norwalk. Now, therefore, I, Tom Phillips, Mayor of the City of Norwalk, do hereby proclaim our deepest appreciation to Assistant Police Chief Kirk Westfold for his 33 years of exemplary service, leadership, and commitment to the City of Norwalk, Iowa, and join the city council, city staff, and the citizens of Norwalk in thanking him for his lasting contributions and wishing him every success and happiness in his retirement.

I want to have an instructor for a recognition expert turn. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. One of my instructor months. Can you guys portray that? All right. You have to take the council to be like the officers. So the chiefs let me do some fair-brained ideas. Maybe get a little bit of extra. I'm trying to sell my idea. Yeah. So they gave me that opportunity. So thank you. Absolutely. Chief, do you have anything to say?

Just that I certainly appreciate his service. And I think it's been an honor to the police department as well as the city, the way he conducted himself. And he was an invaluable partner for me all those years since the day I got here in 99. Awesome.

How about you, Chief?

You know, I knew there was a lot and that you kept reading and reading and reading. And there's more. As you kept going, I was like, oh, you know what? We've got to talk about these other things too. And that just goes to show that over a course of 33 years in a city that's growing and in a city that allows the police department to do its thing unencumbered and trust the police department to provide the service that the community needs, it shows that one individual can have that big of an impact. And it takes a special individual to take advantage of that. And obviously the former assistant chief did just that. So.

Thank you. All right. Now you can go fishing.

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, You guys can stay.

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, All right.

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Okay. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, So not Literally and figured it. All right. Item 8B is a resolution initiating a zoning ordinance amendment and setting a public hearing regarding an amendment to the zoning ordinance pertaining to the reconstruction of legal non-conforming structures on residential lots. So council... Back in July, we had the final reading of a zoning amendment that addressed the replacement of structures. The situation that caused that amendment was residents weren't able to replace, like in the event of demolition, fire, or damage, as an example, like an unattached garage on its current footprint. So the amendment change that was approved only addressed structures in Gordon Heights, Westwood Estates, Platts 1 and 2, and Norwalk Knolls, Platts 1, 2, and 3. We've now had another instance in another part of Norwalk where the same type of thing is happening. So this resolution is to send a zoning amendment change to planning and zoning that will broaden the area where rebuilds are affected. And this is only to send it to PNZ for review. review and if PNZ recommends it, we'll talk about the merits at a future meeting. So Elliot, I'll turn it over to you.

You summed it up pretty well, Mayor. Just that prior zoning amendment you guys did was geographically confined. This would make it citywide. Specifically, we're targeting garages. We've gotten a lot of requests from the folks up in Lakewood to do something similar to the gentleman who triggered the Gordon Heights amendment. So it was... Literally like the next week after you guys approved that, then I got that phone call and was like, so. All right. Yep. Another step forward in that department.

Cool. Any discussions or questions, counsel?

Well, this makes sense to me. A question I have, though, just because of my own ignorance, is now we've got a requirement for a five-foot sidewalk. And that's really federal guidance. Is that right? Am I understanding that right? yes okay so that applies to any new construction that we make as a city basically right yes a sidewalk requirement would be required adjacent to any public street this amendment deals with something a little bit different but yes yeah yeah and so if if i have if i have a blowout in the middle of my sidewalk not part of the not part of the driveway right and it's a four-foot sidewalk Am I going to have to put a 5-foot section?

We kind of review those on a case-by-case basis. If it's one panel, then we usually let that go back at four. But if it necessitates multiple panels being replaced, then that's when we look at potentially requiring five feet. OK. All right. Thank you.

Any other discussion questions from council or any public input? I get a motion to approve the resolution as presented. Second. Okay, motion by Porter, second by Kuhl. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Lindsay, would you call the roll?

Councilmember Porter? Yes. Borjan?

Yes.

Brown?

Yes.

Kuhl?

Yes. All right, that motion carries. Item 8C is a resolution approving an agreement accepting a surety for public infrastructure at the Dunn property Platte 3 area. So in Platte 3, There's supposed to be a sidewalk along Delaware that the developer would need to build. However, we're in the process of reconstructing part of Delaware. So this action will ensure that the sidewalk is built during or after Delaware's reconstruction. So Elliot, I'll turn it over to you.

Not much to add, Mayor, just that we got that site plan and plat through the council approval process. Lindsey's been holding it for this item to go through. It just doesn't make sense to have them build a sidewalk and then have us bust it up with a revised construction plan for Delaware.

Questions or discussion from council or public input? Hearing none, can I get a motion to approve the resolution as presented?

Second.

Motion by Brown, seconded by Porter. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Lindsay, would you call the roll?

Council Member Brown?

Yes.

Poole?

Yes.

Porter? Yes. Borjan?

Yes. All right, motion carries. Item 8D is resolution releasing a performance surety for trail construction in Warrior Run Platform. So this surety was to make sure a trail got constructed in Platform. The trail's now there, so we can now release the surety. Elliot, that's it? Yep. Any discussion or questions from council or public input? Motion. Second. Motion by Kuhl, seconded by Brown. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Lindsay, would you call roll?

