Remarks by Craig Berenstein
326 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 11 of 14
Wouldn't it make sense to change the language in the agreement? Because it talks about they'll pay up to $10,000. Shouldn't they be paying all of the cost?
Chief, the only thing I don't want to happen is that it becomes a $12,000 actual cost, and we're obligated for the $2,000.
So on this item and I know Stacy's here. What I'm wondering, and I had a chance to visit with Mike earlier, and Stacey, when we had the Sports Commission meeting last week, you're welcome to come up if you'd like. When we had the Sports Commission meeting last week, we had some dialogue about Explore Siouxland and what its focus is. planning and strategy would be. And I'm just wondering if maybe it makes sense to not do a two-year commitment and have you start visiting with Mike and his team to get a better sense of what Explore Siouxland needs to be as it relates to the Sports Commission and…
I think if we demonstrated anything, we showed that we can bob and weave pretty effectively. when the rules changed that quickly. And I know that Ike and Julie and I were part of the group that was working with your team to redefine and better understand the application. So we'll continue to work, Bob, and we even do the best we can, right?
I think that makes sense. And to that point, Julie, what I was gonna ask is because, or Stacy, Mike and I did have a good conversation and I think so much of what we're looking at to help fund and support Explore Siouxland ties into what Mike and Teresa are doing in our budget cycle right now as we speak. So I think to Julie's point, if we defer it for a week, give Mike and Teresa some opportunity to rethink a little bit about what I've shared with him. and then visit with you and see if we can maybe refocus and redirect how we think we're going to manage Explore Siouxland and whether it…
So I have a question on both E and F and it really as it relates to all post construction stormwater management agreements and maybe it's my maybe it's my interpretation of how I'm reading the language and the obligations, but there's dialogue that talks about if it's not properly maintained that the city will go in for a year and maintain it. What happens after 365 days?
That kind of thing, and maybe it's the come and I'm not criticizing the verbiage, but the follow up. It's it's if we're required to go in out of necessity because for that one year period, theoretically you haven't worked through the issues with the property owner and their obligations on the detention pond. So what happens on day 366?
I don't have a problem as it relates to these documents, but maybe work with Nicole and see if we can rephrase the obligations after that first 365-day period.
I want to be cautious about we assume the obligation when they've defaulted on the obligation and then do we then go in for the second year and the third year and continue to just assess it as a cost? And is there a risk that we've assessed that we're maintaining it and then it becomes simply a cost to the city? If there's an abandonment, and again, it has nothing to do with these two properties. Right, right.
But it's the same language every time we look at the post-construction maintenance agreement, and there just may be a circumstance where they don't maintain it, we go in, we maintain it, we incur the cost, and can't be made whole.
Maybe just find some time to visit with Nicole and see if we can work through that language. Thank you.
And the cost is incurred by the employee or the city?
Why are we being asked to review and approve something when we're getting a presentation at the end of the meeting? Wouldn't it have made more sense to vote on it later? Because I have the same question. I don't know why we're committing to $53,000 to shut down a signal. Just shut it off. I was going to ask if we could just pull it.
Yes. Should we defer it or can we move it to the end of the meeting to get the presentation first?
Let's just move to defer it a week then. Bob, you want to do it for the end of the meeting or a week from today?
Mayor, can we go back to O, please? Who is HSLF properties? Attorney's out of Sioux Falls.
And I understand it's a law firm with some commercial activity. Yep. I do think, candidly, I think the development agreement's a little rich in terms of the rebate on the property taxes. So I'd like to have a little more discussion on that.
I think I would like to defer it and get a little more background on the project itself.
I'd like to defer it and get a little more information.
I don't want to negotiate your development agreement in public, so I'm going to ask that it be deferred. If I don't have support, I get that. But I'd like to have some opportunity to visit with Clayton, get a little bit more understanding. I respect that. No, I just know that I think we're going to end up in the same place.
I'm voting for you as you're going to clean that up.
I vote aye on the deferral, but I understand it failed.
Aye. Bob, I don't have a problem with this staying in the consent agenda because I know this is inviting proposals, but Nicole, can you take a look at the language In the development agreement it talks about when the minimum assessment would begin and I think it's confusing because I think in some of the language it talks about it beginning no later than January 1st of 29 and then in other language it talks about it being the minimum assessment beginning when they do the work on the project.
If you could just make sure there's consistency, that would be great. Thank you.
And as we get ready to vote on the consent agenda, Mike, can you follow up on something for me? The Human Rights Commission minutes include. a summary of the director's report. Can you check with either their chair or with Karen herself? Is that a complete summary of her daily line item activities or is that a specific summary of meetings and visits with constituents?