City Council - Regular Meeting

I'm glad to Anything new going on? Well, that's what you want to know. Hey, I see there they got the streets board down there. Okay, you guys ready? I'm fine. You guys ready over here?

Yep. All right. We're gonna go ahead and call our meeting to order. This is the city council regular business meeting for Thursday, December 4th. It is 6 pm. Kalin, would you please call the role? Council member Baker here. Council member Brown here. Council member P here. Council member Livingston here. Council member Miy here. Phillips,

I'm here. We do have a full quorum. So, uh, we'll move on. Item number two is a pledge of allegiance. Would you please rise and say the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Item number three is approval of the agenda. Would anybody like to move any of the consent agenda items to the regular agenda? Motion. Second. Okay. Motion by Livingston to approve the agenda. Seconded by Micki. All those in favor say I.

I. Those post same. That motion carries. Next item is welcome. If we have some public comment. Thank you for being here tonight, participating in the meeting. Uh we appreciate you being here. At this point in time, we'd open up the deis for any uh input that or anything you want to talk about to uh council, myself or staff. Uh realize that we cannot take action on those tonight since they're not on the agenda. That violation of the open meetings law. Don't want to do that. So uh anybody any takers for tonight hearing? None. We will move on. Item number five is presentations. Uh Mel's here. Hi from the Norwalk Area Chamber of Commerce.

Hello everyone. Hi. So Mel Guansy, executive director, Norwok Area Chamber of Commerce, 1043 Sunset Drive,

unit 4, Norwok. Um so Luca has um the slides up for the presentation. I just wanted to come and say thank you for supporting the chamber and share some good news. um an a year in review, if you will, even though we have a few weeks left. Um we are seeing some new members roll in even this week. So I have year-to- date numbers to share with you guys. We're up to 248 members. Um that's 46 new members this year, up 109% over last year. And then we've had to celebrate those new members, um we've had 26 ribbon cutings, which is 160% increase over last year. So, lots of exciting things happening at the chamber with the new members. 12 are new businesses that have moved into our area and 34 are existing businesses that um made the decision to join a chamber. So, just a few numbers for you. The other big thing that was really exciting, most of you know, but we did launch Enjoy Norwok where every visit feels like home and that um encompasses Norwok coming Martinsville and Pearl just like the chamber and it is our tourism brand and it has things to do, where to eat, where to stay, the parks and wrecks. Each of those cities has its own individual page so we can share the history um and just highlight key attractions. Um it's going really well. Um, I sent Luke um a late entry, so I don't know if it'll come up, but we did make these cards that have the QR code. Um, they'll go when someone checks in at the hotel, there'll be an Enjoy Norwalk card that goes in with your key card for your hotel room and there's a QR code on there that um you just scan and it'll bring you to Enjoy Norwalk and while you're staying at the True Hilton um and the Marriott, you'll know what to do in T. So, we're pretty excited about that. On the next slide, um, I have the, um, I wanted to share all of our members are in our business

directory. Oh, yeah, there's the cards. You guys can see them. Um, so we're pretty excited about those. Um, the business directory. Um, I wanted to share a little bit about what industries make up the chamber. And I know I only have three minutes, so I'll go really fast, but 17% health and wellness, 26% retail, 8% restaurants, 9% financial, 14% nonprofits, and I kind of put manufacturing, automotive, and construction one um at 22%. So, pretty excited about the diverse membership that we have. Um, and then the value that the business directory gives is 98,582, which is the great value of extending all of these businesses marketing efforts, bringing awareness to them, and thank you for supporting the chamber. We're doing great stuff and it's really hard to squeeze it all in in three minutes, but just a little progress. Um, right now to drive business to all the business um businesses for the holiday season, we have Jolly Holiday Bingo. gets all the residents involved in visiting all the businesses and they get stamps. They turn it in for a chance to win. So, this is a great way to drive traffic to the businesses and help them thrive during fourth quarter.

Thank you. Great. Thank you. Thanks, Mel. Any questions for Mel? Next time she gets five minutes at least. All right. All right. [clears throat] Thanks, Mel. Y uh item number six is consent agenda. Can I get a motion? Motion second. Okay, I got a motion by Brown.

That Brian? Yeah, might have been Brian. Uh, okay. So, motion by Brown, seconded by Mine. Kalin, would you please call the role? Council member Baker, yes. Brown, yes. Yes. Livingston, yes. Mine, yes.

All right, that motion carries. Item seven is old business for consideration. Old and new business for consideration, discussion of possible action. Item A is the second reading of an ordinance amending chapter 176 subdivision regulations by amending section 176.08 design standards and 176.09 construction of improvements providing for amended road construction requirements and warranty and maintenance bond requirements for public infrastructure. So, we're changing our subdivision ordinance to require subdrains and granular subsurface for all new streets as well as some revised uh language for bonding. Council passed the first reading at our last meeting. Uh I believe that staff has had some discussions with several representatives from the development community and we understand these changes will have some direct impacts on developers and the cost of new housing in Norwok. Uh so, I'll turn this over to Wayne, Luke, and Jim who wants to go first. Jim, you want to take it first?

I guess I can go first. Uh, we u we have had some meetings on met with some developers this afternoon also where we discussed potential changes and got some input from them. Uh area that I've worked mainly on is the warranty maintenance bond area and that has changed substantially since the first time you saw it which would have been two meetings ago when you had tabled it. Uh if you remember at that point in time there was less paragraphs and you know one of them was straight out like what the Urbandale procedure was. That's it's all changed since then because listening to their input and everything instead of gone from single bonds to allow allowing the the multiple bonds from the different subcontractors. Uh we've um we've kept the maintenance period the same. I think we just addressed a lot of more of the legal issues or questions that they had. uh still I believe it u emphasizes once again developer responsibility on maintaining uh on maintaining the warranties and everything on the roads once they are transferred over uh and just even though we feel that developers always had that responsibility this kind of just sets it set it in in stone a little bit more. I think you may before the uh next the final reading have a couple little edits here from our meeting today. Uh we had a good meeting today and we're going to get some a little bit further input uh from the developers and their representatives before then but before the third meeting but I thought the meeting went well today and uh feel pretty good about uh the the bonding requirements at this point in time.

Okay.

So the item that uh I had included in the packet was a agenda statement that contemplated some kind of a phase in or an ability for the city to assist the developers in offsetting the cost of that the added street standard. So the sub granular subbase and subdrain if you recall one of the things that we were struggling with a bit is when do we implement these standards? If we delay it a year then any new streets put in within that year time frame fall under the old standards. we don't benefit from this uh a more robust design. So, we put together a few options and I specifically put my name on this because I don't know that there was full staff agreement that we should be offering up a cost share. Uh I feel a little bit stronger about it because this benefits the city to see it implemented more swiftly uh if we step in and help with cost. So, I laid out uh several options and ultimately um the recommendation is alternative one, which would be option three. And option three uh essentially is a three-year phase in uh in the first year uh going with offsetting 75% of the cost. That would be roughly a cost to the city of about 430,000. Uh, and then it ratchets down 25% each year down to the third year at 144,000. I did talk to Gan about how we would finance this or where we would place this in the budget. And of course, that's that's not an easy decision, but one that would have to be considered uh in each of our next three fiscal years. Any questions?

Yeah. What did Sorry. Go ahead. What did Jean say? I mean, I get that we're going to have to figure it out, but does she have a suggestion of how we're going to figure it out? I do. I don't know if Luke wants to respond or um Go ahead. [clears throat] I suggested three different areas. Um I suggested using some local option sales tax, some road use funds, and then um some general fund reserves and hopefully um we can budget for those. I mean, I think we're at the point where if we're in fiscal year 27, um, we can start budgeting depending on when this goes into effect. So, that would be my suggestion. Thanks.

How might we control that? I guess uh that's just a question out there, mayor, because different developers are going to want to move a different rate and uh will the staff somehow facilitate how much we do each year based on financially what we can do? How might you make that? Sorry about that. Can I add on to the question? Sure. Go ahead. Just might be on the same path. Yes.

So, this only applies to existing luminary plats that have been approved. So, if we took all those and they all decided to take advantage of the program, what would the bill be? Well, that would certainly be a lot. Sorry. Go ahead. Luke, uh, George, I don't know if you saw, but there's also a a potential that we could limit funds to a set amount so that it doesn't like Yeah, I was getting at that. So, if we did limit it, that's my preference. But if the limit or if this is the limit potentially to what could possibly be, then I'm kind of okay with it.

Yeah.

It might be less, but it won't be more. And just to give you a little insight, uh, our community development staff went back and looked at typically how many, uh, how many streets are added each year in new subdivisions, how much new concrete is poured. And so the number we came up with, uh, was roughly the average of the number of new streets that we see come up each year. So I feel like if we do limit this number, it's very consistent with what we've seen over the past several years. I would

I would like to know the maximum number could be if this all the preliminary class would actually I don't know that Paris that might be a question that uh you and your staff would have to answer what the maximum number would be. Say we can get you that. Yeah, [laughter] I want to hesitate a guess tonight, but yeah, we can we can research that. Would that be highly improbable or impossible to even a tease or what are we talking about? Probably. I mean, right. Like that investment is based on more than just our right like it's market demand. It's all that stuff. So

imagine somebody go out to just the market with lots based on the fact that it's not worth that much. Right. So they could be prudent. That would be very costly. That that'd be a lot of capital that the developer would have to put in that's just going to be sitting there. And there's some preliminary plats that we've approved that are contingent upon other things happening before they can go on to their next phases. So like in that case, I don't know that I would even include that portion of it because I don't see those other things stepping forward in that next three-year period. So, you know,

I I would be much more comfortable though if we had a maximum number of Okay. Because what could possibly go wrong? [laughter] I mean, we've been down there real good. Yeah. I think the proposal isn't the proposal to have a maximum number on it. It is. Yeah, it is. We We didn't name that number yet, but it's in there. Okay. Good. Just the 75. It's number five. Yeah. Yeah. The 6040. So, before the final reading, we would have what that maximum number is. I suppose if life changed quite a bit change that number whatever it might be right it

yeah proposal number three right here has for the first year $432,750 I would think that would probably end up being the max. Sounds good. I Yeah, I think you could specify that the numbers that are in in there are the maximums that we're going to distribute to distribute. Yeah.