Councilmember Kuhl?

Yes.

Porter? Yes. Borjan?

Yes.

Brown?

Yes. All right. Motion carries. Item 8E is resolution releasing a performance surety for trail construction in Valley View Platte 3. As with the last item, the trail has been constructed in Platte 3 of Valley View, so we can release the surety. Anything else, Elliot?

Nope.

All right. Discussion or question from council or public input? Motion. Second. Motion by Borjan, seconded by Brown. Any further discussion? Lindsay, would you please call the roll?

Council Member Porter? Yes. Borjan?

Yes.

Brown?

Yes.

Cool.

Yes. All right. Motion carries. Item 8F is the first reading of an ordinance to amend Chapter 76 Norwalk Municipal Code regarding bicycle regulations to update the ordinance to include the regulation of personal transportation devices. So there's been a lot of discussion across the entire metro area about e-bikes, e-scooters, e-motos, minibikes. all sorts of two-wheel conveyances with motors. And the use of those has exploded over the past year or two. So when we talk about e-bikes, I think we're including scooters, e-motos, and a few others. So we were hoping that the state legislature would pass a law over the use of these during the last session. And we saw some movement in that area, but nothing was passed this year. The Metro Planning Organization and Metro Advisory Council were both asked to draft a model ordinance to cover e-bikes. Those organizations heard that Plexa, which is essentially the Metro Police Chiefs, which was going to draft a model ordinance. And since this type of ordinance is in Plexa's wheelhouse, we let them take the lead on it. What you see before you is Norwalk's draft ordinance. I'll acknowledge that this has taken us a while to get this to the council table. But as other communities have brought it forward, there's been some hiccups and pushback. So we've been monitoring that and adjusting it so we get it close to correct the first time. As with any new ordinance, we realize that we may see some unintended consequences because of this ordinance. And we may need to quickly adjust, but that's part of getting something decent in place. And if we wait to get it perfect, we may never see anything enacted. We need to have something. So, Chief, I'll turn it over to you.

Thank you, Mayor. First thing I want to say is that the draft ordinance you have in front of you is about the 11th version of our ordinance. And reading it today in preparation for tonight's meeting, I think there's a change we need to make. Yeah. So I'll point that out as we go through it. What you have, what we've tried... There's a lot of definitions in here. There's a lot of points and counterpoints. Some things to keep in mind as you read through this is there's a difference between a bicycle with a electric motor that has operational pedals. There is a difference between a device that has electric motor that is 750 watts or less and one that is more than 750 watts Um, those differences allow bicycles or machines, let's call them to, uh, operate at more than 20 miles an hour or less than 20 miles an hour, give or take depends on flat ground, the weight of the rider and the wind. Um, So it seems as if every possible child wheeled device that I knew as a kid when I was a kid now has an electric engine attached to it. So creating an ordinance that limits a person's ability to use those devices on the sidewalk or in the street is rather difficult. Because every time you try to find one, they put an electric motor on something else. So what you have in front of you is our best effort at this point. As the mayor said, we closely watched the state and the police chief groups. Ankeny was the first of the local police departments to start an ordinance. Their ordinance was very, very detailed in 20 mile an hour speed limits on their sidewalks. That's what it was focused on. Our internal discussions thought that that would be hard to enforce. And instead, we've come up with careful and prudent riding and not being reckless and understanding that going more than 20 miles an hour on speed limit probably doesn't need careful and prudent and probably is reckless. I didn't want a situation where officers needed to run radar on 12-year-old children on electric stand-up scooters on the sidewalk. So that's why we didn't put a speed limit in. Waukee and Clive created very comprehensive ordinances. And admittedly, our ordinance is a revised version of Waukee's ordinance with a little Clive thrown in for extra spice. When we got our ordinance to basically where it is now, Lindsay did a fabulous job creating this comparison document that you have in front of you to try and identify the differences between what we're proposing and what Waukee and Clive have proposed. Once this was created, it was reviewed by the police chiefs of Walkie and Clyde to make sure it was accurate. And then it was revised based on their recommendations. This comparison document really gives you a good picture of what we're trying to do. Basically, a current ordinance would allow an electric bike, an electric scooter, an electric thing that looks like a dirt bike but isn't, electric skateboard, whatever. It could operate on the bicycle trails, multi-use trails on the sidewalk or in the street. Because those things typically go less than 20 miles an hour. However, if it has an electric engine or an internal combustion engine, it would not be electric engine greater than 750 watts, excuse me, for an internal combustion engine. It wouldn't be allowed to operate on the sidewalks or multi-use trails, but would be allowed to operate the street. If it's got an engine that allows it to go faster than 39 miles an hour, it's a motorcycle. And it needs to be registered and operated by a licensed driver. If it goes more than 20 and up to 39, it's a moped or a motorized bicycle, the way the state defines those things. And they have to be licensed or registered, and the driver has to be licensed. We, our ordinance does not allow the class three bicycles, class three electric bicycles. That's a bicycle that has operating pedals, but an engine that is big enough to allow it to go up to 29 miles an hour. We feel that's too fast for the sidewalk or the multi-use trails. You also couldn't ride an internal combustion engine like it said before. Or operate one with an internal combustion engine or any other device that has a electric motor that is greater than 750 watts. Our ordinance. is different than everybody else's in that we felt that one of our issues were young children operating inappropriately, carelessly, without due regard for safety when it comes to pedestrians, sidewalks, street crossings, stop signs, that sort of thing. I don't feel as a police officer it's appropriate to write a ticket to a 10-year-old child. And so we have included a parental responsibility clause that if you're under the age of 14 and you're violating the ordinance, it's the parent's fault.

