City Council - Regular Meeting

I told her I had to chime in. Bernstein. I'm here. Bertrand. Here. Rayford. Here. Shaner. Scott. Here. Could we stand for a moment of silence, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, please? Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Brett. Brett. Prince. Come on up. We have a proclamation that reads. Whereas Arbor Day holiday was first observed in 1872 with the planning of more than a million trees in Nebraska and Arbor Day is now observed throughout the nation and the world. Whereas trees reduce the erosion of our precious topsoil by wind and water, cut heating and cooling costs, moderate temperatures clean the air, produce oxygen and provide habitat for wildlife. Whereas trees are a renewable resource, giving us paper, wood for our homes, fuel for our fires and countless other wood products. And whereas trees in our city increase property values, enhance the economic vitality of the business areas, and beautify our community with a source of joy and spiritual renewal. Now therefore, I, Robert Scott, mayor of the City of Sioux City, Iowa, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby proclaim April 24th, 2026 as Arbor Days in Sioux City, Iowa, and urge all our citizens to plant trees for the well-being of this and future generations. Present this to you and say a few words if you'd like. Yeah. No, I just wanted to say thank you for your continued support

of our current, you know, present and future tree planting. So thanks again. Thank you, thank you, thank you. We'll go to interviews for Active Transportation Advisory Committee. Karen. Karen Erickson, please come forward. Hi, Karen. Hi. Hi. Good evening. Hello. Questions? The only question I have is because Karen is on another board or commission generally requires that we waive the rules. Can we invert the default and be that it's acceptable, but that if you apply for a second board, then it becomes a condition if there are multiple people, because I would rather have those that want to continue to serve, be able to serve, whether we waive and not be required to waive it, or is that required by law? I believe it's in the ordinance, but I would have to double. Can you double check? And obviously we'll waive that limitation for today. But when we vote. But I just it seems to me that for those that are interested in serving on multiple boards and commissions, unless there unless there's a long list and that becomes a factor, I would prefer that we not have to waive the rule. And they're just allowed to apply for multiple boards. Today is just the interview. I know that, but I'm just saying when we vote, rather than having to waive the rules, if that's possible, I'd like to know that. Can you tell us why you're looking forward to serving again? Yeah, yeah. I've had a I think it's been a good partnership. You know, having someone from Simcoe on, on the board and kind of relating the, the bike and PED planning that we do at Simcoe. And I think it's a great committee, you know, looking

out for the the safety of, of the, the streets and making the city safer for, for pedestrians. Yeah, exactly. So great. Thank you for your support on that. Thank you. Thank you Chris. We'll go to the consent agenda. Items three through 16 H constitute a consent agenda. Items passed unanimously unless a separate roll call vote is requested by a council member. Anyone wishing to speak on agenda item may come to the podium at the time the item is being discussed. Anyone wishing to speak on an item, not on the agenda may do so at the end of the regular meeting. During citizen concerns, all speakers shall state their name for the record and then provide their statements. I'll move the consent agenda. Second. Three is the reading of the April 16th and 20th City Council meetings. I'm going to abstain. I know I wasn't at one of those, at least I wasn't at one of them. Oh yes, I was was a resolution scheduling a hearing on the amendment of the annual budget. Five is a resolution approving electronic bidding procedures and official statement. Six is a resolution authorizing negotiations with a, b, m industry groups to formulate a contract for parking management services for the city parking facilities. When you took bids or requests for proposals, whatever you want to call it, did did you ask any sort of how much your fee would be, or do we just pick this and then we get to hope they treat us? No, the Tiffany can speak to it, but that was one of the factors in the scoring was cost. Okay. And we did two. Tiffany Clayburn parking and Skywalk division manager. But yes, that was part of the scoring was the cost. And the the two that we interviewed were the two lowest

and ABM and Dennison. And the difference was that Dennison was actually going to eliminate a position. So that's why they came in lower. Otherwise they would have been the same number. Yeah. Yeah. And answers that. Thank you. So how do you take into account with ABM as the current manager? Do you take into account current performance any concerns or complaints and otherwise? Absolutely. Yeah. We've been we've been extremely happy with them, especially the last. I've only been in this position for about four years. But since we've got the new manager, it's about two and a half years and I haven't gotten, knock on wood, very many complaints. I mean, they can clean one thing one second and then it's going to be. But overall, we've been extremely happy, you know, once in a while under the other manager, I can remember getting an email or something once in a while, and I think I would tell you about it. And then you pull the camera, you know, and check it out. And there haven't been any I've not received one about any kind of customer service issue or any gait problems or anything like that at all. That's good to hear. Yeah, they've been doing a really good job. Yeah, it makes a difference when you have the right leadership. Thank you. Seven is a resolution temporarily closing a portion of Cook Street on May 23rd for the Siouxland Asian Fest. Can I say something about this quickly? You suggested this, mayor, when Peggy Lau first started the Asian Fest, and it was very tight fit. We went over there, I think, and I met there and it was very, very, very crowded. And you said to her, you need to just close the whole street down next time. And she did, and it grew. She's just like, I didn't know I could. And that suggestion really helped us grow. I just, I just want to let you know that I go to it and it is really fun. Nice to hear. Once in a while I have an idea that,

you know, look at that. As a resolution adopting plans. If you Bob, if you want rather than council concerns, we can just do a. Where is the mayor performed? Well. Yeah. Well, we get out a lot sooner. That's a resolution. Adopting plans inspects for the undersized water main replacement. Project nine is a resolution approving a settlement statement with BASF Corporation in connection with the PFAS class action litigation. Nicole, can I ask you a question on number nine? I've got one too, that just this is the ongoing litigation with the whole PFAs, lots of lawsuits, lots of other parties involved. So this is one small kind of portion of it, right? Yes. One of the defendants in the case is a settlement. Yes, yes. But there's more to be settled in the class action. And all of that is still going. The settlement payments and distributions are phased over a period of time. So we'll see them keep coming in for the next. So this isn't one and done. We're taking this and going to the. I think this is probably the fifth one that we've seen come through. I think there'll be a lot. Okay. Thank you. Nicole. Just quickly, the court ordered common benefit assessment. What is that? What are those funds used for? On the common benefit assessment? Yeah. Our boat show the court ordered common benefit assessment. I get the Kasich Summit pass and Taylor and the Baron and Budd. Those are the contingency fee to the attorneys firms. Correct. But the common benefit assessment of 70 just short of $7,200, what's that used for? I think it's just assigned to each of the class members. I haven't seen a more specific breakdown other than what's been been provided by Baron and Budd through the. Okay. Thanks. Yes.

Tanner actions relating to grants a is a resolution approving a closeout agreement with the United States Environmental Protection Agency. B is a resolution authorizing the Historic Preservation Commission to submit a Historic Resource Development Program grant to the State Historical Society for the digitization. Digitization of the historical records, 11 are actions relating to civil penalties and suspensions. Is resolution scheduling a hearing on a proposed $1,500 civil penalty, or 30 day suspension of the cigarette license of Chasing Clouds Vape Collective for the violation of the cigarette laws. Can I ask a question? I don't know whether chief or whether somebody else wants to address us. I have a question more on the education of the community, whether it's alcohol sales, tobacco sales or otherwise. Clearly, this is a former it's a normal procedure where you send your you coordinate to get an informant to go in, not. I get that this is a fairly common occurrence, but I'm wondering if we should maybe be engaging in a more aggressive marketing campaign so that the license holders understand that this will occur, and maybe you already do. So maybe maybe the idea of your goal is not to catch people selling alcohol or tobacco to minors, but to make sure that they're not Rex Mueller Police Department. And that that does happen on some occasions. Usually these the state money that's given to us is for those compliance checks. Specifically, if you see, though, the state will and you've probably seen them on billboards, will do some proactive stuff. They will pay local media, but they don't usually go through us to do that. We have had government grants in the past related to fentanyl, things like that,

where we contract, and that's been through Haida for local billboards. But the state primarily focuses their interaction with us on the enforcement piece, and we do that for them because they don't have enough staffing to do the compliance checks. So distributors often offer that on their websites for their customers to have their staff log in and run through some education pieces. Yeah. And I would imagine the schools probably have that piece too, but that's not something that they have expected of us. And if they offered that, if they offered, hey, would you, you know, here's some funds to do an advertising campaign in your area. Certainly we'd be engaged with them on that. But for now, our role is the compliance piece. And do the fines that are paid, or do they go into a fund to help support your employee compliment as you're working with the confidential informants to go into these facilities? Or do those go into a general fund or do they go to the state? It's basically overtime funds, and it's specifically directed at doing the compliance check. We report out to them. They give us a list, you know, basically a random list of locations to be checked. We do the compliance checks, as you mentioned, we get, you know, usually underage persons with, with the permission of their parents who work and do those compliance checks for us. And then that's what's utilized as a basis for any violations that are found. Thanks, chief. Yes. And if I can just clarify, there's a criminal piece of this which goes through the states collected through the court. And then there's a portion that the city gets and the civil fine. Also, I pledge does offer training to all of the license holders, and they can actually assert that if the employee has gone through the training, they can present that to us and avoid the penalty through the city's. Finding, through the

resolution. So that's an after the fact. Yes. You've been trained through that. You can pull that card once and not have the fine. Be is a resolution authorizing a civil penalty of 500 against beer on Floyd for violation of the beer, wine and liquor laws. C as a resolution assessing a civil penalty of $500 against Aldi for violation of the beer and liquor laws. D is resolution assessing a civil penalty of 500 for Walmart for violation of the beer, wine and liquor laws. E is resolution assessing a civil penalty of 500 against bar for violation of the beer, wine and liquor laws. 12 are actions relating to agreements and contracts. A is a resolution approving a post-construction Stormwater Management plan, maintenance agreement and easement with K and M holdings for a detention basin and accepting a permanent easement of 5800 Sunnybrook Drive B is a resolution authorizing a railroad crossing closure agreement with sure holdings and property contract buyers Jose, Jesus and Maria and Angulo at 4500 West 19th Street and 505 Bruner Avenue for the Bruner Avenue crossing. Nicole, can you just double check on. I noticed that a secretary signed that agreement as well. If they've got. There's a resolution that the secretary is authorized, that's fine, but can you just double check on that? Yes. She is. Resolution authorizing a highway rail grade crossing closure agreement with BNSF Railway Railway Company for the Bruner Avenue crossing. Diaz resolution authorizing an agreement with IdOt for the section 134 for 130 program. Railroad crossing closure incentive project request for