So, do we feel like this prioritizes our citizens over the developers while still giving the developers some grace? Because that's my priority is prioritizing our citizens. We're taking services away from citizens left and right and because we have to, right? Because that's what our budget is demanding. And I am okay giving developers some grace, but not at the expense of our citizens. And I feel like that's what's been happening. Our roads continue to get worse because we can't fix them because we don't have the money. and the developers are saying we don't want to have to that burden and I want to make sure that our citizens are being put first. Jackie, I from my perspective, I can comfortably and confidently tell you yes. However, it is the long game. Meaning doing this now is an impact that doesn't come until about 30 to 40 years down the road. But our citizens will have better streets.

Correct. Then they'll have them sooner.

My question, and I'm just going to throw it out there. Don't mean to create stir up the pot too much, but I guess that's my job. Uh, you know, we're building a 50-year street with a 401. My question is if somebody and I've heard a lot of blame for subcontractors not impacting underweight. I get that and they don't do it right and then the the road breaks down. Yeah. And I have no it's just my opinion. But what uh how long will that show take to show up? Four years and I guess is the question. I bring that up that if that can last dispute more Tony question. So if it's done wrong could it take 10 years for that to show up and then when it does it's really bad. Uh and not saying we extend the warning up. Excuse my voice. Uh to 10 years four years is probably fine. My point is the inspection process I you'd think the developer would want that inspection process pro process to be very good so that doesn't happen.

Things happen people might not be able to be there on time. things could happen, but at the same time, it's four years enough to come to to catch it. And so if if if it takes more than four years for something to show up, I don't have that much incentive to inspect it as much because the odds of it not h happening in four years are pretty good. So, and not saying that people think that way, but I think that way thinking that except Yeah, just kidding. You know what? So, that's that's my point. Follow that whole train of thought. Tony, can you answer that?

So, so yeah, my short answer is I I think four years is enough. Now, now, are we still going to see failures uh um after four years? Yes, of course that's a possibility. But but uh you know I want to differentiate between construction related failures and that goes back to your question about it's good inspection and good construction and and say design related related failures. So most of our construction related failures can have and will continue to show up within that first four years and that has to do do with more compaction effort and settlement of trenches and and pavement failures and that kind of thing. So uh so I think the maintenance bond period is good. Um now um inspection is an interesting question because you know we we as a city recognize that that's a significant cost to developers. And so you know number one we're fortunate that we have a lot of great contractors that working for the city both utility infrastructure underground contractors and paid contractors. All all for the most part all fantastic contractors. So, we're very fortunate. Um, and we don't have to necessarily spend 100% of the time watching these contractors uh perform this construction. What we we we recognize that's a very significant cost to contractor or to developers. And so, we spend a couple hours each day. You know, we last year we had eight subdivisions going on at once. So, we spend time on every one of them watching the construction methodology make and and we're there. So, we're there a couple hours each day. were there 100% of the time during [clears throat] testing and were there uh pretty much 100% of the time during paid operation. So we recognize this as a significant cost to developers. We watch their methodology. We're there for all the testing to to to make sure that their

their their methods are are are working properly and and you know we think with the with the great contractors we've had, you know, we we think that's enough. Now, can we spend more time out there to give the city some more assurance that everything is constructed properly and and maybe we'll have less failures? Certainly, we can, but uh there's a significant very significant cost associated with that to developers.

Thank you. You know, mayor, while we're talking about uh failures and the geo piece of this, I was thinking about that since we last met, and it would seem like the key to a lot of this stuff is the geo study. And it seems like, well, facts are kind of stubborn thing. Facts don't have an opinion one way or the other. They just present the truth. When the city's done geo studies, seems like quite often they come back, you know, wanting something a little extra added, something a little extra done. When we get these geo studies from the developers, they come back, oh, everything's fine. We'll just go ahead. I'm not casting a Spurgeons. I'm just talking fact. Okay. I wonder or would like to see the council consider us doing the geo study. and our engineer directed the geo study. And of course, we would expect the developer to pay for the cost of that geost. [clears throat] But if we did that, we'd set the parameters. We'd establish the criteria and and pretty much be satisfied in their own mind. We're getting the clearest picture that we can. Now, I'll open that up for debate by the other council members, but I don't think that'd be a bad idea.

Well, Ed and I I guess I'm not entirely sure with the new standards that we're setting, you know, are they negotiable uh based on geo studies, you know. So, I I I don't understand that portion. I think there I think the standard that we're setting is a minimum. So if we say there's got so certainities could say it needs to be yes there we well what do you think about that Tony what Ed said

um it's one of the things I brought up in our staff discussions yeah I mean that's a possibility now you know we our developers hire independent geotechnical engineer you know um but they're you know they're working directly for the developer um but Um but I think you know I I uh you know I think they're they're they're uh they're the reports that we've got historically are pretty gen more general in nature you know so pointing out these these requirements for your design life and looking at the soil conditions and and all these factors that that we're going to require um are important. You know, we get we've got in the past we've got geotechnical reports that that talk about, you know, they you know, for the most part, our minimum standards are always enough, but they but they'll they'll talk about some things that we can do to make the roads better and and they'll they'll call those something like enhancements, you know. So, it's not really required, but it's going to be better if you do this, you know. So, so I think uh you know we just get we just uh we want our our geotechnical reports to be more uh sight specific and and less general in nature. Um if either you know I I'm I'm not opposed to really either way the way we have it in the subdivision regulations or or the city doing it. If uh if we feel that's important uh we could certainly do that and and that cost Yeah, we'd still recommend that cost be passed at all.

Is that a is that Luke? Does that go in the ordinance or is that just a policy to have them pay for geotechnicals to have the city start doing the geotech? And we we probably would want to put in the work because we have other spots where we it similar to how we have a review engineer for um just our construction plans and premium plat and stuff. I think it could fall under that section, but it would probably be good to call out specifically that under that section, this is a thing that the city does and charges for. Would you agree, Jim? Yeah. I don't necessar it could be something I would follow up with. I have to

Right. And that's because it's not in that's not in chapter that's not in section 176. It's in some other section. Yeah. Under the inspections and things. Are we coming down a slippery slope though where I guess in the finance world corporations hire their own auditors? Um, now you're kind of more or less saying no, the the federal government or the FCC needs to audit virtually and that's when it really gets bad. I uh I'm just I'm having a queasy feeling here. I'm not sure why. I don't want to anybody.

Well, no. Well, something it's a independent analysis that's required, but the point would be is independent best right now. I mean, it's Wow. I think I think it's okay to discuss it, but I think the best way to do it, I mean, if council said, "I want it in this order," we could figure out a way to do it, but I don't think it appropriate. I think I'd rather bring it up another time where we get everybody an opportunity to think about it and look into it. So, we could go ahead and pass the ordinance we have now knowing that we might tweak that section later. Oh, it would be it' be a different Oh, it would be a completely different Yeah, that's my point. Yeah, I actually like that better.

Luke, what were you gonna say? Well, one of the things I want to make sure is clear is part of our efforts with these changes in the subdivision ordinance is a recognition that the amount of funds for city government services is not going to increase in the future. ramping up these bonding requirements, uh, ramping up the street standards means that we can pull some of our staff time back out of the amount of management of these projects. There's I think there's a fear from staff side that if we're getting more involved by having oversight with those geotech, we're driving more of that process that's drawing more staff time to be involved with each development. That's just a concern.

I think that's a concern. Fair enough. Yeah.

Yeah. I think if you guys want to talk about that at some point in time, we can have that. You can [clears throat] future agenda item that one. But I think we can stop talking about now. Just move on with Okay. Other discussion questions about change public comments. Dustin Miller, uh, Indianola, Iowa. Uh, I represent, uh, I'm, uh, the council for the developers council, which is a subset of the Greater De Mo Homebuilders. Um, greatly appreciate it. I think Jim undersold it. Uh, we had a great meeting this afternoon. I felt like, um, it was a really good, uh, way, especially for Jim and I, to kind of talk about perspectives, uh, as to what we kind of offered back and forth. I owe him some things tomorrow. As I told him, I've been all across the metro area today back and forth uh multiple different times. Uh I'll I'll cover both. And let me say this out of the gate, and I think this kind of goes to council member Livingston's question. At least the folks we represent, not all developers are the same. We get that the folks that are coming to you really is in good faith trying to understand the perspective and try and reach the same goals. Uh, one of the things I talked to to Luke about in this is um I in particular, for those that know me, I know the mayor knows me pretty well and Jason knows me pretty well. Um, my day job is not this. Uh, I have the pleasure of being at the Iowa capital. Um, and I'm sure you're jealous on a daily basis. Um, and we are the tip of the spear, myself in particular, on getting you new growth. um you know that was a huge mistake they made in 2023 especially for communities like this because you are you have a disincentive for growth

um and that makes no sense and so we truly are the tip of the spear in fact just last week I provided language to policy makers to make sure they use the wrong language they use new construction that's not how your assessor thinks you need new valuation which will then if all of a sudden if they are talking about expenditures in the future that cap that they would put doesn't impact you as much if we're talking outside of of those growth limitations. So, we really truly want to be partners. We're the ones that really stand in the middle too that that say you have to have appropriately funded communities to spur the growth. So, we want to be partners with that. On the bonding side, I think it's pretty simple. As Jim said, uh I didn't have a lot of time today, but I owe him just a few tweaks to go back and forth on some language on the bonding side, but it was really a good perspective of what really what you're trying to do is to limit uh a developer from just throwing their hands up saying, "Hey, it's your problem and we understand that we need to be part of the process with you." That's why we offer the development agreement aspect in the language um as a contractual, you know, we need to be a steering the ship and finding who the problem is and helping working with you. uh fixing it. Uh you the your discussion about the geotech is is really interesting, Council Member Cool, because that's really what we kind of offer back. Um you know, we feel like uh the the the design standards you put in is a one-sizefits-all is kind of what the consensus that people want. What we kind of offered is um we like the idea of the sight specific geotech. Um we don't know, you know, we'd be interesting to know if you're seeing those on a regular basis. I don't think we have an opinion on, you know, where it's coming from, but sight specific, I mean, for us, we would much rather trust the science if we're really going to trust the science and get you much more geotech report. Uh, what I flagged for the staff is what we put in the language initially was to actually require more geotech reports

