City Council - Regular Meeting

I love can you hear me?

Good idea. Not quite sit. Stop looking at me like [laughter] we want this meeting last faster than the last one. [laughter] Yeah. Do we have some time at the last one? What's the mayor there? What's going There we go. 6 o'clock. Let's get started. We'll call city council regular business meeting to order this Thursday, November 20th, 2025 at 6 pm. Kayn, would you please call the role? Council member Baker, here. Council member Brown, Council Member Cool here, Council Member Livingston here, Council Member Mine here,

Mayor Phillips, I am here as well. So, we will move on. Item number two is pledge of allegiance. Would you please rise and say the pledge of allegiance with it? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Right. Item number three is approval of the agenda. Would anybody like to move any of the consent agenda items to the regular agenda? Hearing none. Can I get a motion to approve the agenda? Motion. Second. Motion by Baker, seconded by Mini. All those in favor say I. I.

Those post same. That motion carries. Item number four is welcome guest and public comment. Thank you for being here tonight. Uh we will go ahead and open up the deis at this point in time. Uh if you'd like to address uh council for any non-aggenda items, you can give a three-minute time limit. Realize we can't take action on those tonight because they're not on the agenda. uh that would be a violation of both the meetings law. Also, we'd like to comment on any item in the consent agenda, now would be the time. So, anybody any takers? Hearing none, we will move on. Item number five is consent agenda. Can I get a motion to approve? Motion. Second.

Okay. Motion by Miki, seconded by Baker Kalin, would you call the role? Council member Baker. Yes. Yes. Livingston. Yes. Mine. Yes.

All right. That motion carries. Item six, old and new business for consideration, discussion, and possible action. Item A is a public hearing regarding an amendment to the Norwok zoning ordinance to conduct amendments related to gates and barriers. Uh we're opening this. We'll open up public hearing at 6:02 p.m. So, we're not quite ready to hold the public hearing. We're going to leave it open and continue the hearing at our next meeting or a future meeting. Uh item 7B is removal from table the consideration of the first reading of an ordinance amending chapter 176 subdivision regulations by amending section 17608 design standards 17609 construction of improvements and etc. So this action is to remove uh the item from the table. I'll provide more explanation on the next agenda item.

Moved. Second. Okay. So, I got a motion by Baker, a seconded by Mini. Kalin, would you please call? Council member Cool. Yes. Livingston? Yes. Mine? Yes. Baker? Yes.

All right. That motion carries. Item 7 C. It's first reading of an ordinance amending chapter 176 subdivision regulations by amending section 176.08, design standards 176.09. 9 construction of improvements providing for amended road construction requirements and warranty and maintenance bond requirements for public in infrastructure. So the details of this change were discussed at our last meeting. Uh just to quick recap, we're changing our subdivision ordinance to require subdrains and granular uh subsurface for all new streets. I believe there was consensus from council at our last meeting on this topic. Uh however, council wanted to add in some wording to address a phase in where the city would share the expense of added costs of those developments that are already in progress. And I think we'll discuss that tonight. Another issue that was brought up was the language around the maintenance bond. Uh, I believe Luke Nelson has received an email from the HBA that indicated that they may not be here tonight, but they plan on listening to what's said tonight and they might be back on our next meeting for any additional tweaks needed to the ordinance. Uh, they wanted to assure council that while they are not present, they are very engaged and interested in this agenda item. So, I'm going to turn it over to Wayne, Luke, and Jim.

I'll start. I'll just give you an update. We did make a few changes to the ordinance. Um, in the public works side of things, we eliminated a requirement for a joint payment of a joining type for a specific type of payment. Um, it'll something it's something that will lessen the cost. It's something that we put in there. We may require it these dial joints, but it's not going to be immediately required. we had in there. Um, and Jim could probably talk to you more about the imple phasing in or Paris can do that. I do want to just mention a few things. I went to a conference last Thursday named about municipal streets and interestingly enough there was a presentation by the city of Clive who in 2017 undertook a pavement study and because of that they implemented higher standards back in 2017. Uh they went through and showed a bunch of pictures of three-year-old to 15y old pavement both with higher standards and without and the difference was remarkable. The number of cracks in the traditional standards versus the new ones that didn't hardly have any. Their study was from HR Green. They went through how a $2,500 initial investment saved over $9,000 later. So it's almost a 4 to one cost savings. Um, and the reason the granular back is so important is concrete needs a uniform base. You can't have if you have soft spots from irrigation or just soft spots from varying glacial till which is what we have or sand. If you have varying support, that's bad for concrete, it can't handle that, the stresses from that. So, that's why the the subdrain and the subbase is so important. It gets rid of that moisture. Um, that's all I had in my notes tonight. happy to answer any questions about and the other issues. I think maybe Jim could answer that. The timing and the cost share.

