City Council - Regular Meeting

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Interview for Transit System Advisory Board, Christina Letch. Please come forward and tell us a little bit about yourself and why you want to serve.

Perfect.

I'm Christina Lecce. I've lived in Sioux City for about five years. I use the public transportation system a lot. I have some ideas for improvements on it, and I'm also on disability, so I use the paratransit, too, so I wouldn't be just giving ideas for the regular transit system. I would be... I've been on all three different systems, so... One of my main reasons for wanting to be on the board is one of my friends, she was at an appointment a couple weeks ago, and she had to wait two hours for the paratransit to pick her up from her appointment, and it was like 90 degrees that day, and so I eventually came and tried to help her and stuff, but She can't walk very well, so she couldn't walk to the nearest bus stop. And for me, I think that's a real concern because the paratransit should be able to accommodate people to pick them up from their doctor's appointments, especially in a reasonable amount of time. And for me, that was just really eye-opening that it was 90 degrees outside.

Did she ever find out what the reason for the two-hour delay was?

They were short drivers that day, but one of the things is they don't have a backup system where they have people on call that could come and fill in for those people that don't show up, because there were short three drivers, and that's a lot for the paratransit, and they mainly take those people to doctor's appointments. I'm originally from Iowa. I'm from the Lamar's Marcus area, so I've been in this area for a while But I just have some ideas that I'd like to bounce off people and try to improve it, you know like So great.

Thank you. Thank you.

Yep.

All right. Thank you Justin Johnston

My name is Justin Johnston. Many people know me as JJ. I have lived here my whole life. I have been on different services throughout my life with my disability. I have been diagnosed with epilepsy since I was about 16, but when I was a year and a half old, I was actually run over by a car and living here my whole entire life. That's why I've had great careers living here in Sioux City from radio and broadcasting. to being a civil rights commissioner and even having Tom Brokaw nominate me to be on his advisory council for brain injury for over a decade. So I would like to also be a part of it. Being a part of the board would be a good part. I actually got to be on the board for about a month, but due to my disability, I had to cut back and away for a while. But now that I'm doing much better and living independently strongly, Definitely would like to be back on that and give some help with some assistance with the transit system.

JJ, are you on the civil rights commission now?

No, I actually had to step down from it during COVID. Okay. But it was great being on that part for probably over five years. But again, I would definitely like to be a part of doing some things with the city. I've lived here my whole life and still be a part of it, especially for a person of disability. It's, Great to share my standpoint from it, especially living here. The bus system is my way of transportation.

I was going to say that you can drive either from a rider's perspective.

Oh, yeah, definitely. And even the way things have changed recently has been a little more helpful. So I would definitely like to be a part of it if I can.

I think both you and Christina bring a nice user perspective. Are there other applicants, Heidi? Not at this time and there's two there are two open spots, correct? Okay, you thank you guys.

Thank you We'll go to the consent agenda, which is items 3 through 17 l Constituted consent agenda items passion anonymously unless a separate roll call votes requested by a council member if you want to speak on an item Please come to the podium as I read that item Be sure and state your name for the record. If you want to speak on an item not on the agenda, please come up under citizen concerns. I'll move the consent agenda. Second. Reading of the city council minutes of August 20th, 24th, and 25th, 2026. Four is a motion appointing Matthew Johnson to the Yamanashi City Sister City Committee term expiring on December 31st, 2029. Motion accepting the Civil Service Commission annual report. Six is a resolution of support for Commonwealth Development Corporation of America's development of the web apartments and application for historic tax credits, state historic tax credits. Seven is a resolution adopting plans and specs for the water treatment plant facility plan phase one improvement project. Is Tom here?

Vicky's here right now.

Okay, thanks Vicky. We had a chance to review the materials that were in our packet, so you don't need to go through it literally line by line, but I think it would be helpful, especially for the public and for the media, to get a sense of what this phase of the scope of the project is. So if you could maybe address the primary components of what's being done. But the one question I do have, I know there is a recognition of odor control, and that has been an issue that councils, since the start of time, or at least since the start of our wastewater treatment facility have asked. So can you address that and give us some sense of how you believe the contractors are going to address the odor control at the facility?

Yeah, so Vicki Baker, Assistant Public Works Director. This is us putting the project out to bid. It's required by SRF loan. It's phase one of the project. We've We have a few large contractors that seem to be pretty interested in it, so we hope to get really competitive bids here. It's mainly operational reliability, safety, odors, helping with permit compliance long term, sustainability. Phase one is mainly just fixing the plant and addressing odors, safety, things like that.