that are more sight specific based upon phases and then dictating how the streets get built then. Or the other flip side is um what's interesting is if you use this other okay we're setting a floor but we can go above you know kind of our perspective is well if you trust the science then trust the science and you know um then I if we're just going to set the design standards then why are we adding the additional cost of the geotech report. So for us our preference one of the things we've come to is is there a path where either we say let's get much more specific on the geotech report see specifically what you need and build it towards that or we go towards hey the design standards are set you guys are getting what you want why are we doing the geotech report if you're getting that base level because it's just an additional cost. Uh so that's really our perspective what we came to uh you with and you know I know certainly there's there's a perspective here of this is what we're going to do this is what we want to do but ultimately for us it's we're taking a risk there when we say let's get much more sight specific geotech and do whatever that geotech report we're willing to take that risk uh but ultimately it seems you know what's good for the goose is good for the gander if you're going to trust the science let's trust the science and I you know to hear Tony's comment about sight specific um that really speaks to us is let's get sight specific. You know, we do have we at least have examples. I don't know, you know, Luke, we had this kind of back and forth, but it was a pretty short meeting today. Um are you getting those sight specific based upon phases? We're committed to doing that in a much more regular pattern if that's the path you want to take. Um but ultimately, if the design standards are going to be set as is, we would say, okay, then we don't really trust the science. let's just uh get rid of the geotech because it's just an additional cost when we all know that the cost is going too much. I can't say

enough uh greatly appreciate your consideration in the phasing in um you know for folks that have made investments. I think that shows a really good faith effort of of a partnership and as I said I represent some folks that you know I think Jim made pretty clear the folks we had around the room were not necessarily where you're seeing the failures but at the same time we're going to get thrown in that too and we want to be partners with you to make sure that that doesn't happen. Thank you.

So Dustin, five years ago, we were told, "Trust the science. Trust the science. Get the geotech report and trust the science." So I see it as one of two things. Number one, either the science doesn't work because we still have failing streets or the developers are holding some information back because we still have failing streets. So which one do you think it is?

Well, that's just it. is I you know I think we have some examples where folks feel like they're getting our our people and it's their perspective are giving you an early on geotech and maybe it doesn't have the sight specific that would be based upon phases and we would commit to and that's one of the things that might not be perfect language that Jim and I could work out we're much more committed to individualized on the phase side why wasn't that proposed 5 years ago because we we were told that we were going to get geotech reports for Belvic And that is is that not what is happening?

I don't know. There was a a discrepancy, I guess, in in what we came back with back and forth. Now, some of our folks are saying that they're not doing geoteex based upon phases. Said, they said the entire Oh, you know, and it's like, no, each one is different. Well, that's the problem is is that you can say that you want to do the geotech report, but I don't I don't I don't I don't know for sure at this point whether we're getting all of the information from the geotech report or is the science failing. I don't know. One of the things I'm I guess I'm thinking about is

if if we've been building streets according to the geotech report, right?

Yeah. then something's still going wrong, right? So, uh, what is going wrong there? And you Tony talked about they they give you their opinion on enhancements you could make. And so, uh, I have no idea if the standard then is you always build a street with the recommended enhancements in the geotech report. This is beyond tonight, but because the normal reports have not created the results the developers or our citizens want, then I don't feel like and maybe it could be because they're not doing enough of maybe I don't I'm not an expert on geotech reports. Uh so I think I agree with you in the fear that like if we've been building according to these reports well that doesn't work.

So then it you know okay what if we build according to like all right they recommend all these enhancements and that's our strategy every time we we go with all the enhancements they suggest. It's just an option. I'm not saying we should do that. I'm just saying as much as we like Dustin, that's that's our fear is that just the report and building according to that is not getting the results we want. So we have to do something different. So we've established we need to work on geo but maybe not now. One other thing

might need to get educated on the what's in the geo tech report. What what is consistent is the science? I I have no idea. I've never seen running. Yeah. Don't pretend. Yeah. And what you I mean um we made uh Luke shudder a little bit because we brought up the the replex. Um but you know ultimately over a site you're going to get recommendations for each. And I think kind of to your point if you don't trust the geotech report that's fine and you've set these design standards then then why do it? I mean that's kind of our perspective is either we do it one way or the other just from a cost standpoint. Yeah. Right. I can see that. Well, but okay. So

when the school was building the stadium 75% of that area needed additional well they fly ash get incorporated in there. So within just within that small area there's a 25% 75% 25% was okay 75% was bad and there was varying bad layers. I don't know how you could do how can you do the geo what's going to be the cost of being able to do a geotech report on maybe every 10 yards down a street or a proposed street and and I think I I think if you have minimums and then you do a general geotech report that says no you need to go deeper you know you have more of a subbase in in these areas. I think that's much more preferable than

again the science that we haven't seen work well and that's what I would say though is you know what you're putting in as far as standards are the enhancements and it's a one-sizefits-all and so then you're asking to put an additional cost on to look for potential additional impact but on a report that you didn't trust at the first Okay. Mayor, I I guess I would recommend that we

I'm not sure it's a report that we didn't trust at the first. I think it's information that we were given about the report or where the report was obtained or how the report was obtained or what information was in the report. Right? You say, you know, science is science is science and that's not in my experience that's not at all true. If it were true, then there wouldn't be competing surveyors, right? It's all the same science except that everybody comes out with a different perspective. So, it's not all the same information. You're able to glean information that suits what you want to drive. Same with statistics. You take out of the statistics what your point is and how you support your point. So, yeah, I can't get behind I I I think we've gone way far a field, right, than what we're supposed to be discussing today in this agenda. But um I can't I can't get behind that we shouldn't have the information from both places.

Okay. I think we should consider the ordinance tonight, Mayor, and then uh maybe on another day get more educated on geotechnical surveys. Sounds good. Thanks. I do have a question on the uh 755025 um reimbursement. Uh

originally I had thought that a lot of the other cities that were helping out were only at the 50% level. I think the 75 we're going to have more of them in the first year than I think later years. Is it prudent to think maybe about 5050 for those three years instead of 75 5025? That's all I'm throwing out because it sounds like that's what other communities are doing. I don't understand why we need to be Brian. The reason um the main reason that

that we've proposed this idea of a phase in is so that we can immediately implement these standards. So that means in 2026 a street that goes in will have these additional standards. That's the main reason because ultimately this phases out which means by the fourth year Norwok would be putting nothing towards subbase and sub drain. It's only to offset that immediate cost that they have not planned for

and I thought that's what the other communities in the metro were doing but it's a 50% level. Um the I guess the the main one I understand is Anankeny and I think that they just have ongoing cost share. That's professional. So do you think 75 is required? I none of these are required. You could implement it and say but we want to be fair.

I I think one reason why 75 was that first year because the way the ordinance is written and in front of you right now, these new road standards will not apply to road construction that occurs this following year. as long as it's done by the end of the year. And then there was a discussion by council, I think even the first meeting that, you know, if this is so important, shouldn't we figure out a way to get it done right away. Okay. And I think that 75 was kind of a response to, okay, this is a way that we think we could probably get it done right away. Okay. Yeah. And they have to have some time to build it into their plan and their financial. Okay. Right. All right. I was just curious with that what you guys thought. Point being, they don't have to do Yeah, you don't have to. Oh, but they don't have to do it the first year.

Yeah. But we want to be good partners, too. Right. Yep. So, Luke, do you want two motions out of this? First one to decide the phase in and then a second one to approve the second reading. I more clarification is appreciated. So, yes, two two motions would be great. Let's have a motion to amend the ordinance uh with whatever option council decides. We have that. I'll make a motion to amend the ordinance to option three. Second.

Okay. As Ruth as So I got a motion by Brown second by living Livingston to amend the ordinance the proposed ordinance to for option number three for the phase in. Yes. Okay. Any any more discussion on that? Would you call on that? Council member Brown. Yes. Cool. Yes. Livingston. Yes. Miki. Yes. Baker. Yes. All right. That motion carries. Can I get a motion to approve the second reading as amended? Motion. Second.

Oh. So motion by Baker, seconded by Livingston. Any further discussion on that? Hearing none. Kaylin, would you call roll? Council member Brown. Yes. P. Yes. Living. Yes. Yes. Baker. Yes. All right, that motion carries. All right, so 7B is continuation of a public hearing regarding an amendment to the Norwok zoning ordinance to conduct amendments related to gates and barriers. So this public hearing was opened up at our last meeting and it's continued on this meeting. I'm going to turn it over to Luke.

Yep. So, uh, we initiated this zoning ordinance couple meetings ago. Uh, had some a couple meetings of discussion at PNZ. Uh that's why we didn't have it for you last time. Um they had some changes they wanted to see prior to it coming forward. Um so we had had some requests for uh various commercial properties up and down Highway 28 um for the uh installation of security gates um that primarily right now is regulated through our fire code and our zoning. And there's no other like code that really talked about uh gates and barriers. Um, so we initially brought it to you for initiation just to see which way you would want us to take it. Do we want to allow these things um and put some rules in place? Do we just want to say they're not allowed? Um, so we came up with an ordinance uh based on that discussion to allow them and put some rules in place. Um, I did find some other zoning uh language out there that I base this off of. So it's not just wholly my uh creation here. Um really what the ordinance does is uh defines security gate um and adding that new definition into our definition section and then adds a new section to the fences um area of the zoning code. So we'll kind of treat this as a fence. Um we state that security gates are allowed in basically uh all of our commercial industrial districts and um allowed on town home and apartment zoning. And then in non-residential uses in our uh residential districts. So that would be like a school. A lot of our schools are actually in a residential district. Um so those non-residential uses uh would apply. This would all apply to that. Um so those security gates uh they have a couple requirements they have to meet um that all gates have to meet. The first one being uh following sections of the international fire code. They already

have to meet those. We're just kind of calling it out here as well.