Bruner Avenue crossing 13 are actions relating to personnel. A is a resolution amending the position Classification Manual by approving an updated job description for the position of Police Chief B as a resolution suspending the requirements of section 400 dash 111 A of the Iowa Code for hiring of Personnel within the Fire Department's EMS division for a period of one year. Can either Janelle or. Yeah, chief can. Three months ago, we had some fairly contentious discussions amongst the union representatives for this position. And as we were trying to make the accommodations, are you confident that what we're doing today and reclassifying and moving forward is not going to create any issues amongst the unions? Ryan Collins, fire Chief yeah, we've met with AFSCME and we did have the application period open. So if you recall, last time we met, Council approved splitting the lead medic and the EMS training officer classifications into their own separate distinct classifications. We raised the wages of that EMS training officer to make it more comparable with what a lead medic would be making. We did open up that application period up to all internal personnel and received no applications. So we've met with AFSCME, and they believe that the next step is to open that up to external candidates. So my question is let me back up. So when the unions came into a little turf war, then they took it back and they said, so the private EMS company then had the right then to post it for internal promotion. Right. And this is not a private company. Well, I mean, but it's but the their side of us or ask me side of it on that, that side of it local post local groups. So they did not have anybody out of their

ranks step up and want the position. No one internal. No one. So there's no internal candidates, right. So then they turn around. Now they're saying is they want to post that position to an external. We're saying that we're saying we're saying that human resources director. Right. It's covered under civil service position when it was created was considered to be a promotional position, which is what we did when Ryan asked for. And we posted it for internal. So the flip side would be is if we don't go with what the recommendation of the city is, is to kind of go right back to where we started, which is where you were at with making this an internal position with the police or with the make another fireman. No, this what we're at, what we have before you today is waiving the requirements under Iowa Code chapter 400, which is the civil service portion of the Iowa Code. What this does is it gives the city a one year waiver from the certified eligibility list that normal that is governed by to go external. Right. Well, we don't have to stay with the eligibility list once we get the applicants. Management has interviewed and has determined that the candidates on the list are not going to work out. We can advertise again immediately without waiting. The duration of the expiration of part of part of the issue is that you're. Under current law, unless we get a waiver, you're obligated to comply with the names on that list for a 12 month period. Correct. This gives you the latitude to add names without having to be restricted. Wait for that 12 month period thinking about a bigger picture side of this you're saying is that you're opening it up to someone that is going to come in to be trained to train the trainers, correct. That's that's really where we're at now. That is where we're at. It's, it's, it's the EMS training officer's position to ensure that the rest of the department is competent. Yeah. No, no, the applicant is going to come from outside of the process to then train the trainers as it sits

right now. Yes. Are you asking this just because you didn't get any internal. Yeah. So Iowa code, Iowa code does allow us to use an entry level examination process for any position where internal candidates did not apply. And then this is just that next step is getting that waiver will give us that flexibility in the event that we don't have qualified applicants that we feel may not be a good fit for the department. So let me rewind. Let me rewind then, because I got a great memory, the I remember right there is we had two applicants in the fire department that are qualified that want this position and that it was going to be like a 38 grand upgrade. But then you found the savings, right? I'm just trying to figure out where this the same topic. Yes, we're right back where we were. Same topic. Right. So what does it take to get back to where we were with that? Because now, because you guys went to arbitration or mediation, didn't you? Did they ever come to a conclusion with the unions? The city was not involved. No, no. The unions between the two unions. Yeah. At that point, it was just the classification of the title, right. That was the turf war. It was the coverage under which union. And I don't know if that's been decided. I've asked me tells us that decision has not been rendered yet, but I don't know. That's not involving us. Sure. So this still the resolution we have before you keeps the position as an AFSCME, EMS training officer. We're not changing the union coverage at all at this point. Can we at this point, are we at a position? Are we at a point now that the council. I'm saying we aren't. I'm just asking questions. Are we at a point where we could go back and say, maybe the original thought is always the best thought of where other communities are doing is bringing on more of the fire department and bringing this into the fire position where other communities are doing. I know it's not popular, but we're not doing anything other communities aren't doing. Are we in a position to do that? We're at a position today to do that. No information has changed from the city's perspective. How do we get back

to that to make that a fireman make go back, get we want if we want to pick up the two guys that are in turn, we want those two interviews right now. They can't interview. Right. Well, they could they I mean, they didn't apply. Right. They can apply. Right. Well they got to leave their current. Correct. Yeah. Take a pay cut. No, because that's the correction that we made reclassifying their. I mean there's not going to be, you know, parity across the board simply because the number of hours worked and the duties are different. Right. The duties are different between a fire lieutenant and the EMS training officer. Right. And it excludes overtime, which is the salary difference is what I was trying to play this thing in my mind. Applicant. We're going to end up back opening this up then to a non internal candidate. Better to exhaust all your other. Is that what you would do Bob. You got to exhaust all your other deals or you're going to get an unfair labor practice slapped on you. And what's your suggestion how to get let's ask the chief. How do we get back to where we were to you? So and I agree with the mayor exhaust all options to to to keep this as you know, as that ask me position. Now, if we open up the external applicants and we don't get any qualified applicants, then I think we can revisit the conversation. But this is another step that we need to exhaust before we can have that conversation. Just so I'm clear, you're recommending this action. Yes. Okay. I'll shut up. Because as to the mayor's point, if there was an unfair labor practice complaint, that's what we're worried about. That could hold up the position, filling that position even longer. That's what we're worried about. And that's what's that's what we're worried about is the complaint. You're worried. I think we're worried about getting more effective list of qualified candidates. What I'm worried about is getting this position filled as quickly as possible, because it has been vacant since October. And the legislation that was was adopted in 2024 was likely to address this particular situation. Correct. And so this is yeah. And it's I mean,

there's other departments that have had this waiver as well. Police department, wastewater underground. So it's not something new to the city. All I'm saying is are we are we, are we boxing ourselves out? Or we can be in a position to go back to putting them back under the fire department? Are we are we boxing yourself? Okay, that's all I'm asking this and see what we get for applicants. If we don't get any, then we'll have. And you're part of that process? Yes. Okay. So if there's nothing there, you're going to be able to come back and say, that's a dry pool. And we want to go back to a fireman that we can have that conversation. Okay. That's all. Would it be the position? Would it be the position? Or would it be actually going back under 400 and, and looking? Because I mean, obviously with civil service, we're trying to you know, I don't want to say we're trying to get away from it, obviously, but you guys and and just just to clarify, the civil service examination process does not change. Okay. What what does change with this particular situation? And it's, it's somewhat unique is we have to use an entry level examination process. So it would be no different than a brand new paramedic that applies for the for the city. They'll have to go through a physical agility test. They'll do an oral examination, but rather than having the list certified, they will move to an interviews conditional offer, psychological assessment, medical exams, drug and alcohol. So the process is still the same. The only difference is that certification and we don't have to wait for the eligibility list to expire a year from when it's certified. You guys know my experience with that. I know we'll wait and see and be patient. Thank you. Purchasing resolution. Awarding a purchase order to those for search and rescue camera system B as a resolution. Awarding a purchase order to Garrett Holdings for two

portable pro basketball hoop systems are the current systems sellable? Yes. Sorry. Chad Smith, General Manager, Tyson Event Center Yes, we we would be able to sell the current system. We have the difference between the new system and the current system, as we've talked about, is this has the power assisted setup. It also has a ten foot boom on it where our current system is only an eight foot boom, so it gets a larger buffer area underneath the court or underneath the hoop. And like I said before, we've got larger, faster, stronger and and more agile athletes now. So any safety measures we can add to their ability to play or coming off the court is only going to enhance the product that they put on the court. Thanks. We have to sell them. Is a resolution awarding a purchase order, Johnson Motors for one Ram 3500 tradesman. Can you show me abstaining on 14 C please? He is a resolution awarding a purchase order Lieber construction for the purchase and hauling of Virgin Rock gravel. He is a resolution awarding a purchase order to Barkley Asphalt as a primary vendor for Hot Mix asphalt F is a resolution awarding a purchase order to knife River Midwest as a secondary vendor for Hot Mix Asphalt 15 applications for liquor license alcohol licenses. I'm sorry. 16 is a board and commission and committee minutes. Anyone to be heard on any of those items? Mister mayor, can I, can I bring that up on 14 D. Thanks, brother. That's the little trucks. That's that's the bid on the rock coming down. Patrick Simmons, field services manager. Could you repeat the question? Sorry, is that the. That's the rock. The rock

coming down from the city. This is the contract for that, correct. How do you feel about it? I think it's a good, good decision going to work. Are you going to put it on site or are you going to order it as you need it? Or are you going to put it on site? We're going to put it out for the full 5000 ton, and then we'll just bring it on as needed, as needed. Correct. That way, you still have the flexibility to go to the site like you were doing before or whatever. Correct. Okay. And that was part of Lieber. She agreed to do that. Correct. Oh, cool. So during during the budget cycle, Rick asked about hauling versus the commodity itself. Were you asking about salt and sand at that time? Because I was wondering why this contract was bid for both the commodity and the hauling. That was basically just as a street gravel right now. We were going up and we were hogging gravel out of a pit with our own vehicles on downtime. And just from an exposure and a cost and everything. So they went out and got bids for just the haul, and then the haul plus the aggregate. Right? Correct. A lot of times you do haul in the aggregate, you get better number. And when you do it dollar for dollar, taking that manpower off of the road and the liability and everything. I just think this is in the wear and tear on the equipment. It's a great play. And if they still deliver the site when you need it versus having to stack it, you know, it's great. Good job. Great. Thank you. Taxpayers are happy. As is five zero recommendations and planning. Zoning board of adjustment 17th motion. Acknowledging the Board of Adjustment actions of April