So are the demolition items part of phase one as well?

Yes.

There's a pretty significant amount of demolition, correct?

Yes.

Thank you. Eight is a resolution scheduling a meeting on the authorization of loan and disbursement agreement and the issuance of water revenue capital loan notes. Nine is a resolution assessing unpaid skywalk operations charges. against 707 4th Street, Amera SL of Sioux City. Is this Tiffany?

Can you help understand? I know that part of the detail that you provided was that there's a claim for $219,000 or so. $65,000, $66,000 has been paid, leaving a balance of $155,000. Is that correct?

No, that's not. This is Tiffany Claiborne, Parking and Skywalk Division Manager. So the total balance actually... What I'm going to assess is $155,000 and that brings us through December of 25. So I have not assessed the additional.

So there is an additional assessment? There is, yes.

So there will be an additional. And Teresa and I have met with them consistently for the last 12 months in hopes that they would pay. And then we met again in June or July and there just is no...

Is there a disagreement as to whether the assessment is correct or whether it's owed? No, they understand that it's owed. They don't dispute the amount or the requirement? They don't.

Thank you. Tenants' actions relating to grants. A is a resolution accepting the submission of the Sioux City Housing Trust Fund of a local housing trust fund program application to the Iowa Finance Authority and approving city funds as a match. I just have a question on that one, Mr. Mayor.

My question, Jill is just, uh, it's it with a match, uh, that same match of the same number, but, uh, the minimum was like 10%. Is that right? So I guess I'm just asking why are we matching a dollar for dollar versus the 10%? Sure.

Jill Wander side neighborhood services manager. Um, we put in dollar for dollar cause we're far overmatched. We'll probably overmatch that amount too. Um, because basically these funds are used in all of our housing rehabilitation programs. And so we have funds from our lead grant in there. We have CDBG funds. So we just typically cap it at dollar for dollar, but we're typically even way overmatched when compared to that, too.

Here's a resolution authorizing an application through FTA under the low or no admission grant program. and the Grants for Bus and Bus Facilities Competitive Program.

So Jason, or I know you saw him sitting there. Can you just explain the breakdown? You're seeking an amount of $10,972,000. What amount will go to the zero or low emission units? And what amount will go to the facilities?

Jason Allen, Transit Director. Let me pull up the application here. In 80-20 split, just for the construction aspect, it's 85-15 for the bus itself. For the lower known application, you couldn't do an application without procuring a bus. So that's why the diesel hybrid... You can or can't without... Cannot. You cannot get the money. The bus and bus facilities grant was a much lower amount, 21 million available. It's very competitive. So we thought that... The lower node would give us the best chance to get it.

And what was the other question? And both with regard to the building and on the capital side, Mike, those funds are allocated in our capital budget?

Yeah, they've begun to be. So this will be over a two or three year process just to design and build it and get the grant. So we have a piece of it now and then a piece of it planned.

And what's the window of... ordering and receiving the, the, uh, the bus itself?

Um, the, there's about an 18 month turnaround on the buses. Uh, the grant application is due the 21st of September. We won't know until the first week of November. And then from there, it's probably two or three months for them to give us an agreement. So at that point, then we will probably have to, we will have to do an RFQ, um, with the Brooks act to get, um, a, uh, request for qualifications for whatever A&E that we're going to use. Great. Thank you.

11 are actions related to street closures. A is a resolution temporarily closing various streets in the downtown area on September 26th for the downtown tailgate event. B is a resolution temporarily closing a portion of the Grandview Boulevard and 13th Street on September 25th for the Bishop Helan Homecoming Parade. C is a resolution temporarily closing various streets in the downtown area on October 3rd for the hops and the harvest festival. 12 are actions relating to agreements and contracts. A is a resolution to approve an intergovernmental support agreement with the 185th air fueling wing for use of the regional training tower.

I have just a quick question for that one. Because it looks like it, Red Chief's coming up here. What if the inspections go over that $10,000 budget there?

Ryan Collins, Fire Chief, we did have a contractor go out there and take a look. Roughly $6,000 is going to cover the inspection. That training facility has not been used in at least 10 years, at least by our department. So we don't really know what the damage assessment is going to come back as. But because it hasn't been used for quite a bit, we don't anticipate a lot of of money to fix it back up. It's going to be more of that inspection just to make sure that it meets NFPA standards.