Um so that's 503.6 security gates and then D103.5 is an appendix that talks about fire apparatus access road gates. Um our [clears throat] fire marshall uh did help me with this language and um in reviewing things and did mention that um as part of this at some point he'd like to bring forward an amendment to that D103.5. And so his kind of uh first draft of changes I did include in the staff report. Um so those are some details that we would bring forward um as a separate ordinance. Um but it doesn't have to go through the zoning process. That's just a change to the fire code. Uh the second one uh just providing some uh space for a pedestrian to um move around the security gate. be that um just a lack of a fence or you know a sidewalk with another pedestrian gate next to it. Um just trying to provide that pedestrian movement if somebody needs to get out of that space. Really a lot of this is what happens in emergency. How are you accessing and getting people out of an area? Um want gates coated in a material that will prevent corrosion so we can keep things looking nice. Um that's more of the aesthetic side of things. We didn't really put anything that was too uh particular about what they looked like. Um [clears throat] we included that they should have some uh provisions for illumination or reflector reflectorization, which I couldn't believe was a word. Um just so that you know, we don't want people driving into these things at night, right? You want to be able to see things. Um and then with six and seven, we kind of split these two out into two different ideas. is one gate's intended for to permanently restrict access. So, think of like an industrial site that um you maybe have to present a badge at a security gate to get into every day. Um something that's more locked down. Um wanting to make sure that that type of

space has enough uh queuing up to that gate so that we don't have backups onto public streets, right? So, that's the main uh thing with that one. Um and then the then there's gates intended for temporary restrict access. That's what we've kind of had proposed to us now. Um property owner owns a business wants to restrict access on off hours when they're not around kind of secure their property. Um so that would be that temporarily uh restrict access. And really what we're focusing on both of those um is providing space for our fire apparatus to be able to be on the site um and out of the public way. So, especially with a lot of these being proposed on Highway 28, you know, a lot of the concern was, you know, do we have to stop on the highway and then get out to go manipulate things at the gate to then get into where we need to go. Um, so this provides a opportunity for us to say, "No, we got to get that apparatus fully off of the rightway." Um, we did word it pretty specifically as wholly on site, not on the property or anything. Um because again the idea was just to get it out of the rightway. So if you're still kind of in the taper of the driveway but you're out of the way and where you're exiting the vehicle is fine. Um that's kind where we were thinking with that as opposed to doing a setback. We originally had like a 30 foot setback on there where we felt like that ended up being too restrictive on certain scenarios. So that's what we did with that. Um, and then, uh, for a new development, um, just like with the fence, when we have a new commercial property coming in, if they're showing a f, if they're going to have fence, we ask that they show that on their site plan. So, we'd ask the same thing for a gate. Um, but similarly with fences, if someone's wanting to put a gate up after the fact, uh, we would treat that as a fence permit that we would take through our administrative process to approve. Um that would require um the fire department's involvement in reviewing

those a little different than a fire uh fence permit. Um because yes in the uh when we're talking about that the apparatus has to be wholly on site. Um we're leaving that to our fire code officials to determine that. We're as city planners and community development folks aren't going to make that call on does it fit or not. They know their apparatus. They know what what works. So, we'll be working with them to approve that stuff and give guidance on that. Um, so that really hits all the details of it. Um, happy to answer questions. Oh, nice job. Thank you.

Great. Um, 8. We have an extra word in that sentence. I'm not sure if it's supposed to be a different spelling. Um, allowed on provided they meet. Yes. Thank you. I just didn't know if there's supposed to be another word in there or what. So just FYI otherwise. Yeah. Should shall be allowed provided that they meet the following. Yeah. Gotcha. Hey Luke. Um so uh could could any private property then be gated? Um could a residential I I approached this from a commercial standpoint. You're like a single family.

Well, yeah, there's a I have a question I suppose about that. like could anybody on a piece of private property, whether it be commercial or residential, say, "I want a gate." That that was the intention was to try to provide guidance for anyone that wanted to do this, how would they how would we allow it? And if it meets those requirements, then yes, you can do that. If it doesn't, then no, you can't. This kind of speaks to the commercial side, doesn't it? Yes. Okay. Um any So any commercial site that is privately owned could put up a security gate. Correct.

Yeah. I don't like it. Okay. You want to put a gate on your house? Yeah. No, I just um uh you know I would like for the people who want to have Gates that really feel strongly about it. Um, I don't know. I don't know. Something like a fee. Okay, you can put one on there. Um, but you need to do that. It'll cost you $20,000 to put that off so that they really understand. Um, like they have to really want it. Sure. because I want us to all be open

and accessible and good neighbors with each other and not start to go, "This is mine, not yours." And so I I just and I don't want to like go up 28 and see a bunch of gates of people saying, "I don't want people on my parking lot." Well, how do you do storage facilities? Well, there I don't know if if if there's certain things that could be amended, Brian, to to include certain specific things where gates are common or Okay. Yeah.

Yeah. You know what I'm saying? Like I I'm not there there's certain things where gates have been used and and there is a very I I assume a very common sense case you can make for why they're necessary. like our work our sports facilities there's got to be a time that it's closed or opened a gate versus a door or but but the these are on like parking lots and things like that. That's right. That's what this is about. Yeah. And driving.

So it has some pretty nice homes out there where people have their houses that the gate looks beautiful. You know, it goes with the property. I I'm I'm not I guess I'm not really talking about residential type stuff. I'm talking about in town if everybody has the option to do that and people start to think, you know what, I don't want anyone parking on on this little thing I own. And maybe that's a thing that will never happen. That's what the hearing the aiologist when they were here, that's what they asked for. They want to be able to gate their parking lot

and they want to be able to gate it because they don't want anyone who's going into the businesses there to be able to use their property. And that's I'm thinking I don't want to start doing that here in this town. Night thing. I don't care. Like I don't want us to start doing that. I was going to say a business that doesn't let you in is a short-lived business. Well, it's it's just not being a good member of the community. So like but their argument is that they have a lot of expensive equipment where in the parking lot but that's what

and so that's why I'm wondering again about like that's great. Yeah, it cost you $20,000 to get the permit to do that. Or I can put up signs this is private property and it will be towed if you're not doing business in my property like they get towed every time you park.

I'm not an expert on any of this. I realize I just don't I don't want to see a bunch of gates up in public spaces because now people have the opportunity to do that and they don't they think I don't want that wear and tear on my parking lot or whatever it is or I don't want those kind of people on my parking lot. I think that particular case there's something going on there at night. The people that use that building will need to be parked and they can't get come there and it be how they get in there with the gates closed. I don't know. Maybe they'll have some kind of a card or something. I don't know.

I know the staff has worked hard on this. I And but I think most people won't. I can see if parking gets to be limited in certain areas where certain business is not really dependent on people's whatever whatever they feel comfortable to put it to protect their property. I can see them do potentially or tow them if you're in the wrong spot. You have some of that right now out there. We you know we have reservations for mullets and yeah there's reserve spots. It's fine. Um but but but you're not seeing a gate or things like that. Yeah, sure.

I think you get into private property rights issues and then if you're going to have joint use and mutual use of a parking lot, there really something has to be negotiated between the users. Sure. I mean, for us, uh like the sports complex up there or this the fieldhouse, right? We'd sure love to be able to use all the parking lots we can get our hands on up in that area.

Well, There's gates out at Minich. At least there used to be. I've been out there in a really long time, right? There's gates out there that we gate off and prevent people from using that space. At least we did at some point, you know. So, I Yeah. So, I guess I'm not I mean, how does how does that fit in if we don't let John Q business owner say this is my private property, I want to protect it, then how how do we justify protecting it?

That's a good question. our public safety. We have gates on that to keep people away from the equipment and school buses and all of that. If I had a industrial thing out there to protect TMC doesn't have gates up there where they're at protecting their 400 semis that are worth a fortune. And I think if you would open up a business and come to the business in the morning on a Monday or on a morning, let's say it's a Saturday morning and neighbor business, there's a bunch of cars that were left there overnight and you know, you don't have very much parking in your lot. Now, that'd be that's a problem.

Yeah, that'd be a problem regardless, for sure. And that's that's what this I I think that's what the hearing center is trying to present. And I don't disagree with you, right? The hearing center could put up signs and say, "No overnight parking. You'll be towed at the owner's expense." Right? I think that gives them

the ability to do that. However, I don't know that I feel I mean, I don't I don't like the idea either. I don't know that I feel like we have the ability to tell people that they can't. I don't know that I think we should have the ability to tell people that they can't. It's their private property. Um, and this at least gives some guidance and some structure and some requirements for them to be able to do that. I get that, Jackie. And for the safety aspects,

want you to be open to get used to even coming there even though you're not going there for a particular purpose, but you just just get used to driving in the parking lot for whatever reason. And uh they don't want a gate up there. You say, "Well, I don't know if I'm going to go there because I don't know if the gate's closed or not, but you don't know what their hours are for whatever reason." But uh yeah, I I just don't think we should be telling people. We can't. Basically, if they decide to build a gate, we're just telling, "Hey, you want a nice looking gate here, right? And it has to be in conjunction with fire." Right. Correct. No condensate wire. Well, thanks for chatting about it. I appreciate it. I really do. Kaylin, have we received any oral or written comments on this? No.

So, do we have any public comment? Anybody in the audience or online? Motion. Second. Not yet. Oh. Oh, we're still in the public hearing. Public hearing. Uh, okay. Hearing none, we'll go ahead and close public hearing at 7 p.m. Uh, item 7 C is the first reading of an ordinance amending code of ordinances for city of Nor, Iowa to adopt zoning amendment related to gates on commercial property. So, we just had a public hearing for this zoning amendment. Uh, Luke, you got anything to add? Nothing else. All right. Any other discussion from council? Second.