14th. I'll move that second. Where's Mr. Gordon. There he is. Hi. Clarence Gordon 2310 South Clinton Street. I was here back on February 2nd. I started the whole process of a vacation and to put up car parts, apparently the wrong way. And this is the same thing you folks had pictures had seen back then. Since then, I've gone through planning and zoning and they turned me down for vacation, stating they didn't want a dead end. An alley which it's already dead ended on paper. It's a through alley, but it never has gone through. So that being said, they said, will a variance fix what you want to do? And at that time I said yes, it probably will. And between the filing of that and now I have found out I'm going to have to move it over farther. I'm technically going to be in the alleyway. So I was supposed to, I guess, be here on the 23rd of March and nobody told me to be here. So I was not here to basically stick up for myself when the vacation was brought in front of you guys, and it got turned out. So that's what I'm here today for. The variance probably is not going to work. I'm going to need a vacation of that alley. It's it has never gone through the said that they did not want to dead in an alley which clearly on the picture number one is a dead end alley. There's a sign there. I didn't put the sign there. The city did at some point in time. And also they were concerned about my neighbors access. And I said, I will give a permanent

easement to anybody to use that alleyway even after I purchase it. My neighbor came with me to the planning and zoning meeting, and today she doesn't have a problem with it. None of my other neighbors have any problem with what I'm trying to do back there, so I'm just trying to get vacated so I can just put up a carport back there to protect my vehicles. So it's the dead end on page number one. Yes. Clear up behind that. Clear my property. You can't even see. It's clear up to the end of that alleyway back there past the snow. Pardon me? Past the snow on the alley? Yes, way back. Way back in those trees. You can't even see where my property is. And if you go to page two and three, just shows what the alley looks like or what it's supposed to be from the other direction. Yes, from the north. So on page four, that's my actual parking back. All the junk that's in the way. There's there's fences, there's garages in that alleyway. It has never, ever been used. It was plotted in 1889 as an alley, but it has never been opened. My one neighbor that has passed away now, when he went in the service in 1942, he said that alley was not open back then. So it's never been used. What do you what was the reason that they gave you that they didn't want to do it for emergency services, to be able to have a second way in or what was it? There's a telephone line runs up through there, no other utilities whatsoever. I have and one neighbor that lives way up there where the telephone pole is at. And picture number four, they have to go through her yard to get there because you cannot get up this alley. Is that the reason that PNC gave you for turning it down? No. The reason they gave me was right here. The official reason, the official reason was that they, the pros vacation will dead end the alley, and they do

not want a dead end an alley. As far as I'm concerned, it's already dead ended. And they were concerned about my neighbor accessing her property from the alley way. And as I said, I will give a permanent easement to everybody. I don't it doesn't bother me. But so did the notices go out on the original variance or vacated? Yes. So this was taken to planning and zoning go back. And we did notice by the whole block there's 26 houses that back up to that alley. And so to vacate that we would have to sell the whole thing. He just wants his portion to be vacated. Yes. And he would ultimately, I mean, if we vacated the alley, he could potentially lose access to his backyard because you would have to make it available to other yes, to the other neighbors. We'd have to offer half of it to each and everybody, right from adjacent to their property. My property is not what I'm talking about. Vacating from my property on is where it is already dead ended. I mean, the city or somebody put a dead end sign at the beginning of this alley. It's never been used. I mean, I don't think I'm out of line asking for what I want to do. Is the alley that you use, sir? Is it go? It extends beyond your property. No. So that's the question. The vacated portion that you're asking for is just behind your property. So if you were to put the alley out, it would basically go to the other 25 people. They get the option to buy half of a half or the third, you know. Right? Correct. Have we ever done that before? The city just say, here is your opportunity, everybody all at once. Yeah, a normal process. Why can't we do that? Well, and we could it that it's 26 people potentially buy this. Their portion their portion just their portion. I mean you could theoretically break it down to 13. But that's

that would be a challenge. I mean you'd have to get everybody to purchase. We don't want to create islands. Why can't we just vacate his section? He doesn't tap into somebody else's. Why can't we just vacate his section then? What's the reasoning? There is utilities in that. I think there's a cable or phone line that runs. And the. There was a neighbor that was at the meeting that she was and addressed that there has been trees that have fallen, that have taken out that line, and she did not have service. Yeah, that's we had someone opposing it. Yes. But she opposed it. You can have an easement. That's right. For that. Yeah. We could. It happens all the time. Yes. Yeah. So what do we got to do today to get this thing vacated today. Well, you previously denied his vacation. 23rd, but I was not told to come here. My neighbor was with me at the planning zoning meeting. Nobody told me to come on the 23rd. Otherwise I would have been in here to stick up for myself on the vacation of it. Mayor Scott, I just watched it today. The video Mayor Scott stuck up for me. Thank you. I don't like I said, I don't think I'm out of line requesting that to be vacated. I'm not asking for it for free. We already came up with the cost. It's $990, two bits of foot. And I'm sure once I do purchase that you will raise my taxes, which is fine. I, I just want to put up a carport, protect my cars. That's all there is. That's simple. I think we can't reverse what these decisions. Right. But we can reverse P and Z. You can't reverse the board of adjustment. Board of adjustment. Okay. The item for the council's consideration is just regarding the variance, which would be an ordinance of the council. What he is requesting would have to go back to planning and zoning, be scheduled for hearing and brought back to. And I don't know, I'm not for sure on this, but I think I know for board of adjustment there is like a year

wait, year, wait, at least for variances. It is a year conditional use permit. You have to wait a year to the state. Or is that local, state and local rules and it can't be waived? That's what I was going to ask. You can remand the board of Adjustment item back to because reconsideration is to acknowledge this Board of Adjustment actions from April 14th. If we pull it out and don't vote to acknowledge their actions with direction to revisit this issue, we can do that, can't we? Usually, I guess, what Planning and Zoning Board of Adjustment has requested in the past is that the Council directs Board of Adjustment to take another look, but they're looking at the variance issue, which did pass. That's what I'm wondering is as I look through the. Mr. Gordon forwarded your variance. The variance was well, it was going to the variance. When I came in. They turned me down for the vacation. They go, well, if we give you a variance well that you know, satisfy you. And I go, yeah, I just want to put up a carport. Well, since then I've found I have to cut out the concrete, put it in a footing, and the concrete man says we have to move over away from your existing retaining wall to put in the footing, which is fine, but that pushes me out to where I'm actually going to be in the alleyway. I'm assuming probably a foot. There's no survey, so I don't know exactly how far out into that alley. And when you look at picture number one, the alley goes like that. So it should be straight. But over the years people have put in fences and I mean, farther up from my property, there's a garage in the middle there, there's a fence, there's all kinds of things because it was unusable. So people just did things. Now, I could have just put up a carport without getting permission, and I probably would have got away with it. But I'm just trying to do it the right way. And it seems pretty hard to do things the right way. So. But did they approve it enough so he can do what he wants? They did give me a variance, which I thank them for that. But now that I had

submitted those plans, it's not going to work. Now that I find out that I have to put in footings, I have to move over farther. Is there a possibility you could make the carport any smaller, or is it already a small. No? Well, unfortunately I bought it last year when it was on sale so I could get a good deal. So there's no shortening it up. So. Really? Yeah. Well, can you have somebody shorten it? Maybe next time. It's a it's a manufacturer. It's actually like a garage. It's it's heavier than a carport. It's not like one of those cheap things you see at Walmart or at Menards or something. It's like a garage kit because I wanted something really heavy duty that would last and that was above code that would also, I didn't have any problems. This would all go away. What do you want to do? A carpenter come in. Can I ask just a clarifying question, maybe I'm not understanding. Is the the footage of the variance too small? Did you need a larger variance? Yes. The variance I applied for, I wanted to be within six inches of the alleyway, which I figured was going to be good enough. But then after they granted that and I went to building permit, they said, well, you could have, you know, put in footings and everything. So the concrete that's there has to be cut. And my concrete guy says, we have to move away from your retaining wall and the footing that's there, move out a little way. So that pushes everything over into the alleyway. A new variance is a whole different conversation though. Yeah. And I mean, I guess I'm good with a new variants, but I'm still going to technically park in the alleyway because that's my only off street parking because I have a fire hydrant in front of my house. So I'm still going to be parking. If you look at picture number four off to the left hand side, I'm still going to be parking there because that's where I park. So I mean, I technically could get a ticket, but can't you park in your carport when you get that bill? I, I have too many vehicles. Sorry, I, I actually have a one car garage. You gotta meet us halfway here. I have a one car garage there and

I have a carport. I have five vehicles. So I have a I have a couple muscle cars, sir. Well, I have too many cars. Okay, so maybe you need to rent a garage someplace. Well, I do, I have another I have another building in another town. Okay, so that's good, but I would rather. Why don't you apply for another variance then for more space, I guess I can, I mean, if they will allow me to go out into the alley, I don't know. Can you expand the existing or not? I'm not exactly clear what he applied for. If that's something that Wade can help clarify. He applied for a variance to reduce the setback into the alley for his carport. It went down to six inches from the property line, and that's been approved. That was approved. That's what we did. But unfortunately, now I find out I'm going to be farther out and right in that alleyway that's still there. Like I say, I parked there. My vehicle is parked there. Right now, I'm technically parking on city property in an alley, and I could possibly get a ticket. Nobody's ever been back there. But I remember when I told you to ask for forgiveness later. Maybe next time you'll listen. You know, I'm not going to say who in the city told me. I point blank asked him. I said if I would have put this up and you didn't catch me, what would happen? They said down the road nothing would happen to you. So as I say, I could have put this up, got away with it because you can't even see that back there unless you're drive back there and nobody drives back there. So I just, I decided to try to do things the right way, and it's not working out for me. And you didn't do that. And we appreciate that. So, so really what you're asking is to expand the variance from six inches, another 12in. I would, but I prefer have it vacated because I'm actually going to be parking there. Sorry, but to clarify, the variance can only it's a setback from the alley right into his property, how close he can build to the line.