So the inspection itself is $6,000?

Roughly, yeah. That was just an estimated quote.

Wouldn't it make sense to change the language in the agreement? Because it talks about they'll pay up to $10,000. Shouldn't they be paying all of the cost?

It's based on, as far as just to get it up and running and compliant with standards that $10,000 will help cover any the inspection and then any repairs. Again, we don't anticipate there being many repairs that are necessary. And then once we go forward, then it's just going to be continuously maintaining basically just an annual inspection to make sure that it meets compliance standards.

And I guess just to that point, you know, it says that we haven't used it in years. Why now or what's the reason for?

The reason why we have not used it is just based on distance and our overall call volume. We just can't afford to take rigs out of service and send them clear down there to do training when we have our own training center right here. that we have the capabilities here, so that's why it hasn't been used. For the 185th, they don't have their own training tower, and they have certain training requirements. It just makes sense for them to use that facility. It's closer to them as well.

Chief, the only thing I don't want to happen is that it becomes a $12,000 actual cost, and we're obligated for the $2,000.

We would only make the repairs that are necessary to make the facility usable, and then we can budget in years down the road to make sure that those other repairs are made.

Okay. But I'm curious, Sergeant Bluff, not a fireman, but they seem to have a really nice training facility south. of the 75 there. Why would they not? It's just as close to run over there. Why would they just not use theirs? I wonder.

They, they, I bet I can't answer that.

Well, before we spend a whole lot of money, I mean, I don't want it.

It's a great facility. It's on the airfield. I know it would be. Yeah, I understand all that. And it keeps, and it keeps them on the base.

Okay.

Hey, before you move on, Mr. Mayor, can I back up one? on the actions relating to street closures. There's nothing to do with the agenda, but I don't want to lose the people. Is Gordon around? I want to talk about street closure on Nebraska Street, the construction that's going on there before everybody bails. Want to come up? The street's closed. The construction that's going there outside the whistle stop right there on Nebraska Street, Yes, Gordon Ferris City. Before you get out of here, we're about six weeks into that. I was looking back, it's about a four to six week project scheduled on that timeline. Is that right?

Maybe on this phase, but not the whole project. No, we're at, I think it's 185 days or something like that.

Is our contract required that as they complete, they're putting new pipe, right? Correct. So as they complete the pipe, aren't they required to backfill before you move to the next section?

They are until they have to connect into the new sewer.

Can you do me a favor? Can somebody get on that and monitor that? That street has been tore up. Those guys are taking a beating, those businesses along there right now. And I think their expectations were a little bit better than where they are right now. And to me, I see they've opened up. Around the corner, they're gonna bust into the next phase of that project.

Just by about 10 feet. I had a project meeting on the last page.

Okay, I'm just saying either way, if they're gonna move forward, let's get behind cleaned up, back filled, so those guys can open up those businesses behind them. Because to me, it looks like they're done. I went by it twice then, took a couple phone calls on it. And I looked, and there's not a lot of activity down. It just needs to be... Right. Put back together.

Correct. What they have to do now, though, is they've got to pressure test it and bacteria test it. Once they've done that and it's passed, then they've got to dig it up again anyway to put in the services to those businesses. And then they can backfill it and do the paving. And the paving is supposed to take place hopefully by the end of next week.

In that in that first section, yes. OK, so I can tell them that they're going to concrete for other places and then not if you get an inch and a half rain every night. Yeah, you know what I'm saying? But that's it's been. It's been it's time on there, so I'm just asking who's watching. It sounds like you are. I just want to just I'm just feeling phone calls before you got out here. I want to talk about that. So thanks. Sorry Mr Mayor.

He is resolution amending statement of work agreement with Civic Plus or social media archiving services. He is a resolution approving a letter of understanding with the explore soon and in the city of for a two year contribution to provide tourism convention and visitors Bureau services and authorizing fiscal year 2027 contribution.

So on this item and I know Stacy's here. What I'm wondering, and I had a chance to visit with Mike earlier, and Stacey, when we had the Sports Commission meeting last week, you're welcome to come up if you'd like. When we had the Sports Commission meeting last week, we had some dialogue about Explore Siouxland and what its focus is. planning and strategy would be. And I'm just wondering if maybe it makes sense to not do a two-year commitment and have you start visiting with Mike and his team to get a better sense of what Explore Siouxland needs to be as it relates to the Sports Commission and otherwise, and better understand what the funding needs to look like, what the direction needs to be, what your business plan looks like, and what the scope of your responsibilities will be.