That's my favorite part.

Mine too, and I'm surprised nobody else did that. We're still the only ones that have that included in an ordinance. And if you're over 14, then the child would get the ticket. The other thing that we've done is we've made our infractions municipal infractions, which allows us to handle them internally as a city and not at the courthouse in Indianola. I think that's better, especially when we're talking with younger folks who are breaking the law because they're

not been educated about proper riding safety. That's what though.

So the main difference is between our own parental responsibility, a lack of a speed limit, and we don't allow class three electric bicycles on trails or sidewalks.

Can you remind me again of the Class 3 electric bicycle?

Class 3 electric bicycle is a bicycle that has operating pedals and an electric engine that allows it to go up to 29 miles an hour. A Class 2 would only allow it to go up to 20.

Class 1, same thing, no faster than 20, which is why we're... You mean just on the electric engine alone, it could go 29? Yes. Yeah.

Okay. What about...

We'll get to questions later.

I mentioned earlier that I think there's an area where we need to revise already and I'll point that out. Under place of writing in the ordinance, Section 76.08, paragraph 2, public lands and sidewalks. Right now, I believe the ordinance under Section A does not allow somebody to ride a bicycle in a city park. I don't know if that's what we want to do. I don't think we want to allow people to ride high-speed e-moto or a moped through the city park. But because we use the words personal transportation device, and a personal transportation device includes a bicycle, I'm not sure that that's what we want to do. I'm assuming the park director nodding up and down would like children to be able to ride their bike in the park. Unfortunately, Jim's not here to make sure I'm reading both. But I think that might need to be changed just as a for instance. And the other thing I want to point out is obviously we've spent a lot of time doing this, creating this ordinance. A lot of people have, and I fully expect the state to come in next session and make a law that totally screws it all up.

Yeah. Or maybe it doesn't screw it all up. Maybe it does. Alters it. Yeah.

Hey chief, I am online listening. Yes, sir. So I, I, I'm not sure. I have not read it from that standpoint from what you just stated, but I think we can certainly, if we were to pass a first reading of this, just that would be with council direction to ensure that bicycles can operate in public parks. Then we'll adjust the wording next week.

Perfect. Um, and so this, we also created, um, this guide to where you can ride and guide to the ordinance. Um, we spent, Lindsay spent some time creating a draft and then, uh, we spent most of the day at the police department, um, refining it. Uh, I'll freely admit that I haven't gone through this a hundred percent against the code. Um, Dave Kuntz, My staff did today and i'm trusting that this is accurate compared to the code i'm going to tell you I haven't looked at it on a percent be able to say that from from my point of view. Dave Kuntz, I think this does a good job of just kind of reinforcing what the comparison sets. Dave Kuntz, Questions yes. Did you consider any licensing stuff for operators of an electric mobility device or whatever you could call it under a particular- The ordinance requires you to have a license to operate if the machine is something that has an engine that's greater than 750 watts or has an internal combustion engine making it a motorcycle. So if it's a moped, an electric device with an engine greater than 750 watts, it becomes a moped or a motorized bicycle. And then you have to follow the state laws on that. And it's got an internal combustion engine that makes it go faster than 39 miles an hour. It becomes a motorcycle, and you have to be a licensed driver.

Can I throw something in there? Yeah. I'll throw something at you. Yeah, yeah. OK? Yeah. What would you think if you said something in there that says the minimum age for motorized conveyances on public property is 14, except if required due to a disability. So you got to be 14 or older to have a motorized whatever.

What are we including in public property?

Street, sidewalks, right of way, parks, trails.

A 10-year-old wouldn't be able to ride their stand-up scooter with an electric motor down the sidewalk. They'd have to use the old school scooter to human dial. Yes.

I love it. I almost watched a probably four or five-year-old get hit by an F-150 on a little motorized bike thing the other day. That ruined my whole year.

Yeah. What's your opinion?

Mine? Yeah. Yes. Maybe. Yes. I'm thinking that's something that manages the use of it under the age of 14 I really like. And maybe it's like nobody gets to under age 14. Ed, what do you think?

Well, it seemed like a practical solution, actually. You know, you'd have to be doing the guessing on the age when you

about these vehicles right because all of those things they're all going 20. else yeah per hour you got there yeah you got me i'm not 10 year olds out there going 20 miles an hour yeah i don't know but andy what you what's your opinion i don't know that one's tough i guess for me because if i think i'm now 13 and a half

And I don't meet the age requirements, but I want to ride around in my neighborhood and be responsible. Is that okay? I definitely get it for, like, under 10. I think, I don't know, that one's hard for me, I guess.