Yeah, I talk about that. Uh not cost share, but under the bonding and stuff like that, they were worried about requiring a single bond uh produced by the developer that I've made allows for single or multiple bonds that allows the subcontractors to turn in bonds the bonding items because they also uh indicated concerns. I heard concerns about having to bond for design that there's resistance to that and I think from my research and everything like that I agree that bonding companies don't like to bond for design because design is more the engineering versus the construction of it all. So uh under the guarantee requirements I still have the developer warranting the design of it but under the bonding I've taken out the bonding requirement for design. So, uh, the bonds are still going to, uh, bond for everything else for workmanship, installation, construction, um, all the all those construction related items. And it's going to allow for either a single bond by by the developer or multiple bonds uh by the by the by the but in either case it does make it u make it clear that the developer is still the main responsible person for they're the ones who are giving us the infrastructures. They are the business person that's building the infrastructure. And uh though that was the previous requirements, I you know it wasn't clear in our code completely and I I would want to make it clear that the developers understand that when they are here building they are dedicating improvements to the city they are going through our handling the warranty and the care of it afterwards. This their subs are still their responsibility after construction's done. Um then as far as implementation of it, what we have on there is um the this

will apply the new standards will apply to all preliminary plats that are approved after January 1st of 2026. So this coming January 1st. If there's a preliminary plat that is approved after that time, the new standards will apply. or if a final plat is approved after January 1st, a year from then, the standards will apply. The reason why I have it staggered like that is that uh you know there are some developments in here where they put in a preliminary plat for a large development and it's not going to be built out in a year and might not be built out in five years. So uh we had to some sort of limitation on that too. There are some with that would meet the first requirement of preliminary plat being approved, but also we have that tailwind and one that we want also wasn't constructed. If it's not constructed by the end of next year, well then they're going to start complying with the new requirements is what this code says.

And that seems to make sense because they only do the street when they're ready to develop the homes on that.

Yeah. So, we really won't have a purpose to try to do the um back fill make that's a bad term with when we're talking about drainage and stuff to um make up the difference. You know, I think the only thing that I've heard discussed is not so much making the difference, but uh in this next year, there will be some preliminary plats that get approved as final plat meaning that the roads get built within the next year that our new standards are not going to apply to. I think the councils could certainly discuss that if the council and city thinks it's important enough to have these higher standards, maybe the city

so streets aren't in yet. The streets aren't in yet. and our code. So, there's gonna be certain streets that they aren't in yet and our new change in ordinance will not require them to have the higher standards. The city could say, you know what, even though we're not requiring the builder to do that or the developer to do that, we're going to put in the money for the higher standards. We think it's important enough that we get that going right away. But that certainly isn't I've heard that. Is that a sparse population? How many how many streets are we talking about? If if they met the exact criteria, all of them, how many streets would we be dealing? I think Luke, did you like a mile and a half? 1.3 miles. That's what I like.

Yeah. Um Elliot put together some information based on the past few years. Kind of an average per year is about 1.3 miles of streets. And we even used some rough estimates of what an equivalent cost would be for the city. 100% of that cost difference I recall was around $450,000 for 1.3 miles of streets. Just as an idea. So if it was for everything all 1.3 miles in a given year, the city would just have to be willing to dedicate approximately $450,000 to cover that cost. Sounds like get that back.

You sound like hate to call investment, but it'll pay back has a payback to it.

For Jean to figure out, right? It would be, keep in mind, she's online, so she is listening. Okay. [laughter] Yeah. And that's not necessarily a suggestion or in this ordinance right now, but it is something that council was inclined to could discuss it in the future. Yeah. Is there a possibility we could get a few extra uh preliminary plots trying to get crammed in in month of December? Probably not. No, that doesn't occur, right? No, I don't think so. I mean, Debbie's literally pushing it. I I just wanted to make 75

not a lot of areas I think that I can think of that that even be possible because usually we have some kind of resoning that comes through first and then Okay, you know. Good. I like I like that's all I'm just worried about. Are we waiting on any preliminary plots for that we are expecting to come in? Not new, right? not new discussions, but uh preliminary plats that we're expecting to come in between now and the first of the year. No, we don't have anything that's that I can think of that's been zoned and then, you know, in active review. Okay. [clears throat and cough] I don't think any of our other review people think that either. So,

the motin preliminary plat, isn't it? Blooming Heights five, I believe. Oh, yes. the the reszoning of Blooming Heights 5. Thank you. That's just the little uh like 20 unit subdivision north of Blooming Heights. Thank you, Tony. Um so there would be one, but that's probably 300 400 feet of road. So, um, yeah, Lindsay Lindsay just reminded us that the motion last our last meeting was to delay any pulinary plats until this issue is resolved. Right. Okay. Covers that.

I do think it's worthy of discussion though with our existing preliminary plat and and the timing where where these new standards would apply to those. Uh I think by the way it's written right now it'd be a year from this this January. And I will add that that most of the plats that we re review and approve are constructed in phases and most of those last more than a year in terms of complete build out of that preliminary plat. So this, you know, so if there's something relatively new that's just maybe, you know, just completed the first phase and there's multiple phases, you know, in the future, I would say that that uh there's a good chance that they'll they won't be constructed within the next year.