Yep, Stacey Anderson, Executive Director of Explore Siouxland. I appreciate that question. I know part of the reason why we wanted something more than one year is just because of the fact that we are We're working after, you know, a year after, and it makes it really hard when it comes to staffing to not know what those funds will be. So it's just a little bit of a security issue to know that we have proper funding for staff, which we did since hire a director of marketing at a station in marketing. She's been doing a fabulous job. As far as how it relates to our sports commission, I do think it's important, which is why I brought it up at our last meeting, to really start having better conversations around that or just deeper conversations around it. I shouldn't say better. But what is needed of it, I think, has changed over the years. Now, RSED is a big part of that. That's complicated because literally they completely changed their rules two months prior to our last application being due on July 1st of this year. We have no idea if they will change it again on us next year simply because they had a lot of pushback on that.

I think if we demonstrated anything, we showed that we can bob and weave pretty effectively. when the rules changed that quickly. And I know that Ike and Julie and I were part of the group that was working with your team to redefine and better understand the application. So we'll continue to work, Bob, and we even do the best we can, right?

And I would agree with that. I think one of the great things that came out of that, which I would love to share with the community, is the fact that we were told that we had the second best application in all of Iowa. And out of a million dollars they set aside for communities in the whole entire state, we were number two as far as that application, and we received $150,000, which is double than what we've ever received from the state before. And part of those funds were allocated to our OVG. for the two Iowa games, which was really great because we didn't have to dip out of our city's money, instead using the state's money. So it keeps those funds for other big opportunities. So a lot of good things are already happening. I think the conversations need to continue. I don't know that we need to necessarily not have a two-year commitment. I just think that really helps for the security of ours and the staffing of our organization. But again, just looking at what that looks like as far as Again, how it's set up right now, it's somewhat like a committee as far as how they support our application process. And really, at this point, it's just for RSAD. I would love to see it maybe being something more. Again, I'm all about bringing more people to the conversation and more community engagement because I think that helps us as a whole to bring more things into this and what we can do.

Let me see if...

I'm going to agree with Craig. I'm not really ready to do a two-year at this point either. And actually, I'd like to bring it back.

I think that makes sense. And to that point, Julie, what I was gonna ask is because, or Stacy, Mike and I did have a good conversation and I think so much of what we're looking at to help fund and support Explore Siouxland ties into what Mike and Teresa are doing in our budget cycle right now as we speak. So I think to Julie's point, if we defer it for a week, give Mike and Teresa some opportunity to rethink a little bit about what I've shared with him. and then visit with you and see if we can maybe refocus and redirect how we think we're going to manage Explore Siouxland and whether it involves the sports commission or not. That's just a smaller element of it, but I think it makes sense to defer this. I'll move to defer it.

Scott?

Aye.

Berenstein?

Aye.

Bertrand?

Aye.

Rayford? Aye. Shaner? Aye.

E is a resolution approving the terms of service and the submission of emergent service applications with Elevon. C is a resolution approving a post-construction stormwater management plan maintenance agreement and easement with road machinery and supplies for a detention basin and accepting a permanent easement of the property at 5700 Alhaines Drive. F is a resolution approving a post- construction storm sewer management plan maintenance agreement and easement with Catholic Charities of the Diocese of the Sioux City for a detention basin and accepting a permanent easement the property at 1601 Military Road.

So I have a question on both E and F and it really as it relates to all post construction stormwater management agreements and maybe it's my maybe it's my interpretation of how I'm reading the language and the obligations, but there's dialogue that talks about if it's not properly maintained that the city will go in for a year and maintain it. What happens after 365 days?

Aramontang Environmental Services, we will go in and bill it back to them when we go and maintenance it. It would just be that one-time maintenance and then we'll follow up with them, but it should be inspected yearly and And then maintenance as required, so like mowing saplings removed.

That kind of thing, and maybe it's the come and I'm not criticizing the verbiage, but the follow up. It's it's if we're required to go in out of necessity because for that one year period, theoretically you haven't worked through the issues with the property owner and their obligations on the detention pond. So what happens on day 366?

We would probably have to go in again and then rebuild them again. We can look at that language and clean it up.

I don't have a problem as it relates to these documents, but maybe work with Nicole and see if we can rephrase the obligations after that first 365-day period.