I think he has to have a he has to have a vacation. Right. I don't know where Patrick that's in charge of this is ever going to open that alley up. Patrick, you don't have enough equipment to do that. I don't understand why the city thinks that you can't do this. It bothers me because we're going to be here the same way that alley is going to. Only the only thing that's going to change in ten years is the trees are going to get bigger. Yeah, that's the only thing because we don't do one darn thing. Patrick, you haven't been down there forever. So that's. And so I don't get why the planning and zoning has a problem with this, because we vacate alleys all over town when we're never going to use them in the future. Well, I just it just doesn't make sense to me. That's kind of what I thought, mayor. All right. And the alleyway between the street where my property is at, there's a lady that's a nurse that she uses that I maintain it. I put rock in there. A sinkhole opened there a year ago. You guys came out and said, we're not going to do anything with it. So I fixed it. That's fine. So because like my driveway. So so because we did the variance instead of the vacation can the winning side. Asked to reconsider on the vacation or is that gone? The vacation is it was withdrawn, I believe, or gone. But you can't. The winning side can't wait a year now. But but not yeah. But that's that's if you want to bring it. But if you want, can you, can you bring it back on a reconsideration on the winning side? So I'm not sure. I guess just to be sure I understand what you're asking. You see where I'm going? Yeah. I'm not sure that there is an actual wait on a vacation presenting it. I know on certain things there are, and Stephen's probably researching this right now in the audience. Certain things have to wait a year. I think he could probably reapply for that. But you're asking I'm not sure what the vote was on the actual vacation. We'd have to go back and look that up. But I understand what you're

saying, but okay, remember, no vote. It was four to oh, it was 1 to 4 mayor. Yeah. So one of the four that were voted there was one or the other. They went for the variance. So they're making it sound like that. We hammered him on the vacation. We didn't. We we were they said that the variance was going to be accepted. That's why we went that way. Yeah. So let's just let's make sure we're not trying to rewrite history a little bit here. So but we can if we can go back in here and we can re, you know, you know, take another peek at that. I think we need to understand the procedural rules, find the procedure. And Councilman Burton is correct. The prevailing that was that it's on the recording prevailing side was the no vote can ask for a reconsideration to bring it back. Yes that's accurate. All right. So so then the question becomes what to do with the variance that's now in front of the council. It's if you would like to take a vote on the first reading, you could do that today and then we could make a determination on them. Yeah. It would just be the acknowledgment of the variance. All right. Let's do because really we're we're being asked to review all of the actions of the Board of Adjustment, not just this particular action. So we need to pull this one out in particular, right? No, no. Or it's just acknowledged because it's only an acknowledgment. The council can't really reverse anything from the Board of Adjustment. You could just vote to acknowledge it. And then we could revisit the vacation. That motion can be made if it's possible the council could vote on it. What could happen is you could ask for reconsideration. That would put it back on the next agenda, and the council could take a look at it. And then, unless there's something that I'm missing procedurally, I believe that is a possibility. Okay, we'll get there. Well, I'm totally confused now. That's okay. We'll guide you. The intent, I think, right now is to go through the balance of this vote and then revisit the issue with you to try and see if we can accomplish. And I'm sorry I wasn't here on the 23rd,

but I was not told to be here on the 23rd. Otherwise I would have been here. Right. After every item that the PNC does say that this item was going to the council meeting in two weeks, so I did not stay till the end of the meeting. It was at the end of the hearing, was it? Well, she didn't hear it either, but sorry. Okay, let's vote on this. Nicole, remind us again, just you're just acknowledging the actions of the Board of Adjustment. It's more just a cursory review with the direction I think we thought we saved. I think we thought we we we met your needs I think. But now we get your needs it moved. So that's I want you to think that we weren't trying to work with you before. Okay. I think we thought that the variance took care. Acceptable. Yeah. We're good. We're going to get there. Okay. All right. That's all you need. Yep yep yep. Thank you. Thank you. Passes five zero. Okay. We're moving. Yeah. 18 is an ordinance vacating part of eighth Street. Originally platted as seventh Street petitioners. Rick Bertrand, PNC recommends approval. I'll move that second. So? So what happens if the neighbors want to buy this? The well we offered. Actually, I know, but what if they changed their mind? I just want to know. We have a. I'm trying to remember the name of it. We have a purchase order, essentially a purchase agreement that we have the parties sign before the hand. So they are aware of the price we. We've run into issues where we vacated alleys and so forth, and then somebody. And then ends up not buying them. They then become a taxable lot for the city, which the taxpayers

pay for. So everybody gets lined up with the purchase agreement and they can't back out, then they're not there. I don't know if it's that legally binding, but it is. So the price is at least that. So there aren't any surprises. We have a motion and a second. Yes. Passes five zero. Anybody opposed waving the statutory rule? No. I'll move that second. Bertrand a Rayford Shaner. Scott Bernstein I move second third second. Rayford I Shaner I Scott Bernstein I Bertrand I 19. A Hearing and resolution approving plans and specs, form of contract and estimated cost for the construction of the 1110 Lee Larson Park Road flood Repair project project number 7566173079. I'll move it. Second hearings now open anyone to be heard. So, Tom, can you help explain the scope of the work and what will happen when it's completed? Or. Gordon. Tom, Public works director this is more of Gordon's project, so I'll let him take the lead on this one. I just what I'd like to know, Gordon, is this I think this has always been a really good property and a good. Access to a fun environment. I'm just hoping that the work

that gets done is going to reopen this property, and it'll be able to be fully utilized. Gordon Fair, city Engineer that is our intention, is to backfill all the flooded areas or the eroded areas, get the Jolly Rogers site safe and repair the sewer and some of the electrical lines going into it. Is the building sound. Most of it. The. It's in pretty good shape. The West End, the West end is. It's undermined a little. Eroded, deteriorated, cavernous undermining in the cement panels down by the gazebo, up right next to Jolly Rogers. The sewer has been compromised. Yep. Shoreline sanitary sewer manhole there. That needs to be reset. Big deal. Sewer line into Jolly Rogers has got to be redone along with, like I said, some electrical. Good, good. Thank you both. Anyone else be heard? Public hearing is now closed. If I five zero for clarification on the item that we were just talking about on the vacation variance, if it's at a subsequent council meeting, if the vote on the vacation took place in the past, any, any member prevailing or non prevailing side can make a motion to add it to another agenda or future agenda, and it can be added for our agenda or board of adjustment or the planning and zoning. Well, if you wish to reconsider the vacation itself it would just

come to the council. So it would be by motion. By motion? Yes. A council member on either side could make a motion to have it reconsidered, and then we would place it on the next agenda. What do you think? Well, that's fine, but we'll do that at the end. So yeah. 19 hearing resolution. I'm sorry. 20 is an ordinance amending chapter 13.08 entitled Sanitary Sewer Rates. But are we supposed to give a number here or what? What's in the. I saw three different rates as presented. It's the larger rate that's on the agenda right now is how much. 2720 7.4%, which was the larger increase of the three. There are two other alternate ordinances presented, but it's the larger one that's actually noticed on the agenda. This would start the six months. No notification. Tom, is that what this would do? That's what this would do. Okay. Tom. Tom. Public works director yep. This if you guys the final reading of this will start the six month countdown and the other. Well, we need a motion, a motion. This will go ahead. Sorry, Julie. We have it already. No, I didn't think so. Motion. And and the other cities that know that it's 27.3. They know there's three scenarios. They don't know what the council's selecting. And they have been notified that this first reading is tonight. Is there anybody here to speak on this item? Okay. Can we

waive for second, third or not. I wouldn't be for it. I think that's what I'm asking. I was thinking because there's nobody here. Maybe it's best to not waive second and third. Passes 4 to 1. That's what I thought too. If they're not here, it's right out of the chute. But. 21 is an ordinance amending chapter 12.30.020 entitled Stormwater Program Maintenance fee and 12.30.030 entitled Special Rule for Certain Nonprofit Organization. The first consideration was given April 20th 26. I wasn't here. What is the I move second reading. Second. What's the. What was the special rule for certain nonprofits? Would you guys change it? It went by what the zoning was and zoning codes that it was affecting. Which nonprofits? What is that? Somebody's got to explain that to me. I'm sorry that I wasn't here. Here comes era. I had that written down. Montana Environmental Services. I believe it just gives it it can't go over a certain amount. All that part of it. It's like, I want to say it was like $30. I want to say it changed. I think it was from 15 to 60. It gave it it gives it a maximum so that it can't go over a certain amount for a nonprofit. Why is that? It's just things that you consider to be a nonprofit. I don't necessarily consider to be a nonprofit. I understand my friend sits on the board of UnityPoint would disagree, but they have a rather substantial cash flow.

And, and like I told their CFO one time, when you take that dollar sign off and put the put the cross back up, we'll talk business. But it's a, you know, I'm going to pay a 300% increase in this. What it was a 300% that we had decided. I believe that budget review. I understand that, but but there was nothing in the budget review that said we're going to somehow reduce the nonprofits to. Different than what I'm paying. I'm trying to pull it up one second. You can get it. We're not going to do third reading. Get it, get it to me. I just don't understand why we got why you guys want to treat nonprofits. I don't I think it just puts because they're in a different tax bracket. We didn't change the ruling. It was just we did the 300% off of what was already there. So we didn't really change the language of the ordinance. We're just changing the amount of the maximum and minimum to that three to match that 300%. So the ordinance was already there. We were just matching the dollar amounts. So like the actual ordinance language isn't changing just the dollar amounts. There has to be something in there that you change. A special rule for certain nonprofits. There's got to be something or wouldn't say that. Who's the certain? I can get you the language. It won't pull up on here for whatever reason. That's fine. Get up for next week and just let me know who's affected and who isn't.

Yeah, I understand that. But we've always had that. So are they getting a 300% increase. Like I'm getting at 300. They are. That's. Well then I wouldn't have voted no if that's oh you voted no. That's fine. We'll do third reading next time. That's not what she was saying. This was this was in large part done to level the increase as I had understood it. Hope so. 22 is an ordinance amending chapter 3.20 Teton Urban Renewal Tax Increment District. First consideration was approved April 20th. I'll move second reading second. You guys didn't do the. We didn't have enough people. Oh, we need a supermajority I got you yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah. Otherwise we would have. So we can do it today if you'd like. We had a full explanation of what was going. Yeah. We already read. Yeah. Last day didn't you. You couldn't move second. Third because of the four. Yeah. Yep yep yep. That's why passes five zero. Anybody opposed waving statutory rule. No. I'll move that second. Shaner I Scott I berenstein I Bertrand Rayford I citizen concerns. Are there any citizens that would like to come forward. Don't we need to still move the third reading. I'll move third reading second. Scott I Bernstein I Bertrand I Rayford I Shaner, a citizen concerns. How are you doing? My

name is Melvin Carter. Hello. I have concerns on Dinosaur Park at 5050 Nebraska Street. I have concerns that the news brought to my attention that y'all planning on closing it and putting something else there when the city never took care of the park anyway. The city never wanted that park there. Okay, the park was dedicated to the lady who used to take care of the park. She are gone now. So y'all dedicate the park to her? I remain to take care of the park, okay? The city don't take care of the park. And y'all say activity is happening in this park. It's not happening there. When have y'all went down there and look at this park? Anybody on the board when y'all went there and seen this park? You haven't. This is a park that named Dinosaur Park because that's what it is. Okay? I drive by it. I drive by it fairly regularly. I haven't gotten out in. So you pass by there. You'll have seen me out there working in it. Then you have seen me out there taking care of this park like the lady before me. And now you want to take the only thing that the community got for their children to play at over what? I believe it was the decision of the parks board that they felt like it was very underutilized, that there really wasn't anyone using it, and that perhaps it could be offered as some low income housing. A space for little home or something to be built was the intention. It wasn't to take it away from anyone that's using it. It was to offer it for another use. But it will be used by children in the neighborhood. See? Okay. I'm trying to find out. Why would y'all want to take something from the children? Well, that's