All right. Motion by Livingston, second. Livingston, seconded by Cool. Uh, any further discussions? Hearing none. Kaylin, would you please call a role? Council member Cool. Yes. Livingston, yes. Baker, yes. Brown, yes. [laughter]

Motion carries. Item 7V is a resolution authorizing and approving a loan and dispersement agreement uh and providing for the issuance and securing the payment of 5,970,000 water revenue bonds series 2025A. So this is approval to authorize the issuance and secure the payment for the city's central Iowa waterworks member buyin costs uh through the state revolving loan fund Iowa finance authority. This also secures additional water capacity for the community. Jean, what do you got? Um, you've summed it up very well. We had a public hearing on this. Um, we've had a couple um other proceedings on this.

Just uh let you know the check will be issued and it'll be on the next claims list. It'll be a large amount, just under 6 million. Um, and we will close on the 19th. Uh, the check will be mailed the same day. Okay. All right. passion for council. I'd do it. Second. It's pretty cool that we're a member of all this. Yeah, agree. Okay, so I got motion by Livingston, second by Brown. Any further discussion or public comment? Kaylin, would you please call roll? Council member Miki, yes. Baker, yes. Brown, yes. Cool.

Yes. That being said, yes. All right, that motion carries. Item 7E is a resolution authorizing and approving a loan and dispersement agreement uh and providing for the issuance and securing the payment of 4,925,000 uh dollars worth of water revenue bond series 2025B. So, this is approval uh to authorize the issuance and secure the payment for the water tower loan through the state revolving loan fund Iowa Finance Authority. change.

This is similar to the previous proceedings. We had the public hearing October 2nd. The actual uh project cost is just a little over 6 million. We are borrowing 4.9 for it. Um it'll be a little bit different. We will draw down as the project progresses instead of one full payment. Uh this also closes on the 19th of December. All right. Any public comment? Motion. Okay. Second motion by Brown, second by Livingston. Any further discussion? Kaylin, would you call roll? Council member Baker, yes. Brown, yes. Cool. Yes. Livingston, yes. Yes.

All right. Motion carries. Item 7F. It's resolution initiating a zoning amendment referring the proposal to the Norwok Planning and Zoning Commission and setting a public hearing regarding the proposal to amend the Brody's Landing plan unit development regarding bulk regulations for decks land use parcel CD and E. I'm going to let Luke go over this one.

Yep. So, in the Brody's Landing uh development, we did a PUD. So, the uh lot regulations and everything are not standard burough zoning code. um when we've applied that rear setback to some of the patios that have been been built, specifically when somebody wants to do steps off of it, um we tend to have to deny people because their steps and stuff are extending into their rear setback. Um, so we've gotten a request from the developer who still is kind of the main owner of the development in the HOA to make this change to lessen the rear setback to 10 ft for decks and patios so we can accommodate some of those uh accessory uses on people's property out there.

Would this have a retroactive effect for the people that have already applied and been turned down? Yeah, we would they would just fill a new permit out and we'd let them do that. Yep. Other questions, comments? Any public comment? I would entertain a motion. Second. Motion by Livingston, seconded by Mikey. Any further discussion? We're just referring. We're not. All right. Uh, Kaylin, would you please call RO? Council member Brown, yes. Cool. Yes. Robingston, yes. Yes. Baker,

yes. All right, motion carries. Item 7G is a resolution approving and authorizing execution and delivery of the third amendment amended and restated agreement for the De Moine Metropolitan Waste Reclamation Authority, that's the uh consenting to the issuance of bonds by the board of the for the purpose of construction improvements under the terms of set agreement and related matters. So, the agenda statement created by Lindsay and Jim provides a pretty comprehensive overview of the changes. Uh, our city manager was part of a metro manager group that heard a presentation about these changes. Also, Jim, I'm going to let you take it over from here.

Well, it is a a rewrite of the um original 2080 agreement that we have in place. Really, there aren't significant changes to it. It does change the amount of the bonding ability of the board. uh we we are a member of that board. Uh it's an equal vote on between all the members under for u matters that you know frankly aren't really important. It's a weighted vote for uh some of the more important votes. What I mean by weighted is clearly de mo is a member of the group too. West de mo is a member of the group but it's and it's based upon uh populations and things like that. So as a result uh you know we don't have a big proportion on it but once again it's good to be a member of these groups and all the all the member communities uh are voting for that

great motion. Okay any other discussion from council? So I got a motion by Brown second by Livingston. Any public comment? Kaylin, would you please call the role? Council member Cool. Yes. Living. Yes. Miki. Yes. Baker. Yes. Browns. Yes.

All right. Motion carries. Item seven gates is a resolution approving an amendment to the parkland dedication agreement with Signature Companies LLC for the Shadow Creek Plan unit development. So, the original parkland agree uh dedication agreement adds some timelines in regards to when the parkland would be turned over to the city. Uh the development isn't progressing as quickly as they originally planned. So, this resolution will add two years to the agreed to date, setting it to December 1st, 2027. Luke, that's the gist of it. All right. Got a question. Yeah. Um, why don't they just need it to us now? What's

we uh and I wrote this amendment to it did expire uh December 1st of this year. Uh it is part it is a park at the back. So, we don't have a development up to that. uh we do have this recorded and everything at the county level. So I am I am confident that our claim is is is well well secured on it. Uh so the reason why I don't take it now is once we take it

we have to maintain got liabilities to it. We wouldn't be able to access it otherwise. Uh we were hoping originally they said that the second pilot would be touching upon this and that's why we had the agreement this way. that the council member living at that point in time was pointing out that he wanted to make sure that we got it as quick as possible because we didn't like to wait for our parks till the very last time. So, uh, but they ended up platting a little bit differently where what they thought was going to be the second plat I think they made what was going to be second into like the first half of the second half. The second half has not gotten down to the park yet. Uh but yeah, it also very much has to do with expenses too because once we have it, we got to maintain it and we got to improve it everything else and uh and then it's just not ready to be

basically surveyed out marked off u in the PUD in the preliminary plat and that's recorded at the county level too. Okay. Discussion any public comment? I'd entertain a motion to approve it. Motion second. Motion by Cool. Seconded by Minei. Kaylin, would you call roll? Council member Livingston? Yes. Mine? Yes. Baker? Yes. Brown? Yes. Cool. Yes.

All right. Motion carries. Item 7. I. It's a second reading of an ordinance repealing and replacing chapter 35 fire department of the Nor city code. This change is being done to update language to make it more accurately represent how the department functions today. Chief, you got anything else? Nothing to add. All right. Any discussion or questions from the council or public comment? Second. Okay. Motion by Livingston, seconded by Brown. Kaitlin, would you call the RO? Council member Mik, yes. Baker, yes. Brown, yes. Yes. Livingston, yes.

All right. Motion carries. Item 7J is an appeal hearing regarding a vicious dog determination. So let's start out with Jim giving us a summary of the codes and ordinance regarding vicious dogs.

Okay. Uh this is what this is is there has been a finding by our chief police that uh there's a vicious dog that exists and what council is doing is the council is basically acting as an appelllet body here. And uh I'm what I'm referring to also is is I had Luke put this up on the board too so you can see exactly what I'm talking about. But uh according to our code, this is the final appeal, you know, part of the due process on the vicious dog things that the council can hear and ma make a determination of whether they are going to u approve the finding or not approve the finding. U basically the city council acting appellet body determined whether substantial evidence supports police chief's designation this animal is a vicious animal. It's under chapter 58 of our code. C council members must make findings on each applicable standard. Below the city must prove each relevant criterion by preponderance of the evidence. Kind of put this more in a jury instruction type thing just to kind of organize your thoughts on it. Uh council should review testimony of any witnesses in front of it, reports and exhibits that's going to be presented by police chief and anybody else that wants to present any photographs uh proof records uh statements any statements that the owners of the animal have made or other relevant evidence. And really ultimately what you're going to find is if you see Luke, you could scroll down there's an instruction one. This is based on 58.029B. The findings of the police chief was that this dog was vicious uh as a result of um chapter 59 58.029B and 9 C. What 9 is is the definition of a vicious animal. And uh there are five different definitions. what could be a vicious animal. Two of those applied to this case uh that the findings were based upon and those two are what the council will be reviewing today. So structure one is multiple bites causing

injury and basically the question the council is going to have to answer is has the city proved that the animal bitten a person or domesticated animal more than once causing injury. Uh if the answer's yes, then that meets the definition under the code and the dog would be vicious. Second instruction, does it have a history of attacking, approaching in an aggressive manner? Council must determine whether the evidence shows either a history of attacking, chasing, or approaching a person, a domestic animal, or illeal conveyance u in an in an apparent attack attitude of attack on any street, sidewalk, public priority property. Attack means approaching in a threatening manner. disposition to fight, bite or injure or actually biting or causing injury or a known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack without provocation causing injury to otherwise or otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals. Then it's going to ask to make you a finding on that you find yes the animal has demonstrated history of attacking, chasing or approaching in threatening manner. Yes, the animal has a known propensity tendency to attack without provocation, threaten safety, or your other alternative is no, the evidence does not establish the conduct described. U and then and then finally once those two determinations are made, then the final determination is going to be uh whether the council finds animal meets definition of vicious animal under chapter 58 or not. Uh and that's basically the scope of your appeal. So, I kind of go over it now on what you should be considering. Probably after all the everything is is presented and everyone gets a chance to speak, then we'll kind of go over this again. Then ultimately it'll be in a resolution format when

Could we get uh sorry, could we get a printed copy of Yes. those instead of having to rely on Luke to scroll down. Okay. Thank you. Want me to hit print? I've got it all set up. Me, too. Okay.

Oh, yeah. last page of those instructions, they'll talk about credibility and evidence weight that you can look through and just you have a right to weigh the credibility witnesses, consistency of their statements, documentary evidence, uh whether evidence is contradicted or corroborated through the hearing. And then also it's going to be another thing is whether the attacks if you find that there were some that were provoked or unprovoked. Uh and the council is just basically going to answer those questions. That's the scope of the appeal. It's not whether an alternative penalties, alternative charges or any other matter. It's just a matter of whether those defined areas are Yeah. Okay.

You okay moving forward? Yes. Okay. What's that?

Just do it. Why don't you go ahead and do it?