Right. We would hope that once we notify them that they need to do the maintenance, that they're going to do the right thing and complete the maintenance, because if we go out and do it, we're going to charge them an administrative fee on top of it, so it's going to be more expensive for them. So we've never had to get to that point as of yet.

They're also granting an easement that will go on so we can at least access for inspection.

I want to be cautious about we assume the obligation when they've defaulted on the obligation and then do we then go in for the second year and the third year and continue to just assess it as a cost? And is there a risk that we've assessed that we're maintaining it and then it becomes simply a cost to the city? If there's an abandonment, and again, it has nothing to do with these two properties. Right, right.

No, I understand.

But it's the same language every time we look at the post-construction maintenance agreement, and there just may be a circumstance where they don't maintain it, we go in, we maintain it, we incur the cost, and can't be made whole.

Correct, yeah. I can see that. They would also be getting fines on top of that with citations if they're not doing the work either. Right.

Maybe just find some time to visit with Nicole and see if we can work through that language. Thank you.

She has a resolution awarding and approving a contract with A&F Construction for the Transit Maintenance Garage Parking Lot Improvement Project. H is a resolution approving a pre-construction agreement for the primary road project with IDOT for Iowa 376 right turn lane at Lincoln Way. I as a motion authorizing the city manager to negotiate a development agreement with DC Realty regarding an industrial spec building in Expedition Business Park. J as a motion authorizing the city or the staff to enter negotiations with Norton LifeLock to serve as the provider of the city's identity theft protection plan. I have a quick question, Mayor.

Why she's coming up, Mr. Mayor, you buzzed right by. Take a victory lap. That's your item. That spec building is getting built. Well done.

We took eight, nine years to get it. Well, you know what? You got her, though. This council got her for you. You buzzed right by it. Take your victory lap, man.

I'm like, man, you got a spec down there, and you know what it's going to cost? You already got to rent it. Let's do it again. It's like a fine wine. It shouldn't take us another eight years to do it.

Janelle, I just had a quick question. I was going through it and at first I couldn't find the rates on it, but I found that. Is this voluntary, like for the staff, is it a voluntary opt-out type of situation?

Janelle Bertrand, Human Resources Director, yes. It's up to them if they want to. Participate in it or not. They're already out. They have to opt in.

They have to opt in. They're not automatic.

It's not automatic.

That's what I say. They have to opt in.

There is no option.

They have to sign up if they want it. Right.

And the cost is incurred by the employee or the city?

The employee.

Okay.

Kay has a resolution awarding and approving a contract to Steve Harris Construction for the River Drive storm sewer repair project. L is a resolution approving amendment number one to the Consulting Services Agreement with Felsberg, Holt, and Ulving for the Fifth Street and Court Street Traffic Signal Replacement Project. I have questions and I should have asked them. I'm sorry.

I was going to ask that too, Mayor.

The stoplight's gone already, right?

I think it's still there.

Is it? It's still there. Okay. But we spent $23,000 to see if we should do something with it. Now we're going to spend another $35,000 or I might be $25,000 and $33,000 or whatever. Why?

There's some improvements there to the signal or to that intersection that we'll have to do.

I don't even know why you have a signal there. It's not...

The signal is not warranted. This is in a presentation later.

Why are we being asked to review and approve something when we're getting a presentation at the end of the meeting? Wouldn't it have made more sense to vote on it later? Because I have the same question. I don't know why we're committing to $53,000 to shut down a signal. Just shut it off. I was going to ask if we could just pull it.

No, it's for improvements at the intersection, such as some bulb outs, pedestrian improvements. We're still going to have some of those.

But why did we not know all that going in? Why did we get the change orders greater than the original contract?

The change order, well, because it was the original contract was just to review the whole intersection to see what needed to be done.

That come back with high crash numbers?

Yes. You're going to present some of that later, right? Yes. We pulled that and

Yes. Should we defer it or can we move it to the end of the meeting to get the presentation first?

Normally we follow the council procedural rules for ordering on the agenda. You could choose to put it after the presentations. That would be fine.

Let's just move to defer it a week then. Bob, you want to do it for the end of the meeting or a week from today?

No, the end of the meeting. I'll second. I just don't understand the whole process. We knew we were going to do all this stuff. Why didn't we get one contract to begin with? It makes absolutely, once again, no sense to me, but nothing does around here anymore, so I'll let it go.

Berenstein?

Aye.

Bertrand?

Aye.

Rayford?

Aye.

Shaner? Aye. Gott?