I'd love to know if there's any research done on, like, cognitive development in 14 or 10 or, like,

HAB-Terry Palmos- You know it's absent. HAB-Terry Palmos- I was there. HAB-Terry Palmos- About 45 HAB-Terry Palmos- Sorry, I don't want you to make light of that.

HAB-Terry Palmos- State let's a 14 year old drive a three quarter ton pickup truck to school. Yeah. HAB-Terry Palmos- So, We could trust that a 14-year-old could drive a truck to school, could probably ride an electric scooter with pro snow to get snow going. Yeah. The parental responsibility law would be, we wouldn't need it if we limited the age. Well. Maybe. So maybe the answer is finding an age that is appropriate to say you can't ride a motorized van. Maybe it's 12. Maybe it's 12, maybe it's 10. Yeah. Maybe somewhere else.

Yeah, finding an age under which, and I do even, I don't want to make things more complex. Yeah. But when you have a licensing situation, there's some amount of safety training that's going along with that. Even though the cognitive development in my particular gender of the human species is not that great at age 12, you're still doing a little bit of like, oh, I've got to do this safety training. I've got to, you know, there's a little bit, again, I don't want to get in. I'm thinking about getting into the weeds. I'm thinking about making this, like creating more complexity for you than what you want. And like, and yeah, I like the idea of under an age, none. And then again, just throwing it out, potentially like some sort of license or whatever between age, that's the age above and 14, where there's, but I'm sure you thought about that. So I offer that up sort of, you know, I don't know all the complexities that that creates.

I think that would be overly complex based on state lists. It's like you said, if you let the state do the licensing. Yeah. And that would be 14. Yeah. I don't think the state's going to license a 12-year-old for anything.

I kind of like that age 14 idea myself. And also that relies on the state, you know,

and the wisdom of our legislature. And Andy, I get what you're saying, but a 14 year old can drive. You want your 13 and a half year old to get in the car and drive around the neighborhood?

Do I want my 14-year-old in a three-quarter ton pickup driving after he has a permit? They can. That's where it's hard for me. We're going to say you can't drive a scooter until you're 14, but you can drive a three-quarter ton pickup when you're 14. That doesn't equate to me.

I wonder about 12 or something. I think we can reach a compromise.

That's just staying on public property. You can ride and do whatever you want on your own land.

Correct. So if I'm in a neighborhood, I have, I don't know what a typical lot is, 40 feet of sidewalk or 30 feet of sidewalk and a driveway that I ride my scooter on, that's not realistic either.

That's right away. So it's actually public. The sidewalk is within right away or public property.

So you wouldn't even be able to ride it there then?

You just have to be in your yard. Yeah, in your driveway or your yard, backyard.

This is hard. I grew up on land and we rode our dirt bikes on land. And our friends that lived in town had no interest in riding in town anyway. I don't know. They would come to our property and then we would all zoom around and ride on the land. I don't understand where that became now every surface.

I think it's the availability of the bikes and how cheap they've gotten.

Okay. I mean, my dad's pretty cheap after a bike.

I know I've seen enough crazy driving already up and down my street, my side, by some really young people going really, really fast.

Right there.

Yeah.

a walker and a runner it's a problem they better hope that all the sidewalks are leveled in the streets are you open to the idea of under a certain age not allowing the use yeah i think so but i don't i don't think 14 is the right thing just to the to the chief's point of now i can drive a very heavy like

vehicle right like like it shouldn't be the same i don't feel like right i don't think it should i don't think a five-year-old should be driving on the on the roads or maybe even a 10-year-old but i i think if you start to get to 12 13 14 like part of it is like you got to learn how to drive before we get these kids on the roads too right like my kids have driven golf carts and i think they become better drivers because they've had a little bit of experience having to navigate

um but but not at not at nine years old right you have a maybe this is a rite of passage that at 13 you get to you now get to use the motorized bike or whatever

What I worry about is if we say it's, pick a number, I don't care, 12, 13, 14. So then we're going to be ticketing 12-year-olds or their parents because they got a Christmas present from their grandparents. And maybe that's, and what is the ticket, right? Like we got to think about the effect of that. I think it's the right thing to do, but then we got to communicate it. We got to say that this is now illegal for under whatever age.

To that point, as the ordinance is now, if a 10-year-old is violating it, then the parent would be the one charged. If we had a 10-year-old under 10 prohibition of use of an electric device on public property, then it would still be the parent responsibility for allowing that to happen. And if it was a child that was 11 or 12, who would, in this scenario, would be allowed to ride it on the sidewalk, if they're doing it carelessly, recklessly, failing to yield to pedestrians, or what have you, it would still be the parents who received the ticket up to age 14.

The other question that hasn't been brought up that I want to make sure we think about a little bit too, is there places that we just don't want them at all? So like inside of the sports complex where you have masses of people walking around together, maybe in a line and all of a sudden you have a kid, whatever age, riding a scooter that can go very fast, very quickly because it's an electric motor. Do we not want certain areas to have it at all? Even if they're under 20 miles an hour.