Hi, Greg Staples, the police chief. staff. Um uh before we get started, uh Jim and I collaborated on a previous um uh vicious dog ordinance appeal and created rules for the hearing. Um the time uh the order order will be the city attorney's giving you um discussion on the code. I'll present to you what uh evidence I've collected. Um, afterwards, uh, witnesses can can speak. I know there's at least one victim here. There may be more either online or in the audience. Um, the dog owner will be allowed to speak and present witnesses. Um, all statements made by any presenter of information shall be directed to the council. Individuals, parties involved are not entitled to question each other. Throughout the process, the members of council and mayor may ask questions, request additional information and make statements. We um dog owner is entitled to have an attorney, but it's not required. Rules of evidence and civil procedure court rules will not apply. Mayor Phillips will be in charge of the hearing or will make maintained to court. Those were rules curved by the city attorney at a previous uh hearing similar to this. Are they in effect for tonight also?

Yes, they are. Okay. Any questions before I get started? No. Okay. [clears throat] Um I'm going to give you a timeline of um several incidents involving a dog named Rusty who's owned by Anne Bectal uh who lives on Nantucket Place uh in the town home at the Brownstones around Billio Phillips Park. I I do have a question about this part. um just because you've uh we have received all of the information you're about to go over, right?

And I think we're taking this pretty seriously, right? Um and so I'm wondering is it is it good for Chief to does he need to go through everything again just so that everyone can hear it? I think it's important for him to brief everything. I don't think he'd need to I mean there's quite a bit of material as far as reading line for line I think his report that was was provided yeah it was incorporated in the hearing uh so I don't expect that in depth but I think the outline that it has going to be

great not that it's my it was my intention to speak on each date um and read excerpts of emails and police reports of the pertinent information on that particular incident uh and answer questions if there were. Great.

Okay. Um it's important to note that um in August of 2024, the third reading of a revised vicious dog ordinance was approved by council. Um and that revision changed the definition of what a vicious animal is to what we're speaking about today. And I re bring that up because one of the bites, the first bite from June 2024 occurred prior to the current ordinance. And you will see that in September of 2024, there was a a bite that occurred. And I determined that at that time Rusty was not vicious according to the code. And I did that because after speaking with Jim, um the bite did not really meet the definition of serious injury. Um although it did require two stitches and there's a picture of that injury in the packet. Um, and it did not meet the criteria of two bytes because the first bite occurred before the ordinance was recre was revised and the attorney did not feel it was appropriate to count a bite that occurred prior to the person having knowledge that two bytes uh would uh trigger the ordinance definition. So with that um

that seems hard. Two byes is two bytes. Um on June 6th, uh Rusty u bit the back of the thigh area um of Kyle Smith as he was walking with friends around Billio Phillips Park. Um I contacted Kyle, told him that he was had the ability to come to tonight's hearing and prevent it present information. He was unable to do so. He emailed me this morning. I believe you have that email in your packets or it was placed on your desk. Um, and I'm just going to read a couple sentences from the middle of that. Uh, his words describing what happened that night. Uh, the dog noticed us walking in the distance and instantly started barking, growling, and running towards all three of us. Uh, Kyle was walking with two friends. This was no playful attitude whatsoever. As the dog ran up to us, we all turned our back to the dog, not trying to agitate it anymore or even put up any defense. while my back was turned, the dog decided to bite the back of my thigh totally unprovoked. Um, that particular incident, uh, the next day Kyle called the police. Uh, an officer responded, uh, after speaking to the officer. No police report was filed. The only, um, documentation we have of the incident, um, prior to, uh, me speaking to Kyle in depth later, uh, was a computer printout. Um, so there was no police report filed at that time. Um, on September 8th, uh, 2024, Rusty bit the leg of Andrea Wright while she was riding her bike around Billio Phillips Park. Um, and Beal, Rusty's owner, admitted to Wright that she knew Rusty didn't like bikes or cyclists and was trying to catch Rusty before Wright got near the dog. Rusty also lunged at Wright's husband when he arrived to pick

up Miss Wright and I believe that they are here. Um I can read her statements um now or she could speak whatever is the pleasure of councel. Well, not both. If she wants to speak, I think she should be able to speak. If she doesn't, then I think you can proceed. Everything we submitted in the email that we sent is what we Okay. Um, and I Excuse me, Steve. And you're Mr. Could you say your name for the record? Andrea, right? And what's your address? Uh, 1324 Green Hills Drive in Rock, Iowa. Thank you. Thank you.

Um, then I will read a excerpt from an email she sent the council um two days ago. Uh, as I slowed to carefully pass, one of the dogs came around the back of my bike and bit into my lower leg, shaking it before releasing. I was forced to stop, dismount my bike and wait in shock and pain. The female owner immediately approached, apologized, and stated several times that she knew her dog did not like did not like bikes or cyclists. Um that was from the email she uh Miss Wright sent to council. Um during the police investigation of that incident, she provided a written statement to the officers. And I'll read a few sentences from that. I saw a woman running down the sidewalk toward the dogs and I slowed a little bit, unsure if the dogs were fighting each other or even lost. And then I passed them. The one dog came around the back of my bike and bit into my lower leg and what felt like shook it and then released. I was able to come to a stop and get off my bike. The female owner came up right away to see if I was okay and to apologize for the dog and stated several times that she knew the dog didn't like bikes or cyclists and then said she was running to grab the dog before I passed it. Um, in your packet there is a picture of the injuries that Miss Wright uh suffered. Uh, I'll hold it up in case you aren't able to see it um readily on your computers on July 19th. Oh, on September 10th, um I informed Anveto told via cell or via via phone call um that any additional biting incidents would meet the

definition of vicious and that Rusty would be declared as vicious if it happened again. um during uh Miss Spectral's appeal hearing that with me, I talked to her about this and she remembered receiving that phone call um that the second a an additional bite would trigger the definition of vicious under the ordinance. On July 19th, Rusty bit the leg of Liam Garry while he was riding his bike at Billio Phillips Park. Um that incident was not reported to the police department at the time that it had occurred.

Sorry. uh July 19th uh 2025, excuse me. Uh the first fight June 2024, 2nd September 2024, in July 2025. Um Liam Garry uh was bitten by Rusty on July 19th, 2025. His parents did not call the police and the police were unaware of it until uh October uh when an additional bite happened. Um, so I learned of this um after the what was considered what is the fourth bite, which I thought was the third. This is the third bite. So chronologically, I'm just going to do this now. Um, on July 19th at around 8:00 p.m., um, Liam was on his bike. Rusty uh was on a retractable leash being held by Anne. Um she [clears throat] let Rusty approach um and then bit and then Rusty bit Liam. Specifically, what uh Liam's mother Megan Gary said was uh instead of keeping Rusty by her side and let Rusty run the leash, meaning let it uh pull the retractable leash out, and he attacked uh Liam on the left calf and left butt cheek. He has and he now has two pretty goodsized scars on his leg. That is according to Liam's father. Uh I called um Megan Gary, Liam's mother, and informed her she could participate in tonight's hearing. I don't know that she's here or online. Um then on October 4th, 2025, um Rusty bit the arm of a young girl named River Hauling's head while she was riding her bike at Billio Phillips Park. Uh the injury is described as minor bruising and puncture marks. Uh and told River that Rusty was good now and then

approached her with Rusty. Rusty then lunged at River and bit her. Um, the police report from that incident um was written by officer Dirkson. Uh, and a few sentences from it are River indicated that Anne said her dog was good now when Anne and the dog later identified it as Rusty approached her while River was riding her bike. River stated that Rusty then lunged at her and grabbed her by her arm and pulled her off her bike. Um, Officer Dirkson then says, "I looked at River's arm and saw she had bruising and a few puncture marks on her arm." Um, Nicole, that's River's mother, indicated that they had never had any problems with the dog unless it was around bicycles or bikes. Um, there is a picture, few pictures of River's injuries uh, in the packet. Um, I'll hold them up so you can see them. Uh, she has a puncture mark on the back of her arm. Um, and another indentation on the front of her arm. If you like me to hand them to you, I I will. Um, that's uh a synopsis of the four incidents that um that led to my declaration of viciousness. Um, so on October 4th, the fourth bite happened on October 6th. As part of my duties as chief of police, I reviewed um the biting incident from October 4th. Uh, I went to our bite spreadsheet and I also remembered that there was one from a year earlier. Um, and I began um preparing a vicious dog declaration at

which time I learned about um River um Liam Garry's injury and um I prepared the letter uh declaring Rusty Vicious and had that hand delivered to an um on October 6th. Can I ask a couple questions? Yes, ma'am. Um how big is Rusty? Um I've not met Rusty. I'm going to guess 50 pounds. Okay. 50 60.

Um, and I'm just trying to understand the mechanics of um how so not a small dog. So when the dog approaches a child, probably not any effort to bite a child in the arm given how tall a child is. I mean, doesn't have to jump up? I don't believe so. a kid, a a younger child on a bicycle um wouldn't be towering, right? Liam Gary was described as standing on his bike. So, I'm assuming he was standing on the pedals um and was bitten in the lower leg and in the butt,

right? I'm just trying to get it to understanding of Right. I understand the people who say the dog kind of ran at them and lunged. Trying to understand from both Liam and River, it sounds like the owner approached the individual with the dog or let the dog approach the individual and then so it doesn't sound like there was any charging involved. Just sounds like it was an approach and then the dog bit. Um, so I'm just trying to understand if there was jumping and biting or just uh

My understanding in those two instances, as you pointed out, that Ann Rusty's owner approached the children with the dog. Um, and it finished the approach quicker than Ann intended and bit. Thank you for question.