the reason why is because they thought it could be better used in an could be better used in a public house. I can put that right there with the jail. Used to be. You got plenty of room for that. They ain't big enough for a small house. You can put 3 or 4 of them right there where the jail used to be, if that's the case. Did you guys speak before the parks board? No, I just found this out. Like I said, I found this out through the news. Okay. So part of the as I understand it, and maybe the chief can speak to this or can get us some information. Part of the concern was not just utilization by the children, but whether there were certain illicit activities occurring. It was no, no, something. Yes, that was happening probably like 3 or 4 years ago before I put a stop to it. So you don't think that's been recent? No, sir. I haven't been reasoning. I made sure once I put a stop to it because y'all couldn't do it. The police couldn't do it, I did. That's helpful. Well, we can talk to the Parks and Rec director and find out if Parks and Rec director don't have nothing to do with that park either. Yes, he does, but he's the one that made the recommendation. Yeah, he made the recommendation because they don't take care of it. They did do one thing after the news. They did come down and took out the garbage that I had collected in that park. They did do that. Okay, well, again, we'll reach out to the Parks and Rec director and ask him if he could bring it back to revisit it. And I would like to know when it will be. Because see, like I said, because they meet once a month and I'm not sure what their meeting date is, but we'll have the city manager reach out to. He's taken the note right now. Before you leave, give the city manager

your phone number. Okay? Okay. Please. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else be heard under citizen concerns? Okay. Seeing none, we're going to go to specified crime property. Rex Mueller, Police Department, Council and Bertrand asked that we discuss or give a synopsis of the specified crime property ordinance. And so I went over the ordinance this week and tried to delineate it down to digestible bits so we could explain how it's utilized locally. This is part of the code. Now. It does tie in with the nuisance code, but broken down to its elements. Specified property crime property is illegal behavior that presents a danger to area residents and that could include could include drug activity, manufacturing, drug manufacturing, prostitution, assaults, alcohol violation or manufacturing, gambling, noise complaints and juvenile delinquency are specifically mentioned in the code, and the behavior needs to occur within a structure as it's defined, which occupants are but not limited to. Yes, but not limited to a structure. No, not limited to those. Just those specific crimes. That is, that is the way the ordinance is written. Yes. With behavior occurring within a structure in which occupants are. And this would be the. When in which occupants are actively involved or endorsed the illegal

activity. Now the code provides for time frames or. And you need multiple violations within a period of time. And that becomes a jumping off point. So once we determine we have a potential specified crime property that is communicated to me. And then I look at the potential violations. And then we then give a letter giving notice of the specified prime property designation to the owner occupant. Specifically for me. Now, the code mentioned specifically that I have to have reasonable belief that the violations exist. Now, the notice provided must mention the nuisance to be abated, meaning our notice to that owner slash resident has to specifically delineate what it is that they need to abate. So what nuisance, what the nuisance is composed of, and our instructions to abate that nuisance. Now the notice shall include penalties for failure to abate the nuisance. So it's basically just a standard form. And the occupant after receiving that may challenge that within a ten day window and request a hearing, with the city manager serving as the hearing officer. Now the penalties if an individual fails to abate the identified nuisance after receiving notice of specified crime property, they would be guilty of a municipal infraction and subject to civil civil penalty, and that could include repeat offenses. So if this happens over multiple times, we could look at that as a repeat offense. Structures found to be declared specified crime properties twice in a 24 month period will be subject to the nuisance abatement procedures listed in 8.72 of the city code. So that's where that nuisance ties in. So if we don't get any response, if the nuisance is not abated as chief, let's stop there. Sorry. Right there. So the building itself. So when you number five, when I was

reading this, when Nicole sent the stuff over. So what they're saying is that if you've got a location, a building, a structure where repeat offensive things are happening, is that what you mean? Can you go a little broader? Explain to us, what do you mean by that? Just what defines it? Well, the if you look at the code, those violations that would potentially compose a specified crime property, what we normally do is if we get indication that a structure has repeat violations and it's usually comes up through either neighborhood neighbors might complain, officers might advise us that are having repeat calls for service. We do a little research to ensure that we have the appropriate police reports to back up the possibility that this is a specified crime property. So we basically dip into the crime analysis well and try to determine whether or not we have founded violations that provide a reasonable belief to me in sending that letter that we have a potential specified crime property. So I'm just saying is that it's got that property's got to have multiple issues going on, multiple criminal activity going on in the property. Is that the that's the criminal act. And it doesn't have a piece of property that's getting a ton of calls. There's criminal activity. That's that's how you identify the property. Yes, that's part of it. Okay. Go ahead. Thanks. And the nuisance, if a nuisance isn't abated as directed and no request for hearing is made, the city will abate it by costs prescribed by law. Now, that might be something where the city needs to take action. And it might be maybe that's, you know, the amount it up and there's inspections concerns or something of that nature. And the city gets involved and incurs costs. And those costs could be passed on to that property owner, perhaps boarding it up ourselves to secure it or something like that. Exactly where the city incurs some costs. Obviously, we don't normally think of just police responses in that respect, but if the city does

go through some effort to address the nuisance now, what we've traditionally used these for, what are the effective uses? Now, this provides our staff with a potential tool to address locations where there's frequent calls for service, where criminal activity is proven to have occurred. So as we mentioned, the ordinance as written, if we go there repeatedly, there's repeated criminal activity. It meets the definition. We can utilize this as an additional tool. Now, one of the tools that's very useful for us is landlords with a bad tenant. If notified about a specified crime property, it kind of provides a little push, if not assistance to a landlord to get rid of that resident. If there's a problem resident at that location and we notify them of a specified crime property, it provides a little muscle and a little gentle nudge, so to speak, to that property owner that they're that the police department is actively addressing issues at that location. And it's been identified as a nuisance. And more often than not, when we deal with reasonable landlords that occurs, they address it as a landlord either don't renew or they evict. And then if the problem was that resident, then you've taken care of the problem. Ordinance does provide the possibility of penalties in the instance where maybe criminal responses haven't alleviated the issue, maybe we've responded, we've made arrests. That doesn't seem to alleviate the problem, but this provides a civil infraction that it provides maybe a monetary fee and a different approach to address an ongoing problem. Now, it's not perfect. One of the things that we found is that maybe out of town property owners, when served, are not as compelled to address the issue. Maybe they're not as connected to the property. They don't necessarily know who lives there. They don't have an active connection with on site

property management issues like that. We don't always get a favorable response. I also said state laws may conflict. To clarify, I'm going to use the specific example of after hours clubs. One of the challenges that after hours clubs provided to us is that the state didn't strictly regulate after hours clubs because it was bring your own whatever. They didn't fall under codes where we could stop for alcohol inspections and do regular inspections of a property. We literally needed to deal with those places through probable cause, establishing probable cause to execute a search warrant and get into those those locations to determine if we had larger issues. So sometimes we're dealing with issues that we have to overcome the lack of, in this case, the lack of specific laws at the state level to help address those things obviously requires the proof of specified crimes to create that reasonable belief and allow the designation as a specified crime property. Now, arrest is not a penalty of this. It's a municipal infractions. And at times, again, you have some property owners that aren't conscientious or occupants that simply don't care. And even if you advance this and they get municipal infractions, you don't get much response or much action generally. I have to think, though, that when it's, you know, rental properties, we seem to get a fairly decent response when we deploy this and go through the process of doing that, that the lesser response rate would be from the out of town or out of state property owners. That's just been my experience. This isn't perfect. It's not a magic bullet. It gives us an alternative way to dealing with something. Because clearly, if we're responding to a place repeatedly, we're doing arrests,

we're taking enforcement action. And if that didn't change the behavior to to me, this is just an alternate response and an alternate way to hit the problem in a different direction. And that's the municipal infraction piece. That's it. Nicole. So, Nicole, have we ever used this in a specific situation? Yes, recently. Most recently, I believe it was on South Lyons. We declared a property, a problem property, a specified crime property. What was the crimes? There was an individual that owned it that I believe was incarcerated, and the property was open to people that were invited there or maybe just were crashing there, causing issues for the neighbors. And there were a lot of police calls. And so it was declared a specified crime property. And I'm unsure about the calls for service, but I have not been contacted recently. Yeah. Regarding issues. So was it more or less than 298 calls? Well, there were we had to look at convictions too, right. You're looking at arrests and convictions. There were numerous ones. I couldn't tell you exactly how many we had out of there, but it was a large amount. Okay. So what was the process to build up to declaring that property is there? Was there? Is this like the first step? I'm extremely transparent where I'm going with this, with the warming shelter. And we had to have arrests that were coming out of the property and calls for actions that were actually occurring on the property itself. That's what we looked at. We ran the statistical numbers. The police department did that. We looked at arrest records and then made that determination. Okay. And I know that the chief just provided us with the data just like 20 minutes before we got here on this. I don't know if the council had a chance to review that or not, but I mean, just

from a layman's standpoint, looking at it, when I look at this and I look down the list of assault, simple assault, lost property, overdose, suicide attempt, restraint, sex, I mean, fraud, harassment, drugs, theft, I mean that I mean, when you're looking at the and this is this is a full buffet of crime. This isn't just 1 or 2 things we got. We got a smorgasbord here of events that are going on at this property. At what point can we start a process that says, in all fairness to what they're doing, their their calls have went down X percentage, which is still from a community standpoint, is not acceptable in the neighborhood. It's still having influence on the neighborhood, the neighbors, the businesses around them, the employees of businesses around them. At what point do we have the legal ease? And I'm talking legalese here because the chief says, I mean, it's very subjective on what we want to call crimes at this point, but we have hard data that shows there is criminal activity. Is that fair to say? This is criminal activity? Yeah. Criminal activity. But I think that as far as the property owner, there has to be a certain indifference to it. Are they endorsing it? Are they profiting from it? Are they, you know, are they aware of them? They're housing them. And the issue with the warming shelter specifically would be the fact that, I mean, they have taken steps. They've banned certain people that are creating these issues. They have a large ban list. What are they doing to I'm sorry, that that list sits around 70 something. It's tier one not allowed to. Yes. So as they say that it's like 12 people or something like that I dug. Yeah. So my question I keep going back to is, is is there something are we are we at a place where we can start a procedure of nuisance? You're asking for my legal opinion on this. I'm seeing to research that. And I'm saying if we don't, then the police need to figure out a way that because this is happening, then we need to get specific on what's happening there to make sure that we're documenting things that if we're not, it's like