Yeah. So for example, to that Saddle Ridge, the home show site for next year and everything, that's an 80 acre development. The first prelim plat was roughly half of it. We would expect them to do the second half um in phase two, maybe get broken into into three phases. Um so two and three on the back half of it. Uh likely they won't start the process of we might start reviewing that next construction set next fall. Um I maybe because of this it'll p cause them to pull trigger a little bit faster. Um, but usually from normal development, we would see a two-year lag probably in that scenario. I mean, certainly we've got some developments with prelim flats that have been going on for five, six years, as in I mean, Holland Point is a massive development that we've approved a lot of. So,

I know that I know there has to be those cut off dates and I know that from the city's perspective, it's critical that we know we want to make this part of those ultimate development costs in the future. where I where I really understand the perspective of the developers is I put myself in the shoes of just operating the city when the state legislature comes in and makes some kind of a leg legislative change that impacts us midway through our budget year and it makes it very challenging when you think you've got everything planned out you think you have your budget planned and then somebody changes the game on where I can where I have a lot of compassion for the developers if they put together a proforma of what 88 acres is going to develop like and I do understand that if we're changing the game in the middle of that they didn't take into account when they bought the property and as far as what their total budget on the project. So I I do understand that there's that. I don't know how you resolve all that other than we're trying to balance out how long it would take and maybe a cost share. I just understand that perspective. Then on the off side, we said that they even admitted that it's only approximately one and a half% possibly of of a lot price.

Yeah. The additional cost. It doesn't seem material to me anyway. Well, we could certainly take action in this tonight and uh weigh as far as that transition goes after the fact, right?

Yes. In fact, Ed, that's an excellent point. Mayor, maybe you were going to bring this up already. This is the first reading. There's three readings. Uh, the Homebuilders Association expressed some concern over any future readings being waved and I explained that yeah, the mayor said that likely that would be uh heavily discouraged. So, this is just the first reading of three. So there's an there's more time for us to focus some time and attention on that cost share that trans uh trans transition period.

By the same token, I hope that um delaying future readings would also be heavily discouraged. Um, right. I I I don't have any problem not um asking for a waiver of future readings, but I also would have big problem with uh further tableabling or delaying any future readings. I I truly appreciate what you said, Luke, about uh budgets and all of that stuff, but the city is drowning in reconstruction of roads because of the way that they are constructed. And we have got to put our citizens and our taxpayers first. and uh by continuing to allow the roads to be constructed in the manner that they are and then in five years, seven years before some of the developments are even fully built out, we're rebuilding roads or resurfacing or doing repair work. That is not fair to the city or to the taxpayers.

Right. Well said. Well said. Would it be helpful? I think we could um go through all of our active developments and do a status for you all for the next meeting of when the prelim flat was originally approved, where they're at in phase development, and how much we think is, you know, we could give you some data as how much is out there right now that might potentially be something that comes up next week. So, you could just get kind of status of the entire community subdivision development. I would appreciate that. Okay, we'll do that. Mayor, all joking aside, you know that with Jean finding those dollars, this would give us a chance to work with her too and say, "Hey, what would that look like,

right? Even over the remainder of this fiscal year into next fiscal year." Uh because likely that might impact Wayne budget as well.

Okay. I would like to read something very short for the council from from our students design that that we've adopted too just that f you know kind of parallels what Wayne has said and and further um um explains the importance of the foundation analysis or pavements you know just so the council understands that you know we're not really standing alone on this and and and and you know uh and talks about the importance of this. So, uh, just a couple sentences here. Historically, municipalities have resorted to a one-sizefits-all approach to constructing standard pavement thicknesses for certain types of roadways without regard to traffic volumes or subgrade conditions. That's probably in part true uh true for the city. Historically, engineers need to examine their agency standards for pavement foundation support system based on good engineering practices and the level of service they desire for the life of their pavements. Designs that improve the foundation will extend the life extend the pavement life, improve the level of service throughout the life of the pavement, and provide more economical rehabilitation strategies at the end of the pavement's life. Although the initial cost to construct a pavement will undoubtedly be higher than placing the pavement on natural subgrade, the overall life cycle cost will be greatly improved. And that's from our sudas design manual that that we've adopted. Many cities within the metro area as well as the state have adopted as well. Um the another comment that came up at our previous meeting from a representative was was pavements should be designed for a 30-year design life. Well, Sudas in the Sudas design manual recommends a 50-year design analysis period for pavement thickness design. So that's so again that's what we require and we didn't pull that out of this guy. That's that's the recommendations from our design.

