Remarks by Craig Berenstein
326 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 8 of 14
I just think we need to be very conscientious about how we're supporting commercial development as well as residential growth and development. You know, even when you consider one block to the west and going to the south, getting to the Heland campus and all the improvements they've made, I just think that both of these projects can be catalysts to improving the quality of that neighborhood.
That I understand, but what I'm just wondering is how are you going to materially benefit the neighborhoods to the east, west, north, and south? I think it's a great project. I'm glad to see what the Maverick, the grocery store that's already there, again, looking what Healan's already done, the great work they've done in their development. I just think it needs to try and come together and we improve the neighborhood, both residential and commercial.
Just a couple quick comments on the minutes that were submitted. The museum board recognized the call to arms project that they've got. It's a really nice project. If you haven't had a chance to be at the museum since that was initiated, it's a really nice project and I encourage people to go and observe that. Also, can we get an update on activities at the Pierce Museum and the Welcome Center? Can you just ask Steve to get us those updates? And they made mention of their strategic plan. I don't know if it makes sense to share that at this time or if they're still working on it, but can we…
Second. So is Marty here on this? Marty? Marty? On item 13, as we're accepting and approving the final plan for the main overlook, is there green space available in that location that you're contemplating within the development?
Well, your name with the weight is on it, so. Is there green space anticipated for this property?
Platt. There is. I just wondered, in looking at the Platt, I wondered if there was intended to be more park-like activity for the area, but it's just, that's fine.
Marty or Renee, as we're voting on this, no opposition to the hearing and ordinance, but curious what you anticipate for how you're going to develop the site and work with developers. And maybe more importantly, your time frame.
Well and and to that point the question I was going to raise is that within the cap and replace model. I think you noted that there were 1,100 possible sites. We're not trying to fill 1,100 sites. But at the same time, if you do a cap and replace, especially if it's reducing two regular signs for one digital, you're going to eliminate that. I think you said we've got 180 faces or something like that amongst the various companies. But if there are 1,100 other locations, I'm a little concerned that a cap and replace is going to eliminate the ability to To put locations put to put signs in other…
So help me understand a little bit. Did you say your name is Dave? David Helping. Dave, thanks. Help me better understand if we create a cap and replace, and it's either a one for one if it's digital to digital, which isn't going to happen if you want the digital signs, but it's a two static signs for one digital.
If we have 1,100 other locations, how do we manage, to Julie's question, which is a very fair question, how do we manage to demonstrate growth, create commercial opportunity for businesses in our community, whether it's your company or the other six, but eliminate the blight concern? It clearly isn't a cap and replace.
So 10% of that number would be viable locations that companies like yours would be interested in.
would it be fair in your perspective, and I understand you've got a subjective perspective, but would it be fair in your evaluation for you and the other six sign companies to believe that if those 110 other locations were available, they would not create blight, they would not create the proliferation of commercial signs that we're trying to avoid? Right.
So last week I had commented and the city attorney looked at me like, She kind of questioned, but I had raised the question, not a suggestion, but I had questioned whether we can create in our sign ordinance that if a sign company comes in, builds a new sign, there's a two-year, three-year, five-year period where they cannot sell that board. They cannot sell that to a second party. And I know that Nicole was... You know, I don't know if that's constitutional and maybe it's not. I don't know. I was not a constitutional law lawyer. I can't comment on that. But there are restrictions in real…
Well, and to that point, whether we can mandate a hold period or not, I don't know. But to your comment about if we did have a hold period, your competitors would come in, they'd build a sign, they couldn't sell it for a while, it would go into disrepair. Part of what Rick is saying is we would have a process of inspection and oversight so that that can't happen. And Marty and his team, Darrell Bullock, do a great job of monitoring properties and we simply wouldn't allow that to happen. And again, I agree with Rick. I just think whether it's a revenue source or... an opportunity to continue…
But last week when we were visiting about the process and trying to create some defined rules, it was to eliminate the need to go to the Board of Adjustment or to go to Planning and Zoning to get any kind of a variance or a conditional use. It was to create clarity and define the process and not get it to Board of Adjustment, which we do not oversee, or to Planning and Zoning, which we do oversee. That was the discussion last week.
No, because what they're doing, no, they're buying a certain location for the value of that sign, doing nothing with that sign because it's got to come down, so they're incurring the purchase price, they're incurring the demolition cost or the takedown cost, and then building a new sign elsewhere.
We're voting to delete this item, correct? Correct. Yes. What are we doing? Item 18, delete or don't delete.
Yeah, second. You're good. We just needed to move it and second it.
There's an increment, and it's based upon two calculations of a benchmark of the hotel motel tax, and then another benchmark of the hotel motel tax. And the 391 is simply what it calculates to now. Yes.
I'm not proposing a one or two year. What I wanted to do, the request I had was that because of dialogue that we've had at the sports commission meeting was when we were visiting about what Explore Siouxland should look like, could look like, would look like. Was there a broadened scope of responsibility? And we've talked, especially as it relates to the sports commission and what Explore Siouxland does, is rather than having the dialogue about year two, let's figure out now what Explore Siouxland looks like, which is why I asked Stacey to spend some time last week with Mike, have some…
My goal was to have the dialogue about planning, about strategic planning, about vision. And within that, let's defer discussion on funding that second year because let's get a better idea of what Explore Siouxland could look like. That was my dialogue. Whether that's right or not, I don't know.
So, Stacey, I'd like to go back a little bit. You opened your comments by saying that you met with Mike but were, this is my word, not necessarily yours, that you were confused why you were there and still weren't clear. Mike and I talked the day before you met. I offered to attend the meeting, and I said to Mike, if you need me there to help provide some clarity about the thought process, and Mike said he didn't have any questions. So I'm confused where the confusion is.
Chad, before you comment, because I would like you to share your thoughts, because I know they'll be helpful. But Stacey, what you just spent the last couple of minutes describing, including your frustration, is exactly why I was raising my point last week. And that was, let's get some clarity on what Explore Siouxland thinks it can be. How is it gonna be most effective? How is it gonna work with OVG? How is it gonna help manage our facilities? How is it gonna attract activities? How is it gonna work with the sports commission? That's why I wanted to have the dialogue. This is much less about…
And we were involved in that application. We know what that process looked like. My goal in the dialogue from last week, and it continues today, is not about the money. It is about what should Explore Siouxland look like? How can it be effective? You're making videos that are gonna be put on television. That's wonderful. You've got Denise, who's an incredibly capable marketing person. We wanna give her the latitude to be able to perform, but how is that gonna best be done? That's my goal in this whole dialogue.
This may be a question maybe Ike wants to address it, or Stacey, you're welcome. What is your total budget, and what are your revenue sources?