any type of a performance review, if if you've got a bad employee, but if you haven't been documenting it, right, you're never going to get them off your payroll. So it's the same way here. If we've got a bad actor in the neighborhood, and if we're not documenting this, right, if we're not prosecuting it right, then we can't we can't exercise the rules that are on the books. So my question is, is next week, can we come back and investigate on actual arrests and versus just raw data? Do we have enough criteria to fit the nuisance clause on these two properties that have been identified? That's all I'm asking. Is that fair? That would be the department that would have to run that information. I don't have access. Yeah, but I mean, to provide you I mean, I guess I guess this data just came to us 20 minutes before council. So I'm saying is that if we go through this data and I don't know, is this arrest or is this just activity or is there arrest? We get we try to give you both. There's there's arrests and then there's calls for service there. This is incident reports. Yes, chief. Can you do me a favor or whoever's got the screen, go back to the items that are listed as the nuisance elements. I got it right here. It's in the code provision. Show that. Talking about the first slide where we mentioned. Yeah, it might be it was either the first or second go to the next. There was a. The specific there we go. There it is. Yes. So you're talking about drug activity, manufacturing, prostitution, assaults, alcohol violations, gambling, noise complaints and juvenile delinquency. When you look at your incident report. But not but not but not withstanding disorderly conduct, assault noise ordinances. I mean, if you're number eight, harboring, contributing delinquency of minors, alcohol, I mean, there's, there's another section that's outside of this

that's in there too, which I keep going. We're on the same page. I'm just trying to make sure I understand the incidents that are occurring, that whether they qualify as specified illegal behavior under this code provision. Well, and to use an example, residential treatment facility at Sixth and Water, that is a state facility, they routinely, if not daily, call us when a resident who is assigned to TF to either check in with a probation officer or that is residing there, they find drugs on them. They call us, we do a report, we arrest them for that. By that rationale, we could call the TF a specified crime property. They're not actively participating. They're reporting it. That's why I'm asking. Yeah. That's the that's you're connecting dots there. No, go ahead. Anything else? That's anyway I'd like I'd like to see the arrests and how they match up with the crimes that are identified on those properties. Also same with like the, the bar downtown. You know, we've got some issues that continue to happen on the on the sidewalks down there. I saw you provided some data there, which I appreciate. I'm looking forward to digging into this when I get back. But we got to find a way, guys, to get control of this facility because it is a nuisance to the surrounding. We all agreed to it. Everyone's on record for it and we all just think if we're going to be quiet, it's going to go away. There's been there's more help available in this town historically, which is which is a compliment to you guys, to all of the stakeholders that are out there. There's more help available than it's ever been for this town. And we still have a group of people that are holding the rest of downtown hostage. And at some point, we have to say enough's enough. The frustration. So for every two

bad emails I'm going to get for this discussion, I'm going to get 30 that are going to support it, that this is what the public wants and we got to keep it, keep it front and center. So all I'm asking is that let's find a way to either correct the behavior down there or find a way to move it out. That's all I'm asking. All right. Let's go on to parking survey. And I can't figure out why we're protecting this activity. The other question before we move on the other question I got chief. One more is so these guys are on these guys. The the the outliers, the majority of. I asked the week before how much of these people are on drugs. What do you think the interaction of when when the when we talk to the tier one and all these the drug interaction. How many people are addicted to drugs, do you think. It's hard to say. I could ask the heart unit and they could give us their impression. I mean, sometimes mental illness is in play, sometimes drugs and mental illness, which compounds the mental illness. So they got to be getting their drugs somewhere. I mean this respectfully, they got to be getting their drugs somewhere, right? And when you talk to some street cops, they're like, yeah, we kind of know who the players are, the small players, you're trying to get the bigger players, but the drugs are out there, so they got to be getting their drugs somewhere to to facilitate their activities. Is there is can we is there Any other program we can put in at your level that if we know who these individuals are and we know they got to get their drugs, and if they're not going to get their drugs either, we can't put them all in jail, but they're going to move on. Is there something we can start being more specific on the drug trafficking in the homeless. Ryan, is there anything you know? Last I checked, you know, a lot of drug use and it is illegal, which means it's being trafficked. Let's take another approach to this. Another lens. Ryan Bertrand, captain, to answer the question, I think I clearly the passion comes

through that you have. One of the things I guess I would say is the specified crime property. It lists pandering, solicitation, etcetera. Disorderly conduct violations are included in that. My understanding is that needs to be inside the structure. So if we have a sidewalk abutting or outside of a business and someone's outside, they're drinking or on the sidewalk intoxicated, that's not on the business inside. That would be a public offense that way. As far as curtailing a street level, misdemeanor level drug activity, that's a big goal. But we have bigger it's a triage for us is what the problem is. I can tell you, I have I have investigative units, I have they do great work and they're making federal cases on big targets. It just doesn't make practical sense to hustle down an individual user for a small amount of drug. In light of other people being out in the street. So we I know that seems insignificant unless you're the store owner or the person that's moving because your employees are not safe in the parking ramp. I know it seems insignificant, and I think that if we can lay down a standard in this community that even if you're a, a at this point, a someone that's been identified that doesn't want help, and there's a ton of help out here, and you don't want to ride out of town. There's a riot out of town. If you're that person and you're participating in drugs and other activities, and they won't let you be into the tier one because that's what you're doing. You're the troublemaker. Why are we, you know, to say that's not a good investment of time on our end? I get it, you want the big fish, but they're still moving drugs around. And maybe that's an angle we have to take. And, I mean, I'm not. I'm just. I'm looking for avenues. No, I get it. The mental health, the mental health and the addiction problem. It throws monkey wrenches in what normal people would consider common sense or regular thought deterrent, as

we consider a deterrent, like going to jail would be very embarrassing to no deterrence. They don't get their drugs. Yeah, but but even but even then there's a bounce. They can only be held for so long. There are we run into boundaries again and again and again. I'm not making excuses. No. These things need to be this is the totality of the system. All of the. You lose your. You lose your stash 3 or 4 times a week. And what you're paying for, you're going to move on to another community. You're going to get out of Dodge. Well, to be fair, Mr. Bertrand, most of the arrests being made for drug related offenses are possession, not possession with intent. So most of our arrests are those low level offenses. So it's not as if we're not you know, I'm not saying I'm just saying it's not just the the they got to be getting it somewhere true. If they cooperate and if we can determine where those are and there's no, there's no shortage of seeing the work that the officers do. There's no shortage of effort to try to locate. Well, I'm just saying the community is on my side on this one. That's why. It's why I'm here. And that's why we're all here. And and this is what the direction of the councils I applaud so much the effort that's being done on the stakeholders and the help that we have given to the homeless community in this community. We're there. We've done the process. Now we know now we know the troublemakers. We know it's a small percentage that helps there. And at some point, they're not going to hold the rest of us hostage. That's all I'm saying. And if we got to start attacking the drug side of it, whatever it's got to be, we got to figure it out and we're going to keep talking about it. So, you know, but thank you for what you're doing. Let's keep pushing. Frustrating. Good afternoon. Evening, afternoon. Mayor and council. Reagan. Cody. Sorry. Late afternoon. Afternoon. Late afternoon. I was like late, late afternoon, early evening, early evening, dinner time. Mayor and council. Reagan Cody with downtown partners. In late February, you saw some options from parking for different

things in downtown. So what we did is we took a survey out to our business owners in downtown in March. A total of 99 responded to this survey, and of that, it's about 20% of our population for businesses in downtown, which is a great, really strong representation from this survey. So a lot of voices were heard, a lot of people had questions and phone calls. So this was one of the best we've we've ever done. People were very invested. I'm going to give you a couple of the results from the questions that we received. And at the end, Tiffany's got some results for you on where we're moving forward. First question was, do they want Park Mobile only? Do they want coins and digital only? Only 62% would oppose eliminating all of the coin options. So the key takeaway here is really that businesses support the modernization, but they do want to remain options with coins. A lot of card readers, things like that are also options in here. But right now, leaving as we have it with coins and the park mobile option was preferred by businesses. We have put this all on a map as well. I've tried to to ChatGPT it to see if I could get addresses and their responses. We'll show you the map later with some of that, but 51% had no preference how you rolled this out. If you choose to take your time, if you choose to do it immediately, about half and half said said either way is fine. So gradual change in reference is preferred with whatever we do decide to do locations to keep some coin payments. We did ask for areas that they want to make sure remain coins specifically, and city hall in the courthouse areas were identified basically going down Douglas along with the library lot, mainly civic locations. I would say no major blocks or historic fourth or entertainment areas. It was mostly mostly specific to civic areas. So high traffic, civic areas for coins. And then we asked about the parking supply. Basically, could you use more parking and where. So options to look at some parallel parking options on some of our

three lane, our diagonal, excuse me, in some of our parallel options where we have the room to expand and maybe gain some more revenue there, 53% said yes and the others were pretty yes. No or maybe, but mainly a majority do support increasing parking capacity in certain areas. So we were looking at some of those overall themes from the written feedback. And I got to tell you in any survey, the comment section is the most entertaining that was available for you to read if you so wish. But the first thing here is to maintain the coin payment in the key public locations, increase the parking supply where feasible, and expand the digital payment options. Now, one of the interesting things that we found, and we will look at this a little bit more, is how to address employee parking in some of our prime areas, lacking ability for employees to park during certain times of the day, if they're at ramps and things like that, and then implement the changes gradually if we decide to do so. This last slide, Tiffany, is going to go into a little bit more, but what this does was kind of put it on a map of where we saw the overwhelming, yes, you can take it to Park Mobile only. We don't really care about the coins. It really was what we discussed earlier. Our outlying areas, the businesses within the core and along historic Fourth Street and some entertainment areas. We're very heavy in the fact that they would like to maintain a coin option or some other form of payment outside of the app. So I don't know how much you want me to take on this. Yeah. You want to go in Tiffany Claiborne parking and skywalk manager. But as you can see, it was the outskirts of Sioux City. The downtown businesses did not want the coin meters removed. So it was about 165m that we could start with immediately to get those removed and taken out, get the park mobile only, and it's going to be very minimal. It would be about less than $1,500 to do that. So we would just get the attachment to the poll and move forward. So.

