Remarks by Tim Inskeep
150 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 1 of 6
- Play at 3:14
“That should be over that. That's what I'm thinking.”
City Council · Sep 10, 2026
- Play at 18:12
“There was this public comment. This is not going back and forth.”
City Council · Sep 10, 2026
- Play at 1:28:37
“Mr. Chairman, I interject something about a site setback. It's not just for an air conditioner.”
City Council · Sep 10, 2026
- Play at 1:32:20
“You got it. If a setback goes from 10 feet to 8 foot, 6 foot, regardless of number, I don't think it works like you've got a 10-foot setback, and then where the air conditioner goes, it's going to be a 4-foot setback, come back in, and a 10-foot setback. Once the setback is set, I'm just going to pick a number, six foot, eight foot, that whole thing is six foot, eight foot, and at that point anything can be put in within that setback.”
City Council · Sep 10, 2026
- Play at 1:33:23
“Well, the setback is 10 feet. Okay. So everything has to be within that setback is my understanding. House, air conditioning, whatever it is. If the setback is reduced to 8 foot or reduced, I think we're talking to 6 foot in this case, then that gives, we'll use 6 foot versus 8 or versus 10, that gives 4 foot along that whole property line that will be varianced, if I'm probably in the right term, that anything can go in. It could match.”
City Council · Sep 10, 2026
- Play at 1:34:12
“So now I can put a generator in, I can put in anything I want in that space and be only six foot away from the neighbor's property.”
City Council · Sep 10, 2026
- Play at 1:40:12
“Yes, I just have one thing. The way I understand whatever the six elements were that had to be followed, if this variance were to go through, then basically we have set precedents, and that can be done anywhere. So at that point, the 10-foot setbacks don't mean anything.”
City Council · Sep 10, 2026
- Play at 1:41:22
“I don't see this as being the issue is not because of the uniqueness of the land. The issue is because of the size of the home that somebody wants to put on this particular property. I understand your point. Does anybody understand what he's talking about?”
City Council · Sep 10, 2026
- Play at 1:54:46
“I think the point O'Neil was making, we don't have any information in front of us that specifies the number. We have enough information to vote on the width, the 96 feet versus the 100, but until we have something in writing or something like that that spells out exactly what somebody's asking for side setback, we really don't have enough information, in my opinion, to vote on a side setback.”
City Council · Sep 10, 2026
- Play at 1:56:55
“I just want to clarify, and just reading it right from the variance, PZ2026-0003, this is only for... The 100 foot width versus the 96 and a half, whatever that number is, has nothing to do with the site setback, just for clarification. I agree.”
City Council · Sep 10, 2026
- Play at 1:58:29
“I'm saying concurrence with our city attorney. Okay. Development order. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. I move variance VAR 2026-01, which meets the criteria for approval to be approved.”
City Council · Sep 10, 2026
- Play at 2:03:49
“Why is that onus on the council? I'm kind of with Walter. I would think that whomever the property owner is, you know, would get with their builder or whatever.”
City Council · Sep 10, 2026
- Play at 2:04:32
“Right, right. Yeah, I know we don't give instructions to the applicant, but what we just did is we just approved Variance VRA 2026-01. I guess what I envisioned is folks would go back, regroup, and then we would be seeing a – I'm just going to make up a number – VAR 2026-02.”
City Council · Sep 10, 2026
- Play at 2:05:18
“The conditions are totally different. Why wouldn't they?”
City Council · Sep 10, 2026
- Play at 2:07:03
“This should go back before the planning committee. We should not be bypassing the planning commission. You know, they listened to all the, you know, they listened to everything, they heard everything that we heard, and they should be privy to this new information to be able to give us a recommendation. That's what they're for.”
City Council · Sep 10, 2026
- Play at 2:08:11
“That doesn't mean the planning commission would be okay with this reduction. We'd like them to think about it. Again, that's what they're for. Think about stuff. Give it to their recommendation to us. We take their recommendation based on their thought process. We have our own thought process and then come up with a decision. Okay, Tim.”
City Council · Sep 10, 2026
- Play at 2:08:51
“Go ahead. I'll give you the floor. For the record, I'm a no.”
City Council · Sep 10, 2026
- Play at 2:21:13
“Do we have to approve this? There's two motions.”
City Council · Sep 10, 2026
- Play at 2:21:21
“Under 2D, I'm seeing two motions, one to approve. This says it's consistent with the comprehensive plan, and then another motion to approve the site plan.”
City Council · Sep 10, 2026
- Play at 2:36:33
“Sir, if I might ask like Valerie did, when do you guys see breaking ground?”
City Council · Sep 10, 2026
- Play at 2:52:00
“And the other difference between these budgets are Shawna added $50,000 in expense. For the roof here, so that's in the budget now. Yeah. Yeah, I mentioned that.”
City Council · Sep 10, 2026
- Play at 2:52:56
“And that's what the – yesterday was $93,000. And, again, I don't understand what's happening. It's – The addition to the capital funds, which would take care of anything like that, at the rollback rate, is $108,000 now going into that to take care of those kinds of things.”
City Council · Sep 10, 2026
- Play at 2:57:55
“My preference would be to go with the staff's recommendation, and I've been through the budget.”
City Council · Sep 10, 2026
- Play at 3:00:21
“I move Resolution RES 2026-20 be read into the record.”
City Council · Sep 10, 2026
- Play at 3:01:40
“I move Resolution RES 2026-20, setting the tentative tax billage rate at 4.4598 be approved.”
City Council · Sep 10, 2026