I think in the sports complex, it would be private property and it would be a rule that the complex would have to have to enforce the trail or sidewalk leading up to it. We would as a city be responsible for enforcement.

That's like no wheels on tennis courts. That's pretty simple.

Correct. But that's a valid point as to, is there a place we don't want them riding at all? And we contemplated that in some areas where we restricted certain machines from the trails, sidewalks, and parks. Just because of that, we don't want mopeds riding through the park, the park grass. That's what we did.

We're going to start out with that 13.

Is there a way we could do like an age tied with the speed thing? Like I like your speed. Anything more than 20 miles an hour, you got to be 14. Anything below that?

I want to avoid anything that requires a radar gun.

You're already there.

Right, but the engines, that's what I'm saying.

You're already there though because you got to be, state law says 16 for a class three bike, doesn't it? It might.

I can't. I'm not for sharing number. So that age restriction does somewhat apply. Because if the machine is over 750 watts, it's considered a moped. And a moped is required to be licensed and operated by an individual who has the license.

What's the age of a moped? 14. 14. Yeah.

I guess my opinion, you guys take this when it's worth, like usually when you go into sixth grade, you turn 12. Sixth grade is considered middle school. Middle school is kind of a rite of passage, I feel like, for people. Before that, you're in elementary and you're a child. When you become a middle schooler, I think you should have a little heightened awareness and you should start to maybe act a little differently. And so maybe 12 and sixth grade most kind of go hand in hand, roughly, is maybe where I would try to align it to. Andy's opinion.

Under 12 or 12 in my professional opinion would be the limit as to where I would stop a prohibition. I think at 12 years old, you're probably responsible enough to at least understand that you have to stop at a stop sign. Whether you do or not, that's another question.

And if you're not, your parents are held accountable until said child is 14.

I like 12 to start. I like 14, but it sounds to me like it's three votes for 12.

Yeah.

So what do you think we get that in as far as under 12, no motors? Correct.

For the record, I like 14. I'm team 14.

Yeah, I like 14 as well. Can I make a motion to pass this with the age of 14? Second.

OK. So there's a motion. Well, this is an amendment to the ordinance. So I got a motion to amend the ordinance to put a minimum age of 14 on it. So the motion's by Kuhl, seconded by Porter. Let's go ahead and do a roll call on that. Lindsay?

Councilmember Brown?

No.

Poole?

Yes.

Porter? Yes. Morjan?

No. Okay, so that motion fails. So would anybody like to make the age 12?

i would like to motion acceptance of the ordinance with the amendment that you've already mentioned uh and the amendment of of uh a minimum age of 12 in order to use these devices publicly okay so i'll second that then we got to make sure we get jim's wording in about about bikes and parks too right yes

Yeah, that's what I changed in this ordinance. That will be the first reading then. Are there any other things that we want to add or change within it tonight?

Well, I like the fact that there's three readings. Yeah. This is where you realize the wisdom of that process.

Yeah. I also take it that council is not looking to prohibit like five-year-olds from driving their little Tykes Jeeps, which technically would be an electric motor-powered vehicle. So I want to make sure that you're not intending that. We'll write it so that it doesn't include that. Yeah. Correct.

Okay. So before I get – so I got a motion and a second. Motion by Brown, seconded by Borjaun. Let's get some public comment going here first. Can anybody have public comment? Sure. Come on up. State your name and address and let us know what you're thinking.

Okay. Gary Cook, 1400 Park Hill Drive, North Iowa. I just like, you spend a lot of time talking about age. I haven't heard one time any conversation about helmets. And I would like to ask that you consider anything with a motor, that you require helmets. As you can see, I'm a biker. I'm a RAGBRAI guy. I've seen bike injuries. And at these kind of speeds, on RAGBRAI, I had a friend of mine. We were going downhill. He was going 30 mile an hour, 25, 30 mile an hour. And he had an accident, walked away with minor injuries. If he didn't have a helmet, it'd have been a very critical accident. So I'd like to have you consider helmets. OK, thank you. Thank you.

Anybody else? Richard?

Let's go along with the moment.

Can you state your name and your address?

Yes, I'm sorry. Melanie Carpenter, 302 Spruce Street, Norwalk, Iowa. I would go along with the helmets. I've seen our youngest son rides bikes, rode professionally for a while, had an accident, ran into a dog when he was riding downhill going about 40 or 50 miles per hour. Um, ended up with a concussion, but that was all he had. And if he wouldn't have had a helmet on, he probably would be dead right now. Um, and also like we were, we were out riding bikes one night, went down to Wendy's to get ice cream cone. We only lived probably five minutes away by bike. He did not have a helmet on that night. And he ran into the, one of the light poles over there. He wasn't going very fast. And he didn't get hurt. But just to show you that you can hit anything to fall off your bike. And your head is going to be the first thing that hits the floor or the ground. I would go along with the helmets. It scares me when I see kids riding without a helmet.