Good. Yeah. Thanks for that. You have any public comments? I wasn't going to. [laughter]

Since Luke brought up our development, I can explain a little bit about the timing of it. Dave Harmire, Vista Real Estate, uh 2400 86 Street, Sweet 24. Um, we know as developers like I that we need to help improve the street quality that you guys are experiencing. So, I don't think anybody's arguing that from the timing perspective. In Saddle Ridge, we put in 61 lots in the first plat. The second plat will probably be 80. It was originally preliminary platted for 85 or six. We're probably going to make them a little larger in some of the areas. So it took us from construction plan approval 15 months to build the 61 lots. We did the rough grading for the whole site. So we have that advantage in plat 2. But it would probably take from talking to CDA 3 months to get through the plan approval process for us and then build it. So even if we wanted to build it, we could not meet your time frame by the end of next year. I don't want to build it that fast. [laughter] So, we wouldn't race to do it. And I don't even think it's possible. That's a larger plat. So, we tend to build larger plats. Um, but we wouldn't be able to meet that time frame, but we certainly wouldn't object um to when we do this to to meeting your new design standard, particularly if you're willing to help with that incremental cost. And it is a bigger deal than one and a half% um in the cost. It's in from our perspective. Hubble had numbers but from our perspective it's probably to costs more like five to six%. And

to cost but not to retail. Well, there's referring to retail

there. But but every cost we mark up. So if you're going to increase our cost, we're going to put our margin in it. That's how we have to do it to run our business. So, uh, in our development, could we potentially capture that cost and be able to mark it up be probably, if I'm being honest, because it's a higherend price point, but most of the other developers in the community aren't going to have that advantage. So, uh, it'll be it'll be a tougher nut for them to swallow. And I think from a developer perspective, to Luke's point, um, we made decisions. We know that there's potentially ordinance changes that could come in the middle of doing things, but um um this is a big one. [laughter] Uh but we're not arguing that that that that things need to be done better. So um and and I'm I I struggled last time I spoke about the bonding issue. I'm still struggling with how that mechanically would work. But again, I I I think we didn't want to sit here and argue uh and put all our points on on the table and we just got this information. We actually have a meeting tomorrow as a group at 11:00 to kind of talk about this ordinance and so we will be coming back to talk about it. But the timing is a problem. And again, from a practical standpoint, Saddle Ridge, we could we could not even if we wanted to speed it up, we couldn't make it happen. So, even with perfect weather, we couldn't make it happen. And I don't want to do it because what'll happen is we'll sell the edges of that development first, which is what is happening with the one on the golf course side and then the the creek side. I'll have all the middle lots uh the way this is designed. And so then I'll end up with a whole bunch of middle lots because it runs all the way down into the second phase. and um that that could

create uh problems from from a from a marketing perspective from us. And it's also not uh staging the construction in areas. It spreads it out over 80 acres instead of going, you know, 35 acres and 40 acres and so it condenses people are involved in the construction activity longer than we like to see them be. So that's why ideally for us, our plan was to likely start this next fall and try to complete it into 27 in our second and then it would probably take up to three years to sell through our lots if it goes well. So that's just perspective from what Luke brought up.

All right. Thanks. Thanks, Andy B. on 34 3504 autumn sage circle. So I watched the replay last week uh homebuilders association brought up some questions around responsibility of pumper trucks and other things and how that fits into bond issues.

Did we talk any more about like responsibility as it relates to bond issues? And then maybe a comment to Dave's question like if it's one and a half% or 3% or 5% like inflation has changed dramatically over the years. like is 1% or 3% really that big of an issue? Like you guys got to plan for other things too, right? And so we're we're living in a crazy world right now where inflation is crazy and so like I get Luke's comment like I feel bad for them but we also have to plan for the unknowns across our businesses too. So thank you. Thanks.

Um a little bit on your question Andy uh changes that we have in there. think I heard a worry because we do have the potential extension of the bonding period upon repairs and I heard some worries uh after talking to the council member who's talked to some people and uh uh some other roundabouts. No one really talked to me directly on it, but u we I I went in there and tried to define more what a major repair is instead because I heard the words like, "Okay, if we go and and have to seal a crack, does that mean we have to give another four years?" Well, no, that's not the intention. I mean, the intention is if they have a major rebuild on a road where they got to remove a bunch of concrete and completely rebuild it, well then, yeah, the engineer has the authority to say, "Yeah, we need another four years on this." Uh, so it still has that renewal of four years, but it's only related to major repairs or reconstruction. We've got, you know, definitions of that in there. So, that is that. As far as the worry about, you know, a pumper truck breaking the curb or something like that, I mean, we don't I don't address that in here. That doesn't fit under a major repair. And, you know, right now, we don't address that either. So, you know, it's kind of hard to allocate blame as far as, you know, what happens with negligence upon the road as you're going versus a flaw in the construction or the materials or something relating to to the building of it. So, it is a there still is gray area there. I mean, I I could see somebody saying, "Okay, why would should I have to build that pan rebuild that panel?" Because you just had a the biggest pumper truck in the metro area sitting on there for two days and it cracked it and I don't think you should be responsible for it. Well,

you know, we we'd have to address that the same way as we do now and and figure that out, but I you know, it just you'd have to look at the totality and circumstances of something like that. I will mention that um the other part of that talking about those any type of a cost share one of the ideas that I've been mulling over is any type of a cost share that takes place if it extends ba past that first year based on the information that Dave brought up. Perhaps it's a um a phase out, you know, maybe it's a a higher cost share participation within that first year, but in the second year that starts to ratchet down. What that percentage looks like, I don't know, but that idea that the longer we go, the less participation we would have.