Questions. Will get one or just one every few spaces. We're actually going to keep a single poll at each space unless it's a double headed meter now then we'll just keep the one. Okay. I knew that's how it would go. Yeah, I know, but it was. It's really great to have the engagement and even moving forward afterwards, whatever we decide to do, like this map right here, everybody that took the survey, they asked if they wanted to keep engaged with it. So this will be sent out to them to let them know kind of the plans for the future and what's going to happen with their input. Question. Mr. mayor, what are you what are your thoughts? You've been like I said, you guys, you and Craig went around forever. What are your thoughts on this? I mean, you think it's time for him to go or is this a is this the right process? I mean, you it's a genuine question. I would have I don't know that you have to maintain personally. I'm not a I'm a coin guy. Carry it in my car, but I don't know that whole area you've got here, you couldn't intermingle and do some things. I mean, my kids love that we parked. We parked in DC. Well, it's all it says the parking there where the pink is, where they're going to remove the coins, which the others. You have to. I'm led to believe they're not going to, so I don't I don't believe that that you can't do more. We could and get rid of some of them especially I don't know, I don't know the answer, but I know that young people are not afraid of Park Mobile or whatever you call it, because we just did it in DC. I absolutely wouldn't, but your kids did it for you then. Yeah, blend it in from this map like, like the mayor saying, which I completely support. Yeah, I'm kind of right where we wanted to go. He took us there. So. Yeah. And I took you there with the green lines. That's the no.

We, we have a good blend. And I think tourism in general, when you go somewhere, you probably already have the park mobile app and you're, you're loaded up and ready to go when you go to another town and another downtown. The green lines there added parking. This is the three lane that could go diagonal. That diagonal could all be park mobile and your parallel stays coin, but just other areas that we could definitely look at that. Teresa Fitch, Assistant city Manager We did discuss the option on doing like maybe coin on one side and park mobile on the other side and some of the areas if they want to keep some coin because like, you know, look at some not the civic areas, but the others downtown, like by Brightside, we could do one side, that's coin and the other side that's Park mobile. There's still an option for coin. So maybe the right side of the street is always coin. The left side is always park mobile. I don't know if that creates confusion. I wonder if that just creates confusion where you have to try and talk about what the other options could be. You know, initially we came to you with four options. Now with the survey, the options have somewhat changed. So we're going to go back to the drawing board and come back with a different options. But I think there's an opportunity to look at things differently. It'll take a while for people to get used to any change we make, but I do think that we can still move forward with some changes and not keep, you know, 2000 customers visit our downtown. They see a sign, they see a meter head, they're going to know it's you go once and you have it figured out. So I don't I think that's something to consider the one side and the other. I mean, I mean, the metered side still would have an option for Park Mobile. So it's not it's always park mobile anywhere. But then there's that, you know, half of them are a portion of them are coin metered. So it helps at least get people used to that. And then maybe eventually they're just so used to it, we go straight to it. But what we shouldn't lose is all the meters have park mobile correct already dual. So you already have the opportunity not to have coins on every parking space. It doesn't matter. Right? And I think why we did with the pink, why we just did the outskirts like that, just to

make it less confusing for people. I mean, there's half streets that get absolutely no coins, but we didn't know if we should have half the block, have meters and half just park mobile. So that's why. That's why it's pretty specific in that. But we could, we could do that as well. Somewhat in the outer area, you want to do diagonal parking all the way to 10th Street. I would love to see it on Nebraska. Yeah. We've talked about this since 2014. Unfortunately. Yeah. Some of the staff has definitely changed over since we've had these discussions. But Pearson, Nebraska taking from two lanes to our three lanes to two and doing diagonal along the what would be the right hand side of each road. And that would help with several different options. But we are meeting with Gordon to go over some of the engineering options with it. I do want to note that with that, if there is an an opportunity to do diagonal parking, we go to two lanes instead of a three lane. That does create some issues when we do snow removal. So we need to think about the snow removal right now on the two on fourth Street, when there is not three lanes, we have a windrow. They cannot park in use any parking while we have a windrow until it's removed. So in that one street we have worked with streets to get them to remove that snow sooner than we typically would, but in this case, I'm not sure we'd be able to remove it immediately. And it would it would eliminate parking on the side because they have to move the snow somewhere. If you put it in the middle now, now they're kind of driving on the parking streets, so they have to have two lanes. So it does create some other, you know, obstacles doesn't mean we can't work through them. But there was a time, I think it was two years ago when we had somewhat of a blizzard that went on for like ten days, and that was a challenge. So that's what forced us to look at the two lane on Fourth Street, to say, we can't expect people not to have any parking for ten days. We have to do something. So we will have to look at some. Some things with particularly snow removal will be a huge obstacle if we move from a three lane to a two lane. So and Patrick's

not here. When we were discussing this back in back in the day, I keep calling it, but the fact that you kind of double the amount of parking on the diagonal lane and pushing the snow into the end parking spots, you kind of put all the snow for removal off to the side. So you eliminate the need for the windrow. That was one of the options that we looked at on why we did it was to eliminate the windrow on our major thoroughfares, so that it wasn't the crossing, where you've got to kind of plan a block ahead to get over to the other lane when we've got the windrows. So it was just something that we need to kind of reengineer and look at and make sure that's still an option too. There are a lot of different things to consider, but there's a lot of moving parts that go along with it. It's not right now, parking looks different than it will in six months when we have, well, I shouldn't be six months, eight months. When we have snow, I hope in six months we don't have snow. But it does look a lot different, you know. So we need to think about year round, what it will look like and what the changes and implications will be as we make changes. So but there will be more options coming. Like I said, we initially had those four options. We talked about taking some of those meters and the outside areas, making them park mobile only, which is what we're working to do right now. And then we'll have additional options and opportunities to look at. I appreciate the phased in how we're phasing it in. I think, you know, again, in a year we'll know what. Right. Absolutely right. See what. And we can make a decision at that time to move forward. I think so too. I think it helps people come along and get used to it too. So thank you. Have a great night. Thank you. Council concerns Nick and Chad, did you have something to present? I'm just curious. You're here. I just assumed that you were here for something. Yeah, we were told to come. So the. Yeah, yeah, just real quick on some questions. Real quick. Just the. Good evening, by the way. Good

evening. You know what? Jump down. Let me run through. Let me run through real quick. A lot of these guys aren't here. I want to go for next week. I'd like an update on the fleet, the fleet leasing where we're at, where we stand on that. Get an update on that. Get an update on the retention pond ordinance. If there what action vote we need to take to get that rolling. And it's going to take some action. Which item? The retention pond to buy into the retention pond, which by the way, speaking to big and small developers, they are extremely excited that we might find an avenue for that. Like an update on the Bob Scott. Mayor Scott spec buildings. We identified the site. Let's let's get let's pull the trigger. I want to Pat's not here anymore. I want to get. I want to walk. We said we're going to walk through the first week of May 18th Street, which, by the way, if anybody has not been down to eighth Street, 18th Street, field House, it's best. It's looking 20 years and it's been five weeks and they've done great. I'm looking forward to that. Walk through graffiti in Greenville. Had a couple calls there, and then that was the shooting, that graffiti in green. I don't know if there's more gang activity going on over there or not. Ryan or chief in that Greenville area, all that tagging going on. Have you noticed that all those buildings that are coming down, the tag is just terrible? Is there more gangs over there now or what? Or fishing season's open. What? Come up. Yeah. Come on up. The just seems like there's an unusual amount of activity in that area. All of a sudden, some move in. Do we identify something that moved in? No, I can't think of anything specific. That's always something that that can be streamlined. I think we're working on getting the process on graffiti streamlined where the release, the release procedure is a little faster so that we can get it taken care of, cleaner or taken care of faster. Like if we see it, we ought to be able to remove it instead of waiting for releasing. Sometimes when the when the owner is unable to get contacted, that slows the whole thing down. And then is it good for a year? When does it fall off their consent for us to treat it? So if we can

streamline that, a lot of these those buildings that are coming down in the bypass, a lot of those are getting tagged pretty hard. It's just all of a sudden it just kind of exploded over there. So anyway, just thought I'd bring that up. Thank you, thank you. Appreciate that. And then on the homeless task force, I know Jill was talking about this also. They had a 27% uptick on individuals that found their way back home. And they specifically getting the information out of the bus station. So that's, that's a win for us as a council over there. It's a good job. Council. That's a win for the the city council there. That's an aggressive stance. Another question I had was there was a question that came in on the bid process with, I don't know if anybody still here with the standard ready mix versus knife River on the concrete backfill. I know that knife River was low. And was it based upon the yard price on the courts, or was it the limestone that disqualified them or whatever the hi man, the low man didn't win. I don't know that. Let's find out if it's on pullbacks. Usually we have a primary and a secondary. Yeah. Weren't they. There were there were two that were awarded a primary and a secondary. And then they draw from both. Who was the two that got the primary. Then the two. That was it. Knife River did it because they they reached out and basically said that they lost. They might. Were they the second alternate? I'm sorry, I just can't. Yeah. No no worries. They were the first. I'm only bringing it up because it came to me and they just said they, they they were they were low by like 13 or 18 grand. I can pull the agenda and answer that question please, on the next one. That'd be great. Thank you. Nicole. Just going by what people are calling. And then the. The only other thing that came up is I want the council to consider and no action at this point, but I know you guys are getting blown up on this roundabout question. You know, and there's either people love it or they hate it type thing. I think we need to all before it comes. If we get the grant or not get the grant, we need to maybe ask ourselves, you know, beings that the only company that's going to benefit

from this really is we're only the only reason we're doing this is because of the gas station, the truck stop, I don't want to call it by name. So we have to ask ourselves, is it if the community is so adamantly against. And I do think they're going to put enough pressure on this council that they're not going to do the roundabout if they're adamantly that much against it, you know, is it in the roundabout blocks out any other development in that corner? Is that what's in it for us? You know what I mean? We're putting a gas station in for North Sioux. Who said it's blocking out development. It just is the property along. That's that's there it the Gordons identified it twice. I followed up on it. There's a couple lots there that are unbuildable at this point, we think. And we're open up in that corridor between that and Bomgaars. And we're not aren't they Unbuildable with or without the roundabout. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Yeah. So what I'm saying is if if we're going to if, if, if the community is going to shoot down the roundabout, which whatever is left or right, if they're going to shoot that down, then why would we invest 7.6 for and then give a gazillion dollars in tax rebates to a gas station that's going to feed north, that's going to that's going to that's going to feed north? Well, they're going to get something. They're going to get they're going to get something down there. Okay. We'll sit and watch. We'll see on that one. But the for it or against it, I'm just yeah, I'm just saying is that at what point do we need to reevaluate a council is from a I'm all about business, but is that worth six, seven, $8 million of taxpayers money to feed one gas station and then lock land locks us in? That's all I'm asking is that we should reconsider that that that discussion, because a lot of people, everybody's a roundabout expert. Now, the phone calls that are coming in, I do want us to continue, Nicole, to pursue the the nuisance part of this. I'm not going to take my foot off the gas because the community's not. So next week, the property nuisance. Darrell, have a presentation. That's what we're waiting for on that. And other than that, I just appreciate everybody's feedback and have a great week. Come on up. Chad