That's the way I understand it. Um, so I uh informed Ann that she was or that Rusty was being declared vicious um by phone call and letter. Um that was on October 6th. Um the code gives a dog owner three days, three business days to uh file an appeal if they so choose. um and decided that she wanted to uh or or obtain a vicious dog license and came to city hall with the intent to get a vicious dog license. um which involves um having an out having a um having a um a a

private um I can't think of the term kennel

proper enclosure having a proper enclosure um and speaking to the city clerk about her proper enclosure and how that would get inspected. city clerk realized that this was going to be difficult because Anne lives in a town home and doesn't have any real private property outside her home where she can put a proper enclosure for a dog. The code also prevents a vicious animal to leave an owner's property uh unless it is on its way to a vet or through a medical appointment. So, um, it would be impossible for an to walk Russy to use the bathroom outside because there's no private property that she owns for that to happen. Um, so getting a vicious dog license wasn't really an option for her based on where she lives. Um, so, uh, the clerk and I talked about that and I called Ann and told her that she couldn't get a vicious dog license unless she agreed to never let Rusty out of the house unless she was going um to a vet appointment. Um, so instead she appealed um, she filed the appeal in the proper time. Uh, her appeal note is in the packet. Uh we held an appeal hearing um on October 28th. Um during that appeal hearing um she described how she got Rusty, rescued him from a terrible situation in Missouri um brought him back to Norwok. Um and uh talked about how she was trying to currently get him trained. Uh she admitted that she didn't get any training for Rusty until I declared him vicious. Um she admitted at that time that she knew she recalled my uh warning phone call to her about what would happen if there was

an additional bite after the one from September 2024. Um so after the appeal hearing um on the 29th the next day I decided to uphold my original um de exploration of viciousness because of the multiple bites um and also because of um a history of chasing approaching um mostly because of the um wheeled conveyance portion of that. Um, so once I declared uh that I would not going to change my opinion or my original declaration and she was informed of that um she filed her second appeal to city council also within the designated time frame um which brought us to today.

Are there any questions for the Jim? I got a question. Okay. So our purpose here tonight is just to adjudicate whether or not this situation matches to the city. That is not the determinative remedy. That is correct. Okay. Um I will say that if the dog is if the declaration of viciousness is upheld tonight. I don't if you're going to tell us the remedy, don't tell us the remedy. I wasn't should make a I'm not trying to cut you off, but we should make a decision without knowing. Yes, you're right. Okay. Anything else for me? Thanks, G. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

I know that uh Ann Beto's in the room and I believe she has people that she wants to speak for her also. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Go ahead.

My name is Ann Beal and yes, very nice to meet you all. Um, I am Rusty's owner and I apologize again profusely for for what happened. I do not downplay I totally understand the code and the ordinance. I do not downplay one bit of any pain that he caused whatsoever. I take full responsibility. And yes, I did rescue Rusty from a terrible situation, not fully knowing his previous history before I got him. Um, when I did so, I just thought my love would be enough for him. Um, unfortunately, he is triggered by bicycles. I did try everything possible to fix the situation. I tried shot callers. I tried I tried multiple things to to remedy the situation. Um unfortunately when I first got him, he was not triggered by bicycles. Um I was walking him one day and a kid came by on a bicycle and hit him. Ran right into him and that's what triggered him. So anytime a bicycle went by, he would lunge, bark, whatever, was afraid of bicycles. Um, unfortunately in Andrea's situation, um, I had him off of his leash playing with another dog that he hadn't seen in a while. Um, again, my fault because, and I take full responsibility that I had him off leash when she went driving by, he went running after her. So, again, I'm not going to downplay any of it whatsoever. The first incident, um, I believe the gentleman's name was Kirk. I'm going to say and defend my dog that

Kyle just were talking about the same one.

Yes. The very first um incident. Um I was trying to do some training with him. It was 11:00 at night. We were right in front of my house. Three strangers came walking by. Rusty went and yes, he aggressively barked at them. He was defending his house. And he did not bite that person. He jumped up and his nail scratched the back of his leg. It was not a bite and it did not get reported until the next day. Um Liam, to be honest, I really don't recall that situation, but again, I'm not going to deny it. I'm not going to downplay it because I do want to take full responsibility for my dog. I take responsibility because I set him up for failure. I didn't know. I hadn't owned a dog in 30 years. I rescued this dog. I was on this website for two and a half years looking for a doodle dog to rescue. I found him. I rescued him. And I thought I was doing the right thing. And if I could have Patty come up and maybe help a test for me. Um, I set my dog up for failure. And again, I will take full responsibility by all means. He does meet those vicious codes. I didn't give him the proper training. Um, I set him up with a harness and a retractable leash and that's not going to do it for a dog.

Does Does anybody have any questions? For not right now. How Yeah. I How big is your dog? He weighs 55 pounds. And so you say you don't remember this? Did I understand you correctly? You don't remember the situation with Liam? with Liam. Correct. Um, tell me about the situation as you want recall it to be with River, please.

Okay. So, we were I was actually getting ready to go to bed because I had to be up at 3:00 a.m. So, there was a bunch of neighbors that were out and we were talking and we were in kind of in the middle of our circle grassy area and um I had Rusty on his leash. She wanted to pet him and I was like reluctant to let him go over there and she rode her bike right up to him and he bit her in the arm. As far as the lunging at people and chasing them, I mean, he chased Andrea down. That was the one. But everything else and I had him on the leash. I was trying to be a responsible dog owner and he just that quick just got to her and nipped her in the arm. As soon as she was off of her bite, he was fine. Nothing. It definitely was a trigger with bicycles. So since then, since all of this happened, and shame on me once again, I will take full responsibility. Um I always meant to take him to Patty to get trained. I procrastinated and this pushed it over the edge. I did take him out to Patty to be trained and he I have a video of him with bicycles riding by and he just sits there and watches them go by.

And when did you do that? Um when did we start training? It was in October. In October. Shortly after October of 2025 or 2024? 2025. It was shortly after the the river incident. So the do the the police as I understand it advised you that if there was another bite back a year ago correct that there would be the declaration correct and you didn't do anything for a year for training. Just want to make sure I understand. I'm not accusing. I just make sure I understand. Yes.

Ma'am, you don't dispute any of the events that she uh presented. Pardon me. You don't dispute that any of the events occurred that the chief presented? I do I do dispute the first event because my dog definitely did not bite that gentleman, he scratched the back of his leg and I believe when I did get a phone call and the police said um I I he it just looks like a scratch. I'm like yeah, he did not bite that person. So I definitely do dispute that. Good. Thank you. Was the second one? Was that the two stitches? The second one was That was the two stitches.

Well, technically the first one under the new ordinance. You are you fearful at all of a civil lawsuit? You've shown intent. You know your dog is willing to bite. You even chased after it as as you described yourself knowing what was going to happen. You are intentionally owning a Dodge that is going to harm someone and has harmed someone four times now. Aren't you fearful of a civil lawsuit? It didn't even cross my mind to be honest with you. Not counting just being I did I did pay for medical bills.

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about pain and anguish. And what's going to happen two years from now? Is this going to happen again? It's been pretty consistent. It's not going to happen again because I now have set him up for success and I have taken him to training. Thought you had done that before. My simple love. You will get your eyes sued out if you did keep the dog. You know that going forward the next bite. I just I cannot understand why someone I grew up with a dog named Rusty. If that dog had bitten two people, my dad would have had that dog put down immediately because of the fear and the pain and anguish it causes other families.

I get that and I understand that. I don't think so. But that I do and every day I walked him, I was fearful and I made sure I had his leash and what it can do and it will do it. That's why you're fearful. I in the past, yes. But since I have gotten him training, I am no longer fearful at all. I I do not doubt his ability to listen. I am not fearful at all.

I know my dog and I know what he's capable of and I know the training that he's been given and I know how to handle him properly. I was not a I was not equipped, but now I am. I have the knowledge and the experience to make sure that this never happens again. Any other questions? Okay. Would you like to meet Rusty? No. No. To see how he behaves? No. Because you came through. So I I'm Patty Lans. Okay.

I'm Patty Lans and I own Patty Alpampered Pets in Pearl, Iowa. So, I'm a dog trainer. We do boarding. We do all things dog. I've been doing this for over 10 years. And came to me after the incident. So, I wasn't aware of any incidents that happened prior to her coming to me and saying, "I need to train my dog." And she came to me in tears. She says, "And I saw a dog that came harness with a retractable leash." Okay. And in my opinion, my professional opinion, this is not adequate to handle a dog that might bite somebody or any dog. Okay? Any dog that has can be out here and that, you know, is making their own decisions, dog decisions. Okay? Okay. When dogs make decisions on their own, it's legal for them to jump, bark, bite, dig, you know, chew, destroy things, and to kill. That's a dog decision. Okay? So, me as a trainer, when we have dogs in society, they can't do that. They have to be good citizens. So, what I train is dogs to be good citizens. So, I train respect first. Okay? They have to have respect. All right? If a dog doesn't have respect, they don't look to the owner or their handler um for leadership. They make their own decisions. But if they have if you have respect from your dog and they do look to you then for leadership, then you make the decisions and they follow your lead. So 90% and I've I've taken dogs, vicious dogs off of death row that were scheduled to be euthanized because they bit their kid in the face or whatever and they would call me and say, "Is there anything I don't want to euthanize our dog? Is there anything that you can

do to help?" Okay. And I said, "Well, you know, you have to turn this completely around." And typically when I go into a situation and as with an they don't have control over their dog. They don't have respect. Okay. So when I train this is my my class is obedience class but it is more like boot camp for dogs. Okay. Because I feel like I have multiple dogs. I have a pack of dogs. So um but and and we do public outings all the time. Do you have small children running around these dogs? these issues. Yes, I had grandchildren. They grew up with grandchildren. So, I'm not sure why.

Well, I mean, I think that it would be helpful if you would focus on this dog and not all. Yes. Okay. Circle back to

Okay. So, yeah. So, when she came to me with breast, he didn't respect her. He didn't look to her for leadership. You know, I could tell she loved him very much, but love, you know, is great, but you have to do tough love. Okay. in the beginning with a dog to get respect. So you have to love them from up here. And a lot of times when people they have a big heart when they rescue they love them from down here. Okay? So that puts the dog in charge. It makes the dog you know and they give the dog everything because they want to you know make the dog have a better life than it had. So they give the dog everything. Well to a dog that's weakness. Patty is um I I think I understand the theory

is the end that you have ch trained Rusty not to do this anymore. We have trained Rusty not to do this and we've even exposed him to bike trails and bikes to desensitize him. Y and you know there's a leave it command that we do you know and when they respect that leave it that means it's off limits. Okay. And so he has been through this training course and uh he continues to come to training like we have a a day camp academy that he comes to to make sure that it it's followed up on and he's consistent with the training. Okay. So thank you.