We can talk to G about that. Yeah. I've got that on my list um to go over those like what Luke Paris said to start to analyze what what are the outstanding projects out there and then work through Gene to find out what that looks like. Any other public comment? Can I get a motion to approve first reading? Motion. Second. All right. So, I got a motion by Baker, seconded by Cool. Any further discussion? had a question

right toward the end of Bow below our estimated cost savings and this number three and this gets over to 3,9886 $3,986 for adjacent lot. What does that mean? It's on the It's on the ordinance depreciation of the street. Oh no, that's from Excuse me. Does that just mean the street? That's the number of lots along the street. Is that what the adjacent lots mean?

Yeah, I think we we assume more than three blocks and a certain number of lots per block. That's um if we got 15 Yeah, if we send 10 or 15 more years, that was a savings per lot, right? Jason threw me off for just the lot along the street. Yeah. Meaning not the not all lots within the entire development or just those that are fronting on that street. For example, when we tried to look Wayne, what I recall is when we were looking at several maps of existing developments counting homes,

you have corner lots and then you've got a a street that goes one direction. We didn't count the streets that were off of that main street. Was just looking at linear one section.

Yep. Would you call member Livingston? Yes. Hiki? Yes. Maker? Yes. Yes. All right. Motion carries. Item 7D is a public hearing regarding the Legacy Area Street rehabilitation project. We'll open up the public hearing at 6:31 p.m. So, Colonial Parkway and the Circle need some rehabilitation work done. Uh, this is being done to improve the condition of the streets and also to correct some of the pedestrian ramps in the area. Wayne, I'll turn it over to you.

Yep. You mentioned it, mayor. The project involves street patching, sidewalk improvements, and pavement striping on Colonial Circle and Colonial Parkway. The most probably the most significant work you're going to see is on Colonial Parkway just off the highway where Legacy has that landscaping some of that beautifification area. That street's pretty poor condition. We're going to have to all the patching will be done with the lane closures maintaining traffic except for that portion of Colonial Parkway down there um south of Greg Young. That will be shut down. There will be a detour route set up when that work occurs. And we're going to have changeable message boards up alerting people five days ahead of time of the detour coming forward. We'll of course talk to the Greg Young or out there. We did receive seven bids. Um they're above and below the engineers estimate. So right where they should have been. Low bid was by TK Concrete. They're doing they've done two projects for us this year. They're doing another one next spring. Our subdrain retrofit on High Road. Everything's been going great with them on our past projects. So we don't anticipate problems. on our recent past projects. We don't anticipate a problem.

All right. Halen, have we received any oral or written comments on this? No. Any public comment? Hearing none, we'll close public hearing at 6:33 p.m. Item 7E is resolution approving plan, specifications, form of contract, and estimate of cost for the legacy area street rehabilitation project. So, we just had a public hearing for this project. This is the first of three resolutions uh needed to get the project launched. On October 16th, council passed a resolution that approved the preliminary plan, specs, form of contract, and estimate for this uh for this project. Uh this resolution is the final approval for all those. Wayne, you got what do you got?

Nothing else. All right. Any discussion from council? Motion. Oh, sorry. All right. No, you got it. Uh motion by Livingston, seconded by Baker. Any further discussion hearing? None. Kaylin, would you please call the RO? Council member Ming? Yes. Baker? Yes. Wolf? Yes. Livingston? Yes.

All right. Motion carries. Item 7F is a resolution awarding contract for the legacy area street re rehabilitation project. So this is second of three resolutions needed to start the project. This resolution awards the contract to TK Concrete for 268,2 Yeah. $268,215. Uh Wayne, anything else to add? No, sir. All right. Question, discussion from council. Motion. Motion by Listen, seconded by Mini. Any further discussion? Kaylin, would you please call roll? Council member Baker, yes. Cool. Yes. Livingston, yes. Biki, yes.

All right, motion carries. Item 7G is resolution approving contract and bond for the legacy area street rehabilitation project. So, this is the third and final resolution needed to get project rolling. Uh, this resolution approves the contract and indicates how the city is going to pay PK concrete for their work. Wait, anything to add? No, sir. Any discussion or question? Motion. Second. Okay. Okay. Motion by Baker, seconded by Mini. Uh Kaylin, would you please call roll? Council member Cool. Yes. Livingston? Yes. Mine? Yes. Baker? Yes.