Great. Great. Thank you. Come on up, Richard.

Richard Glade on the 612 Sawgrass in the fine city of Norwalk. One of the other things that you have now mentioned is the number of people that can ride on these conveyances. These kids are riding with two kids on them. I see them go by my house all the time on Lexington. Two little kids on a scooter. One is sometimes sitting on them. floorboard and the other one standing up driving. And that is very unsafe. They need to have some type of education to where they will understand that they have to obey all the traffic laws, stop signs, right of ways. So many times they're writing down and they just go down Lexington and then they'll just turn by Colonial Circle and shoot across there and not even look. You know, it's just so dangerous. And The other thing is you were talking about riding them in city parks. Yeah, there's a bicycle or an e-bike, if you will, could be safely ridden in there. But so many of these kids, they don't use the pedals. They are not used at all. All they do is reach over and hit that electric assist and they're going 20 mile an hour across that park. I stopped a couple of them because I've been in the park with my great grandchildren. It's very, very dangerous to have those kids going 20 miles an hour through the park. And you've got a whole bunch of kids around playing on the equipment or walking back to their home. And these kids are just flying back and forth across through the park. Also, I've seen them. little guy, I'm going to call him Eddie Haskell. He's out there and he's turning donuts when the grass is wet, tearing up the grass. I approached him and I said, don't be doing that anymore. You know, they're not mature enough to do that, to ride these things safely. And I would go along with the age of 14. At least they're They're starting to get some sense of responsibility, if you will. Right now at 11, 12 years old, I could care less. I want to go down to Sally's house and I don't care where I ride or anything else. And they are extremely dangerous. I ride an e-bike. Yeah, they'll go fast. but not through a park. I mean, mine will go, if I use the assist, it would go 20 miles an hour maximum. But it's not going through a park with a full of kids. That is just way too dangerous. Thank you for listening.

Yeah, thank you.

Chief, maybe you can get him to put a badge back on these names. Okay.

HAB-Jacques Juilland, Will say yeah HAB-Jacques Juilland, Under responsible writing, we do have listed double writing restricted HAB-Jacques Juilland, So the scenario where two people are on scooter would be a violation. And the other thing that we put in specifically because of an incident that happened. in the park where Mr. Gray lives next to where John was injured by an electric scooter, electric machine riding in the park carelessly. Officer Heffley, who investigated that, asked us to put in an enhanced penalty for somebody who causes an injury to somebody else.

Do you have anything about helmets in it currently?

I contemplated that and I thought, well, we don't require them on bicycles, don't require them on motorcycles. I don't know that we want to jump into requiring them on

electric scooter.

So I did not hear so I did not agree that I'm not opposed to it. I just didn't know that that's something we wanted to jump in.

I'm Kevin Carpenter, 302 Spruce Street. I just want to clarify one thing on the e-bikes, the pedal assist versus the pedal motor. are different. And so my question is to you is, I can get a Ride-O 3, which is what I currently have, and do about 17 miles an hour. But I could go up to the Ride-O 5.0, which is a bigger motor, but you have to pedal it. You might get it up to 34 miles an hour.

So the ordinance i understand his comments correctly the ordinance allows class one and two electric bicycle to operate on the road or the trail or the sidewalk because those machines pedal assisted or engine only uh are supposed to max out at 20 miles an hour our class three electric bikes can go faster than 20 miles an hour, up to 29 miles an hour because of that increase in speed. We've restricted those type of machines from trails and sidewalks. OK.

So then my question would be, on a regular bike, I know that you do mountain biking.

Mm-hmm.

In racing with a 20-speed bike, C3 performance children, well, young people, I don't know. Melanie, do you know what age the C3 can match?

They're probably like middle school, high school.

Middle school and high school. Some of those kids can pedal easily at 34 miles an hour for working out and doing their training. I know that. Our son trains. His average ride will do 34 miles an hour. So with that said, is there going to be a limit on the trails for riders that can ride competitively?

So a person who is riding a traditional bicycle on the sidewalk or trail that in a manner that is reckless or not careful and prudent would be violating the ordinance. So while a peddled traditional bicycle with an accomplished rider could go 34 miles an hour downhill on our trail, you're headed 250th Street on Beardsley on the trail, and you go down that hill, somebody who wants to can make it. Oh, yeah. But if they do that, then they would be violating the careful improvement section of coordinates because they could be on the road doing it.

That would be a violation.

Did I see something in here that said pedestrians have the right of way?

Pedestrians always have the right of way. Over the bike? Over any of the machines. And that's in their... it's in there.

Okay, last thing I'd like to put in there is I know y'all do safety training and have a bike day. And we that's great. But just this last week, there is a on one of the trails in the morning. A gentleman wrecked his took went off the trail to avoid hitting Three younger writers. Ended up with a concussion, you're not patented have his arm surgery put down on his arm in this game. Because Two writers were writing at breast on the trail and rather than taking the writers out. He took the off the trail and read I think we need to really encourage on our bulkheads of our trails safety. that people understand you can't write to a breast down the trip.