That's what I want to say. Um she does have him colored properly now. he can't get to somebody and she knows how to come in between somebody if somebody does approach. And um I can tell you this, I I've seen a lot of vicious dogs at this point, you know, and I understand what he did prior and I'm not refuting any of that. But to me, I look at this dog, he's not a vicious dog, okay? He was a dog triggered a hurting instinct by a bike. That's what triggered it. We worked on that. You know, it was a mistake he made. He made a dog decision. Dr. Flu training.

Um, if I would have known of and she did tell me of the incidents that he he was biting and she had to get him trained. Um, I've seen Would you have called him a vicious dog before he was trained? Okay. So, when I met I can I can only attest to what I met Rusty and he came to me. He was not he never offered to bite me. one time and I did challenge him. Okay. Thank you.

So, in the meantime, I have put my townhouse on the market. Um, I don't want to leave the Norwok community, but if my dog is going to continue to be deemed a vicious animal and without being allowed to take him out to the bathroom and everything, I mean, so I literally put my dog in the car in the garage and go outside the city limits or take him to the dog park or someplace I know or to my daughter's house or down to Patty's place somewhere to let him go to the bathroom. because I am determined that I am not going to get rid of my dog because he rescued me just as much as I rescued him. And I know you probably don't understand that. But I do believe that dogs, just like people, can all be rehabilitated. And again, I don't want to leave the Norwok town. I like it here. I've been here for four and a half years, but I do want to sell my townhouse. I want to have a fenced in backyard so my dogs can run and play and have a good upbringing and you know it's sad. I understand the code again. I respect everything but I'm just asking that somehow this could be turned so I can actually live my life now that my dog's properly trained.

Thanks Sam. Thank you. I can I I have a followup question for the chief. There any requirement in the code that bites be reported to the police in order to be counted as a bite a qualifying bite. I don't believe the code says that specifically. I think once determined vicious if it was kept in town licensed and confined there's a duty to report that initial ones there was not a duty. Okay. Just want to

I will say I'm disappointed that we did not include the first bite simply due to the change in in ordinance. I think that's one of those things where we're going strictly for the letters and not the intent. We're just trying to find dogs that bite. Period. Yeah. Okay. Anybody else want to talk?

Council have any other questions?

Okay. I think if we go back to those instructions, that's probably the easiest way. What I would expect is the probably we got one, two, three, three findings here and then I'll then there's a resolution that kind of summarizes that u and under the code it it does the resolution then requires if it's upheld if the police chief's decision is upheld that uh the um that the individual be required to follow uh the requirements of chapter 58 uh one looking to either license. No, no, this is a required finding for the council.

But we didn't have anything to do with the con the consequence. Yes, but but the code says that other than find if it's upheld well then the order of the council upholding it shall include uh order whether or not it's upheld. I don't think that we should be influenced by what the punishment might be when we decide whether or not it should be upheld. Okay. I absolutely agree. Then we have to do the next step. But okay, I'm okay with that. Okay. Well, then why don't we go ahead uh and go back to those instructions. Number one, uh has the city proved that the animal has bit has bitten a person or domesticated animal more than once causing injury?

I believe that. Yes. Yes. Okay. Yeah, I believe so. Even if you discount the first one that she that was outside the new code that she um says was a scratch. If you discount that one, if you even if you discount Rivers, which was apparently very insignificant. There are still three that are insificant. Roll call vote on that then. Okay. Name then yes or no. Okay. Aren't we just we just Staples? I mean, yeah, but this is the final. All right, go ahead. Kaylin, would you call roll on that? Council member Baker, yes. Brown, yes. Yes.

Livingston, yes. Vinei, yes. In next instruction, uh, has the council determined that this animal has a history of attacking, chasing, or approaching a person, a domestic animal, or a wheeled conveyance in an apparent attitude of attack on a street, sidewalk, public property. Yes. Or or it could be B. Could be A or B, right? Yes. Either one. A or B. Yeah. Uh Kayla, would you call roll on that one? Uh council member Baker. Yes. Brown out. I'm sorry. There's Yeah, there's two yeses. Yes. So, we can have

Yes. either one. I I know, but just a general roll call. Doesn't Well, I'm looking at We're doing it on the on A first. We'll do B next. Well, let's do A first. Thank you for uh Council Member Baker. Yes. Brown. Yes. Cool. Yes. Livingston. Yes. That's okay. Miki. Yes. Uh and B. Does the animal have a known prot propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack without provocation causing injury or otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic? Member Baker. Oh, sorry. What am I answering? B. Yes. B.

Yes. Either of those apply. Yes. Baker said yes. Baker said yes. Yes. Uh Brown. Yes. Yes. Livingston. Yes. Mi yes. Overall determination. Um how many can you vote for that? The answer would be yes because already determined those two things. Yeah. So,

well, that's the council's findings. Uh, I think next thing on would just be a resolution affirming the police chief's determination as an animal as vicious under chapter 58 of North Washington Code. Okay. So, we would need a motion need to make a motion to confirm the police chief's decision to declare rusty motions. That's right. Okay. I got a motion by Baker, second by Livingston. Kaylin, would you call roll? Council member Baker, yes. Brown, yes. Cru, yes. Livingston, yes. Mini, yes. All right. Motion carries.

I think rescuing the dog is a wonderful thing to do. Good on you for doing it. I'm sorry that r that Rusty got in this position, but that's where we're at. All right. What? That's it. Okay. All right. Uh item eight, future agenda item. So, the purpose for of this is for council to give direction to staff by way of motion to have items placed on future agendas. This is not for discussion of the merits of the subject matter. Uh, anybody want to put geotech reports on on a future agenda? Yep, we would.

Yeah. Okay. So, Jason, Ed, all those in favor of that. I

Okay, so we're going to do that. Any other items? I had asked several meetings ago now since I haven't been so many um to have on an agenda item a discussion about um allowing certain volunteer organizations be able to use the rec center at a reduced cost. Um, my term's almost up. I was hoping we could discuss it. Only got one more left,

but my memory was that we said we would put it on an agenda item in the future. Mayor, we have actually taken that off. Oh. Because we would be the only city in the metro area that would do such a thing. Still appreciated discussion. discussion. Have the discussion next time.

Okay. Anything else? Hearing none. Item nine, council inquiries and staff updates. I'd like to remind everybody that this uh section of the meeting is much less formal. You may hear some back and forth banner and some general joking around. We think this can adds and build camaraderie uh and cohesiveness between staff and council. So, we'll start with Luke Nelson. I don't have anything. Mayor Jackie, nothing. Jason, nothing. Caleb, nothing. Lindsay, nothing. Jean Strael, nothing. Thank you. Carissa,

nothing. All right. Uh, Holly's not on. Jean Kellis, nothing. Jeep.

Yes. Uh, Cops with Carts, our food grazer for the food pantry is next Wednesday, December 10th from 4 to 7 at Fairway. We do have a challenge um from former councilwoman Reeba who has challenged city employees, which includes council members, um to raise a$1,000 uh towards the food pantry. And if so, she will match that $1,000. So, anybody who's willing uh any city employee willing to donate uh cash or check, we'd appreciate it because Stephanie likes to pay that thousand and she has paid it several years in a row now and I would hate for her to get off this time.

[clears throat] So it um if you uh if you're not doing anything else um next Wednesday out and um buy some food for the food insecure of our community and it would be greatly appreciated and guaranteed better weather. I hope so. And I will tell you I have given uh Craig the manager at Fairway business because that new store the Northwest wind on cops with cards is terrible last year was miserable. [laughter] like they know. Hey, high of 36. There we go. Considering Yes, Tony. Yes, sir.

Just wanted to remind everyone that Santa day is on Saturday. So, we'll be Oh, sorry. Big deal. It's a big deal. It is a big deal. So, we should be 10 a.m. We'll be headed out at 9 or I'm sorry, 8 o'clock in the morning. So, he'll be making his rounds. How many Santa Claus helpers do we have now? More than one. Three. There's three. So, yep. That's because it's usually on community chat weekend. So, I'll get to be home when Santa comes by this time with I'll expect you in your robe with your feet. No. That's right. No robe. We don't want to see that.

The robe. [laughter] Uh Carrie, it's it is a big it's a big deal. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you, mayor. Uh the only thing I have is just to um share that tomorrow we're having our annual employee appreciation lunchon. Um it is at the public safety building in the fire bays from 12 to noon. If any of you want to join us, the wellness and safety committee has worked really hard to make it a fun event. Mullets is uh going to be catering, so uh it should be a good time. What are the times? Is it 12 to noon or is it 12 to two? 12 to noon. No, it's 12 to two. Thank you. Pretty short. [laughter] Boy, that's going to eat.

That's going to be quick. It's going to be real quick. I want a recognition just a little bit. Uh we had a 22 permits in November, so we're still on track for our average uh housing year, so that's good. Um, and remind your neighbors to shovel their snow when it snows. Yeah. All right. All right, Wayne. Got you. What's up? No worries. Um, lots of comments on the subdivision standards. I I do appreciate council listening to um both sides and anywhere we can get is an improvement from where we've been. So, I do appreciate your effort on that and nothing else. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, George Kabisky. that [laughter] just a couple things. I uh let ahead went ahead and let waste management know that there'll be a change in representative introduce a new representative and uh I have a meeting Monday morning for coffee with the library group. Awesome. Moving right along. All right, good deal. George, Brian, nothing. Kim,

nothing. Uh, only thing I have is just a reminder. Uh, as I said, community chat is the second Saturday. So, it's on December 13th at 9:00 in here. Uh, appreciate anybody showing up. Yeah, because it's gets lonely sometimes. All right. All I have I would entertain a motion to adjurnn. Motion. Motion by Cool, seconded by Livingston. All those in favor say I. I. 8:04 p.m. Thank you. I think it