All right. Motion carries. Item 7H. This resolution approving the minimum assessment agreement and five-year standard partial commercial tax abatement for Demos Orthopedic Centers. I'm going to let Holly explain this one. So last year the state um implemented a new law that requires public bodies to have a minimum assessment agreement attached to any tax abatement applications. So prior to this the tax abatement applications would just come through I think on consent as long as the uh the business the development qualified for it. And now we have to add these minimum assessment agreements along with it. So now you'll see um this each time a new tax abatement comes through you'll see this with it and it's just a standard minimum susment form that will look the same for basically every project because it's very simple when it comes to these types of abatement projects and we put in the minimum assessment as 5 million with this because with the development for Demos they're projecting their um value to be around 5.4 4 5.5 million. So 5 million is a safe number for that and it would just last the lifetime of the abatement which is five years and the abatement is our just our standard sliding scale fiveyear for commercial questions for Holly.

Motion second. Awesome. Okay. I got a motion by seconded by Baker. Any public comment hearing none. Kaylin, would you please call? Council member Livingston, yes. Mine, yes. Baker, yes. P, yes. All right, that motion carries. Item seven I is a resolution approving the site plan of Affinity Credit Union. So, Affinity Credit Union, planning to build just to the south of Hyper Energy Bar. Luke, I'll let you take it from here.

Yep. Uh so uh south of Hyper Energy Bar uh surrounded by uh Cherry Parkway to the west, High Road to the south, and Hughes Drive to the east. So it's kind of that last little piece there of our highway fronted ground. Um in Hughes uh crossing, Century Crossing um the site is a credit union for Affinity Credit Union. um has the appropriate amount of parking. Uh 20 parking stalls provided. Uh code would require 10. Um facades meet our facade requirements. Um there is a request for a parking waiver for the site related to the southwestern area of the parking lot up against Cherry. when we did our uh Cherry uh road project, um that rightway changed a bit and the uh last kind of parking stall there is uh 10 ft the corner of it 10 ft from the rideway. Uh code usually requires 15 ft. Um we're from a staff perspective, okay, with that waiver uh circled on the screen there. Um we did uh have some discussions about access to High Road. Um staff had initially uh talked with the project uh applicants that we wanted to propose uh just having access onto Hughes Drive for these lots. Um that is some discussions we'd had for this area um long before we knew what users would be. Um there is one space that uh kind of fits the Sudas requirements which is what is shown on the uh site plan along High Road. Um we just had a lot of concerns about the traffic in that area and the number of folks at the fields and everything and felt it would be best to keep it to one

access on Hughes Drive. Um though that is an allowed location. Um, PNZ reviewed all that information, uh, made the suggestion that if it was a right-in, right out, they would feel more comfortable with it. And so the, uh, applicants made that change and included some hardcaping, uh, curb there that, uh, modifies it so that, uh, that right in, right out movement's more deliberate as opposed to just signing it. So we make that like two feet tall. [laughter] Make that island two feet tall. So we know they're they have to go right out.

Yeah. Right in right out. I mean on high road just I always feel like we're worried about the weekends when everyone's here and this place isn't even open or possibly Saturday mornings. Yeah, sure. But all the rest of the week, you would love to have a driveway there. You know, I always feel like we're making parking lots for church on Easter and Christmas. Sure. Just makes no I don't understand why you even need the right in right out. What's the matter with just the uh driveways? How far back is that?

They had originally asked for a driveway there. We as staff had from previous people looking at this property had made the determination that we didn't want to promote an access at all onto High Road and wanted to have access onto Hughes Drive. Um if you recall when we did the Hyper site, we have that kind of double drive that's up there. Initially, we were trying to get Hyper and Infinity to work together to have a shared drive. We weren't able to accomplish that. So, we kind of came to this compromise of this split drive um within our minds, you know, satisfying access to the site, but the uh the project applicant would request that we allow it on High Road as well. About how far back is that from Cherry?

That is roughly 170 ft from Cherry and 100 feet from Hughes Drive. It's not perfect. Um that's what and that's what the Sudach requirement is. Um, you know, it's there's maybe a foot. It's I think there was like 24 ft of width when you did those measurements and that's 26. So, you know, is it 169 and 99 potentially? Um, we don't have too much heartache over that. It's in the right general location.

I'm in support of your um what you're saying uh Luke that it could be right in right out as long as it's pretty obvious. You know, I think about um the uh is it Walmart in in West De Mo right in right out that nobody pays any attention to. Um, so I want it to be something that really forces people to do write in and write out. And while I appreciate um Brian's comments, uh I think this has the potential um to uh be uh cut through if there's not some requirement. Um many of the tournaments are Thursday and some will start uh Wednesday night and many banks are open Saturday mornings. So, I do think all of those things I think this is a fair compromise for what they want and what we don't want. I think this meets that

call that calls out an island there anyway. It does. Yeah. So, the the triangle shape you see there um with the kind of dimensions measured off of it would be a raised curb island. Um I believe would be all concrete pavement. Um, it's it's not like an island where there'd be grass or anything in the middle of it. And we wouldn't want there to be any like plantings because you've got to keep your sight. Put a statue or something in there. Statue of H. That's okay. [laughter] All right. Uh, any public comment? Hearing none. Can I get a motion to approve the resolution as presented? Motion. Second. Second.