They say it's in the ordinance too. Yeah, I think that's in there. Yeah, it's in the ordinance now that we're considering.

Okay. Yep. Because it's just an accident waiting to happen.

Yep.

Okay.

Thank you. Okay, so I still have a motion on the table. Would you like to have Jim and Chief Staples look into helmets and adding helmets so that we can have a discussion about helmets next time. I would. Okay, so let's have a discussion about helmets next time. Go ahead.

Helmets, age limit, and riding in the parks.

We're going to put the age limit and riding in the parks into 9.4. We want to talk about helmets next time. Put helmets in next time. All right? Okay. So that was a motion by Brown, seconded by Borjan. The age limit is 12, just to remind everybody. And the other doesn't allow bikes in... No, the current ordinance doesn't allow bikes in city parks.

We're going to allow... We're going to make sure that it allows that.

Okay. So... That's the motion. The second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Lindsay, would you please call the roll?

Councilmember Brown?

Yes.

Poole?

Get this passed. You know, in the books, I'll vote yes in hopes that I can change the age of these. Yes.

Porter? No. Borjan? Yes.

All right.

That carries then.

Good to get that in there.

Item 8G, second and possible final reading.

Excuse me, Mayor?

Yes, sir.

Was that last motion to amend the ordinance or was that also first reading of the passage of the ordinance?

That was amend and pass, first reading.

That was amend and pass. Yes.

That's what I heard from Jason anyway. Yes. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. Item 8G. It is the second possible final reading of an ordinance amending the municipal code of the city of Norwalk, Iowa by amending Chapter 136 regarding sidewalk regulations. So we had a resident address council about the replacement of the sidewalk. The new requirement is to increase the width of the sidewalk from four feet to five feet. This is due to ADA requirements. However, his perfectly good driveway has a sidewalk area set at four feet and the current requirement is to remove that existing sidewalk and approach and replace it with a new approach and five foot sidewalk. This ordinance change allows the sidewalk to be replaced without replacing the driveway approach. This approval also provides similar provisions for other areas with similar situations. Elliot? Nothing to add, Mayor. All right. What questions does council have and is there any public input?

Motion.

Second. So motion to approve the second reading by Kuhl, seconded by Brown. Lindsey, would you please call roll?

Councilmember Kuhl?

Yes.

Porter? Yes. Borjan?

Yes.

Brown?

Yes. All right, that motion carries. Would anybody like to make a motion to waive the final reading? Motion. Second. Motion by Kuhl, seconded by Brown. Lindsey, would you please call roll?

Councilmember Borjan?

Yes.

Brown.

Yes.

Cool.

Yes.

Order. Yes.

All right. Motion carries. Done. All right. Item seven on the agenda is future agenda items. The purpose of this is for council to give direction to staff by way of motion to have items placed on future agendas, not for the discussion of the merits of the subject matter. It's to get it on an agenda so we can discuss the subject matter. Any future agenda items? Yes.

Well, it's a question. Can I add something without discussion to something we've already talked about that I just thought of?

Such as?

Such as what the effects of this whole motor allowed on sidewalk streets, all this, what would that, what effect would that have potentially on golf carts?

Let's talk about that when we talk about golf carts.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Okay, I wasn't sure if it needed to be part of this, though, because I don't want to pass anything and then HAB-Masyn Moyer- I don't think that's it.

No, this is bicycles. It's not for golf carts.

HAB-Terry Palmos- Jim could correct me if I'm wrong, but golf carts are separately defined and our ordinance. We just discussed doesn't have a definition for golf cart in it to apply.

HAB-Terry Palmos- Yeah, I, I would agree to that it won't have that golf carts.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Anything else Hearing none, we'll move on. Item eight, council inquiries and staff updates. I'd like to remind everybody that this portion of the meeting is much less formal. You're going to hear some joking around, possibly some back and forth banter. We believe that this can build camaraderie and cohesiveness between staff and council. So we'll go ahead and start.

Luke, do you have anything? Andy? I don't have anything, and since we're almost done, I'm actually just arriving, so I'm going to drop, but that's okay. But thanks, everybody, for the meeting tonight. Thank you.

Thank you very much for logging in. Yeah. Thanks all. Bye. Lindsay.

Nothing tonight.

Thank you. Jean.

Just a quick invite to head over to the library. We've got tons of programs going on. And we're gathering the June statistics for the library. And we felt like we were busy, but some of the stats are coming through. And it may be a new record. In this past month, we had 171 new library cards given out.

Wow.

So that feels good. 116 were for adults, and 55 were kids and teens. And that's not even counting the renewals. So they're using your library.

That's great.

Thank you. Thanks. Yeah, I just wanted to update the council and let you know we did locate a leak at the pool over the past couple weeks under the concrete near the plunge pool, which is the slide at the bottom. So we were losing more water there than we would expect to lose. So we've identified where we believe that's at. We're nursing it along until the end of the season and then we'll dig in. Once we get through to figure out the scope of that, hopefully it will be small and repairable. And then on a positive note, I told you a couple months ago about our river cruise that we're taking on the Mississippi. We filmed the first charter bus and we're working on a wait list for a second. So it's an opportunity still to sign up. Very cool. All right. Very good.