Smith, General Manager, Tyson Events center. Nick Palmiotti, also with Tyson Event Center. Sounded like Councilman Bertrand, you were interested in having us come? Yeah. What happened? Take it. Or you want me to. As far as the concession lines, well, just in general, I saw the I saw the response email and I know are there some background or is that there was multiple complaints from not just the team owners, but from some customers in there? And again, I, you know, I'm just going to address what's thrown at you. You saw the email that came across there. When you say that I was a season ticket holder, the bathrooms are disaster. Can't get food and drink. This is why I'm no longer a season ticket holder. That's the emails that I was getting so I can speak to the lines. I'm on your team. Yeah, we we pulled up the video. We also looked at transaction records, Elizabeth Wagner, the AGM of food and beverages here as well. If we need her to address anything, the average wait time was 6 to 8 minutes. The length of it, not 20. The intermission is 15 minutes long, and by the ten minute mark, or with five minutes left in the intermission, there was no lines at any concession stands either night. As far as the restrooms. Unfortunately, on Friday night we did have one of our restroom attendants walk out, so the female restrooms weren't getting probably cared for in the same capacity they normally would. We had some of our guest services staff assisting with that, and that's not their normal job. So there could have been some mistakes or some things that weren't touched correctly by them. But that's something that's easily addressed. The next night we had a bandits football game on Saturday. No complaints on restrooms, no complaints on concession lines. All the same people doing the same jobs. So when when the when the call came in from the one of the

owner, you know, the, the, the owner side of it, you feel like that? How's the how's the relationship with those guys with Lloyd, who is the owner? I have not actually heard from Lloyd at all. The only person who's said anything is said it to you guys. Nobody has came to us to speak to us yet. So nobody from the ownership, nobody from front office management has came to talk to us. How do you feel about my recommendation for three leadership roles to get together and just sit down? We have weekly meetings with the Musketeers during the season to discuss deficiencies in the in the events going on, what are their concerns? What are our concerns? What are things we can work on? What are things they can work on? So we do that already on a weekly basis. So I don't see a need for it. A little bit of a breakdown there. I think the breakdown is with the specific individual. That would be. That's why I suggested that that leader I don't I don't necessarily you can't you can't blame that. Come on guys, why isn't he here then? Why why didn't we invite him? Mike I'm not I'm not throwing him under the bus to talk. Let me. I don't buy that story. I was an owner once. I know you were. You don't necessarily roll out the carpet for the Musketeers like you do for a con. And I'm not saying that negatively, but come on there. Without them, you're building closes, guys. Come on. You got to admit that I believe if you read my email, I acknowledge that mayor. They are a majority of our events. But you still can't. I did nothing that was outside the purview of the contract between the venue and the team. Everything that was done, everything that we've done as far as ticketing, opening, box office, everything that was done and it was addressed in that email is contained in the contract, which I sent to all of you to review. Okay. After this meeting, I have another

email ready to go that has specifics and sections listed that address those items. When we lose a team, we lose the team. I'm done worrying about it, but because you guys don't seem to worry about it, and every time you come here, you're there, it's always the team that has the problem. And it's a two way street and I don't I you know, Mr. Mayor, what I what I would just recognize, you know, obviously the team was upset about a couple of issues. What are not in in that email is the multitude of things we have bent over backwards for them. And, you know, I think I think this body should know that we do value the musketeers. We value the bandits. You know, we don't see eye to eye on every single issue. And, you know, those couple of issues were outlined in that email to you on Friday night, you know, but again, what are not in there is all of the things we have done for them, which, you know, again, to Chad's point, as we meet with them weekly, you know, we do make adjustments for them. You know, if we do 70 or 80 events a year, you know, 40 of those events are the Musketeers and the bandits, which, you know, again, drives a significant portion of the occupancy. So, you know, again, I you should know that that there's, there's other things that, you know, we're not addressing there, that we have made concessions for or tried to help them or, and we do that every day. Okay. I think when you're selling your sweets, are you selling it with their tickets? Yes. And they get a revenue share. They do fine. Yes. Each team gets a revenue share of all the tickets. Okay. It's in the settlements that I provide to them after each game.

Your and. But you're still giving them tickets. They still have to give you tickets for Chesterman and and Tyson. No, that's part of the. When the sweet holders buy their sweets, they get a portion of their. Their sweet tickets as comps. Then anything that they purchase after that, that allotted amount they have to purchase. Right. I get that, but, but part of the deal is that like Tyson, I had to furnish so many tickets a year for those guys, even though we didn't get any of that revenue. Yeah, the Tyson tickets are the only sweets that there's no revenue associated with it. So the two sweets that Tyson owns, they get all the tickets to those sweets at no cost. All of the other ones you get the 400 000 a year. We get nothing from them right now getting anything right right now. But you did the first ten years. So 20 anyway. It doesn't matter if they stay, they stay. If they go, they go. It's all going to be not on my problem, not something I caused them to do. So I think the takeaway just needs to be to encourage you to continue to work with all of the stakeholders at the event center. Anything that we can do as a body, whether it's working directly with their general manager, their owners and your team, let us know what we can do because I think ultimately, we want to make sure we work all of these issues out. It's a matter of open discussion, being open minded and trying to work through these issues. I would just say, from my perspective, to counteract some of this, I have a great relationship right now with Don Belson, Cindy Belson, Irv and Brett from The Bandits. It's probably the best relationship we've had in the five years I've been in the building. You know, we've sat down and had very collaborative conversations about ways we can help them drive revenue. We've

worked on even offering gen our partnerships person to go on calls with them for sponsorship to maybe there are ways we can kind of incorporate advertising in the building to get more sponsorship for them as well. So, you know, we are looking at ways to help drive revenue for the teams. And I just use that as a specific example, because that's the most recent time where we sat down and did a collaborative thing to, you know, what can we do to help you? Because, you know, it's not cheap to run an organization and it's not cheap to, you know, put on an event in the building. And that's a small market team. So they have, you know, those constraints against them. So we do what we can to help both teams collaborate. We don't favor either one over the other. Obviously there's more hockey games in the season than than football games. But we treat them as equal partners in the building when we do things. So no to a separate meeting with perhaps our city manager, and I can set that up. I'll set that up. I'm just asking if they're interested. I didn't get a response. They are. They are interested. I talked to we talked to Mike earlier today. Just be nice to sit and have a conversation. Have dad there with you. So it's not a he said he said kind of a thing and maybe shake hands and reset. That's what I'm saying. No, I have no problem doing that. Okay. Thanks for coming in. And you know, we're off to the theater for Broadway, so have a good night. Great. Thanks, guys. All right. You got anything else? No, I've just got a couple things. I've had a couple calls on either public or city. Right of way with dandelions. Can we just make sure that we're getting our dandelions addressed? Like, just like we expect everybody else to. Part of it was at the Grandview Park area. So if we could take care of that. And then, mayor, if you'll indulge me for just a quick second, we

did have the opportunity last week to go to Washington, DC with the chamber trip. I thought it was extremely well done, extremely productive. The meetings that we had with Representative Feenstra, we actually had one with Marianne Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Dusty Johnson from South Dakota, Senate Senate Majority Leader John Thune, Mike rounds, Ashley Hinson sent representatives. We met with Deb Fischer, Pete Ricketts, Senator. And although we didn't have a chance to visit with Senator Grassley, he sent representatives. He unfortunately had had some surgery last week and was unavailable to meet with us because he was still in the hospital. We met with Joni Ernst and Mike flood and also had a chance to meet with Representative Jim Jordan from Ohio. Amongst other meetings, the topical areas were the 1/85 workforce development, the farm Bill, fully funding the Disabilities Education Act, health care provider priorities, Behavioral Health Community Development Block Grant that Marty was able to address the Hooven corridor, the innovation Center, and the wastewater treatment infrastructure. And we had periodic opportunities throughout the course of the two days to share our information, to present the topics. And I just thought it was a very valuable effort. And I thought, Marty, you did a great job in your presentations. And I thought the rest of the team did as well. Thanks, mayor. Okay, Mike, just real quick one, I want to thank the Sioux City PD for activity logs and getting those back. Thanks, Chief and captain, for working with with us to get those. Their citizens are real happy to see those. Just had a call today. Also the town hall. Great event. Very, very good turnout for the UTV discussion. And so we're going to work

diligently to do what we need to do I guess with that. But I was just impressed with the with the turnout and just the engagement with the town hall as well. So anticipate a vote. Do I anticipate a vote? I don't anticipate something. So here here's what will come before council. So surveys are due at the end of this week. On next Monday, we'll ask Council for direction if you want to bring it to a vote for an ordinance. So we'll get survey information to you and allow you to make a decision that way. That deadline was this this Friday, right? So yeah, Julie, I agree with town hall. I think staff gave great explanations to everything that was on the agenda to discuss. I think it was really clear. And it was really, I think, de escalating for Ryan and to talk about the flock camera system, I think he really gave a good understanding of what that actually is, that we're not taking pictures of people. We're taking pictures of publicly displayed license plates. So I really like that because I think that's going to be a great tool that we have in our city, and I'm looking forward to growing that. I'd like us to get to the safe city level, and I'm going to continue to work on that. As long as I'm on City Council. I'm I'm very dedicated to making our city safer, and I think that's really going to help us. With that said, it's windy, so that blows a lot of trash. And I know you sick of hearing me say it, but we got to keep the city clean. If you see trash, you see litter, it becomes yours. Even if you didn't put it there. That's what I used to always tell my staff. I tell my kids, my grandkids, if you see it, own it, pick it up and put it where it belongs. So I really appreciate that. If we can all pull together and really work on keeping this city cleaned up. I move. We reconsider the clearance. Gordon issue at the

next council meeting. Second, and I talked with staff in the back with Wade. I think he's no longer here and we would just ask for about three weeks time to be able to make sure it would be reconsidered in three weeks. Second, go ahead. We probably need to re notice the neighborhood. Yeah we can't we can't. So it's just direction that vote tonight. I Bertrand Rayford I I got I move we adjourn second. Bertrand.