Okay. Motion by cool, seconded by Baker. Any further discussion hearing? None. Kaylin, would you please call the role? Council member Mini, yes. Yes. Yes. Livingston, yes. All right. That motion carries. Item 7J. It's resolution approving the amended site plan of Norwok Central Sports Complex. So, we've talked about adding a pergola between the fieldhouse and mullets and council passed resolution on October 7th. October 2nd, sorry. uh to get the project started. This formalizes the site plan of where this is going to go. Luke, I'll let you take this one from here.

Yep. Uh we just want something on file. Uh per P pergola is a permitted structure through the city. Um and with it being a commercial site, you guys review and approve commercial site plans. So, you get to look at the pergolo location. Usually, we would handle a lot of these residentially inhouse. So, uh there it is. Lots of good visuals of what it'll look like. Think it'll be good addition to our fieldhouse. Yeah. Discussion, questions from council. Nice. Any public any public comments? Motion. Thank you. Second. Okay. Got a motion by Livingston, seconded by Cool. Uh Kaylin, would you please call roll? Council member Baker. Yes.

Cool. Yes. Livingston, yes. Yes. All right. Motion carries. Item 7K is a resolution approving a contract with Black Diamond Landscaping LLC for the City State Bank Nor Fieldhouse Courtyard Construction Project. So, Black Diamond Landscaping is going to be doing the construction of the site plan we just planned or just passed, sorry. Uh Carissa, if you have any information, I'll let you take it from here.

Yeah, just to confirm, this was from um the initial passing of the design on October 2nd that the mayor just mentioned. And so project funding for this um came in at $90,395 and then the potential addition of the third pergola um that you saw in the photos. Um and so we'll be using the high impact grant um loss funding, park trust funding that was all approved and then Gan um was able to confirm that we have some extra funding in furniture and fixtures to cover the overage and the final pergola to complete the project. Awesome. Question, discussion from councel for public comment. Okay. Thank you. Second.

Got a motion by Baker, second by Livingston. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Kaylin, would you call a roll? Council member Cool. Yes. Livingston, yes. Yes. Baker, yes.

All right. Motion carries. Item 7L is first reading of an ordinance amending various sections of the Norok city code related to building permit fees, plan review fees, truck routes, tree height requirements, and rates and fees. So, this change is being done to make some nonsubstantive changes to some ordinances prior to cotification. Lindsay, I'll let you take here. Uh yeah, per the ordinance um there was some changes to our rates and fees which we have been to do probably about NCA three departments, building department, fire department, parks and wreck. Um there was just some language changes in two different chapters for the building department. Uh tree height requirements that was just to match one section to another in the code and to correct a street name in our truck routes section of the code. Okay. Discussion, question from council for public comment.

Motion. Right. Second. Motion by Livingston, seconded by Baker for the first reading. Uh, Kaitlin, would you please call role? Council member Livingston? Yes. Mine? Yes. Baker? Yes. Yes. All right, that motion carries. Since these are nonsubstantive changes, can I get a motion to wave the second and third reading? Motion. Second. Uh, so motion by Livingston, second by uh Baker. Kaylin, would you please call roll? Council member Mine. Yes. Baker, yes. Yes. Livingston, yes.

All right. Motion carries. Item 7M. It's first reading of an ordinance repealing and replacing chapter 35 fire department of the Norwok city code. So this change is being done to update language to make it more accurately represent how the department functions today. Chief, I'll let you take.

Uh yeah, thank you. We conducted a review of chapter 35 starts by saying that we are a volunteer organization. So we wanted to make sure that we cleaned that up to remove that terminology. We added definitions to be consistent with other city um ordinances. Um the one other change that we did make was under the fire chief appointed and that we um changed that to say that the fire chief is appointed and dismissed with a consent a majority of counsel instead of giving the mayor sole discretion for um dismissal. Uh we also added uh contractual services and prescribed burns. Discussion from council or public comment. Motion.

Second. Motion by Livingston. Seconded by Cool. Uh Kalin. Would you call roll? Member Mik. Yes. Baker. Yes. Cool. Yes. Livingston. Yes.

All right. Motion carries. Uh item 7N is final reading of an ordinance amending chapter 92 water rates and chapter 177 rates and fees of Norok municipal code providing for amended secondary irrigation water rates. So earlier in the year council decided to establish a tiered rate structure for irrigation water rates. There were some unintended consequences to that action. So staff is suggesting to move to a flat rate for irrigated irrigation metered water. We're also starting to see attention drawn to irrigation across the metro as cities are seeing the cost of adding capacity uh through Central Iowa Waterworks, who's our regional water authority. Uh at our last meeting, the second reading of this ordinance was passed. Luke, anything to add? No.