Thank you. There's a saying out there that things happen in threes. At the police department last week, they happened in fours. We had four auto crashes in a row in our police reporting system. We had four thefts in one day, and then we had four OWIs caught in one day. And one of those officers caught two in one shift. That was Officer Novak, who was here earlier. She is our newest officer on solo patrol, our least tenured officer, probably a better way to describe it. Arrested somebody for drunk driving around a little after midnight, processed that individual, took him to jail and on her way back to town, got another one and arrested him and took him down to the jail. So June was an extremely busy month for us. Compared to last June, we were up 59% in reports. We had 34 arrests just in the month of June. The officers are working very hard. Thank you, Mayor, for the proclamation for Assistant Chief Westphal. Yesterday was his retirement reception and it was well attended and I think was an appropriate send off for somebody who spent that long time serving the city. And with his retirement comes the opportunity to make promotions. Today, I announced that on July 9th, we will promote Sergeant Lewiston and Sergeant Reed to the rank of lieutenant, and we will promote Officer Howler and Officer Slagle to the rank of sergeant. That's 3 p.m. at the Public Safety Building. The mayor and I will be conducting the ceremony, and everybody's invited. So that's all I have. Thank you. Chief?

Nothing. Thank you.

Annual basis, about 40,000 people die in car crashes. If you run the numbers, that's about 115 people a day. Another way to think about that math is that's like two Boeing 767s going down every week. If that were actually happening, the NTSB would be having a heart attack and ground all air traffic. For cars, it's a little bit different. Funny reasons as to why that is. Every time we talk about what vehicles are and are not allowed on trails, sidewalks, streets, et cetera, that's always the number that pops back into my head. So that's all I got. Not to be a wet blanket.

Like a wet blanket. Barry. Sometimes we need wet blankets. Yeah. Barry.

Nothing to nightmare.

I was going to call with the chief in the city manager for the job they did for retirement. It was well done and certainly deserve it. Good job and good image for the city.

Well, if you feel like you missed out, come out on July 31st. We're going to do it all again for Sergeant Downing after 32 years.

I bet I'll be there. I just want to thank all the people involved in the work on what we just passed the first reading. So I know chief was, I think you were mayor and, um, you know, we love for the state to have figured this out for us. Uh, but, um, I really appreciate it. And we, and we, you know, we have to do something, uh, in a timely manner because many, many people are falling for it. So thanks for all the work on that. Uh,

Yeah, the thing that we could look at is that we need to take what our ordinance is and then start lobbying the date to enact something similar. Yeah. All right. Anything else? Anything else, Ed? No, sir. All right. Kelsey? Jim?

I just echo everything that was said about Officer Westfold. I spent... almost all those years working with him and he was certainly a rock and everything that we went through. We've been through a lot together and, uh, his advice was always good. His work was always great. And, uh, he'll be missed for sure.

Yeah. Yeah. Great. Thank you. Uh, for me, I want to remind everybody that we have gone to a restricted stage two for water, uh, use that. means that residents can start irrigating odd numbers is no even numbers is Sunday Wednesday and Friday odd numbers is Tuesday Thursday and Saturday looking at Wayne I have a feeling he'd be more accurate HAB-Jacques Juilland- yeah i'm pulling this off top my head, so I think i'm right. HAB-Jacques Juilland- There is no residential watering on Mondays so and if you don't need to water your lawn don't water your on. HAB-Jacques Juilland- That he's. HAB-Jacques Juilland- Commercial properties are still in stage three or non residential are still in stage three so but it's easy enough so we're we're in a good spot. We'll continue to get better. I want to remind everybody, community chat is in this room, 9 o'clock on the 11th. We'd like to see your happy faces here. And we get to talk whatever you want to talk about. So when it's attended, it's kind of fun. So you get to hear some things. So come and join us on the 11th. Last thing I have is have a great Independence Day.

Thank you.

It's America 250, so yeah. Yeah, that's all I got. I'd entertain a motion to adjourn.

Nope. We got a closed session.

Well, yeah, sorry. All right, sorry. Yes, we do have a closed session pursuant to Iowa Code 21.5J to discuss the purchase or sale of a particular real estate. Only where premature disclosure could be reasonably expected to increase the price governmental body would have to pay for that property or reduce the price the governmental body would receive for that property.

And Mayor, Jim wanted you to know that it's okay to say that it's for a lease agreement for our tower.

Okay. So, okay. So it's lease agreement for the tower at that magnitude. Jim, is this valid reason to go into closed session?

Yes, it is.

HAB-Terry Palmos- All right, can I get a motion to build a closed session motion. HAB-Terry Palmos- Motion by brown second is by close to go and close session. HAB-Terry Palmos- Lindsay which coral.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Council member Porter. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Yes, or john.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Well, no longer here.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Sorry he's no longer here brown. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Yes.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- All right, well, we will go into session. HAB-Masyn Moyer- In five minutes yes.