All right. Uh any discussion, question from council or public comment? Can I get a motion to approve the final reading? Motion. Second. Second motion by Livingston, seconded by Mine. Any further discussion, would you call roll? Council member Baker, yes. Yes. Livingston, yes. Yes.

All right, that motion carries. Item seven is future agenda items. So, the purpose for this is for council to give direction to staff by way of motion uh to have items placed on future agendas. It's not to talk about the the merits of the subject matter. just to get it on to on a future agenda so we can discuss the merits of the subject matter. Do we have any future agenda items for tonight? Hearing none, we'll move on. Item eight, council inquiries and staff updates. Like just like to remind everybody that this is a portion of the meeting that's much less formal. Uh you may hear some back and forth banter and joking around. We believe this can allow build camaraderie and cohesiveness between staff and council. Jeff,

nothing. Brett, nothing. George, at the waste management, we bought some new radios, 97 of them, I think, but it'll make the commun communication system of our assets uh accessible through the state system. Okay. And allow us to communicate with all the entities in the state basically.

That would be good. And then uh we're going to do the budget next month. We've got a fee adjustment we're looking at that'll probably affect the western community if it happen. But anyway, it has to do with the cost of doing business at the Western Park. And then January 27th, this is a lobbying meeting that'll probably be important to you. [laughter] That's all there. All right. Thank you, Luke.

Uh, 21 permits in the past month. That puts us on track for our average of 225. So, uh, we're kind of right on track where we were. Um, the, uh, previous month really helped out a lot with that. We had 77. Um, that was good. Uh, I participate this afternoon again with the no funding review committee. We're looking at how the MO hands out the federal dollars that they get. Um, so some interesting thoughts and and things that we can try and be more efficient with those federal dollars that maybe give us some more access to uh dollars um to use locally. So, um some interesting things working on that. Um and then lastly, uh you approved a bunch of our fees uh updates uh for our community development building uh fees. We did not include that uh in that our permit fee. Um there's a whole calculation that's involved with figuring out what that should be and everything. And a big component of that is your budgeted uh expense for your department. So we haven't done this in the past, but what I plan to do start going forward is to look at our budgeted approved department budget uh after we get that done and then bring a updated building permit fee to you all uh in the spring um and then have that be effective starting the fiscal year. So, uh, that will be forthcoming.

Thank you, Perry. Nothing tonight. Wayne, nothing. Chief, nothing. No, cards. December 10th, 4 to 7 at Fairway. Um, please come and spend lots of money. Wednesday. Great. Wednesday the 10th. Wednesday. Wednesday, December 10th, 4 to 7 p.m. Okay. Are there any uh challenges or I'm working on challenges right now? I believe so. Thanks. Because I was chastised last year by not asking soon enough. Okay. So, I have asked. All right. Well, good deal. All right. Holly. I think all of our updates are in the monthly report in your pockets, but if you have any questions, yeah.

All right. Marissa, I'm just highlighting the annual tree lighting event. That will be Friday, December 5th at the City State Bank Nor fieldhouse at 6 PM. So, come join that, too. All right, Jean Kelly. No report. Thank you. All right. Uh, Kayn, nothing. Lindsay, no, thank you. Jackie, no. Nothing for me. Thanks, Luke.

Few quick things. Uh, I wasn't sure if Carissa was going to bring it up, but we were awarded a reap grant for trail 50th. George, you might have saw I sent you and Cararissa both an email today. Uh that's to help us get that trail connection between Beardsley and Blooming Heights, Timberview, connecting that whole kind of island. Oh wow. development. So that's a pretty neat thing that was working with Justin Ernst and Bolton and M. So we're excited to uh see that project gain some more traction

uh in the future. uh office closures. Just a heads up that we're still working through that with some of our department heads uh with where uh Christmas falls and Thanksgiving with coming back to work on a Friday. We're talking about actually closing the office to the public, but yet still having staff that need to come into work or want to take PTO time. So, we're working through that, but we'll put out a notice um work with Tai to put something out to the public so they know when or when not to come to city hall over that time. And the last thing I'm going to piggyback a little bit on what Luke Paris pointed out about fees. I think it's probably good for the general public to understand that probably over the next several years, uh, citizens, businesses should expect to see our fees continuing to increase significantly. In the past, things like building permit fees are somewhat offset just by general property taxes. you know, we all benefit from having safer buildings uh across the community. Uh with more of a ratchet down on property taxes from our state legislature, we'll likely see some of those cost to services. So, individuals doing construction projects will bear a larger cost of that actual service versus seeing some of those fees subsidized by. Just kind of an early heads up so that people are aware that those fees will climb. Okay. Uh, I've sent you guys sent council a an email regarding Luke's review. Please get those filled out and sent back.

It's not done yet. So, all right. Good deal. All right. Good deal. Uh, so get that done. And then I the only the other thing I I need to say would be have have a happy Thanksgiving once. Enjoy your time off and your time with family. So I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Motion second. Motion by cool seconded by Faker. All those in favor say I. I. We'rejourn 657. said no.