Aye. M is a resolution approving accepting the purchase agreement for sure meets for the property at 1401 Bluff Road. N is a resolution... Approving a change order number one to the contract of the RP constructors from the Bridgeport West Lift Station Emergency Repair Project.

I just have one question for that one. And I promise you it's not about change orders. My question is just, I know that, I think it said that the CIP balance was negative. Yes. So how does that work?

We're going to backfill that on our next budget cycle.

And you're not going to ask the contributing industry to pay any of it?

We're currently assessing the ability to do that.

You what?

We're currently assessing the city's ability to seek compensation.

O is a resolution authorizing and approving the development agreement, minimum assessment agreement with HSLF properties for the property at 421 Pearl Street. 13 are actions authorizing payments. A is a resolution.

Mayor, can we go back to O, please? Who is HSLF properties? Attorney's out of Sioux Falls.

Clayton Bankford, economic development specialist. They actually have a representative here. If you'd like to ask him any questions about the property.

No, I'm just curious who it is.

Yeah.

And I understand it's a law firm with some commercial activity. Yep. I do think, candidly, I think the development agreement's a little rich in terms of the rebate on the property taxes. So I'd like to have a little more discussion on that.

Yep.

So do you want to defer it?

I think I would like to defer it and get a little more background on the project itself.

What percentage is the incentives on this?

I believe it's right around that 25%.

Yeah, it's 24%, 25%. It lines up with the other stuff. So just for the record, what he's putting in there and what he's spending, I mean, he's spending like 3.8%, isn't he? Yeah, 3.87%.

What we've been kind of working towards for all the packages. Yes, we have.

We've been pushing everything towards that 24%, 27%. It fits in there. So again, if we want to discuss it, that's fine. We talking about deferring it?

I'd like to defer it and get a little more information.

Is that going to slow him up? Where's he at in the process?

Yes, and they actually have a whole press release and stuff that they put out for this project. Where are you at? What's your timeline?

We're actually just waiting on this so we can start demolition and then start the building back together. So this would delay us.

I don't support a deferral. If we've got to work through something, let's work through it right here.

Why would that slow you? Are they going for... You need your name. This is part of our bank financing. I'm sorry.

Sorry. My name is Alex Halbach, and I'm one of the managing members of HSLF Properties.

But you can start demoing because you're not going for historic or anything, right?

Yeah, this is part of a historic project as well. So the project with the city is midstream on designating Pearl Street and the area around Pearl Street as a historic district. And this will become a part one and part two federal tax credit project along with we are seeking... State historic preservation grants to assist with this as well But this portion of the project is part of our bank financing to put to put it back together So this approval is part of our so do you have the credits yet? We do not have the credits.

You can't start demo and tell you we can start a project They can gut it. We can gut it.

That's it. Yeah, they've done most of yeah, we're not slowing anything that part of it But no they're talking about he's watching his financing rolling so then he can then proceed with the credit applications on that because that one triggers the other and

So we actually have the part one application that was, the plan is to submit tomorrow actually based on today's actions. So we'll submit tomorrow for the part one and then the part two federal tax credit is the next step after the part one is approved. So the preference would be to have the project approved so we know where we're at from a financing perspective so when we go to bid we know how this fits.

I don't want to negotiate your development agreement in public, so I'm going to ask that it be deferred. If I don't have support, I get that. But I'd like to have some opportunity to visit with Clayton, get a little bit more understanding. I respect that. No, I just know that I think we're going to end up in the same place.

I mean, I've been on that side of the microphone, and you're just like you're locked and loaded, and you've waited this. He's waited two weeks through the delays, and now we sit here in his development agreement respectfully. Again, we're on the same page. it fits the criteria, but we're all trying to gain with Renee and everything with the window. So I don't know what we're going to, what we're going to change other than a timeline. And again, I just, I want to get it out the door, just like most of these projects. So, but we can vote it.

Is there a second to the deferral? Second.

On the deferral Bertrand?

No.

Rayford?

Aye.

Gaynor?

No.

Scott?

I'm going to vote no because I don't think it's going to change dramatically. Again, I'm not getting on the guys that want to do the deferral vote.

No, me neither.

Should have done it over the weekend, I guess. I don't want to stand in the way and somebody will go in and clean up that building that Bertrand made a mess of. All that infrastructure I put in, I don't want to see go to waste.

I'm voting for you as you're going to clean that up.

Berenstein.

I vote aye on the deferral, but I understand it failed.

13 are actions authorizing payments. A is a resolution approving the Simcoe annual membership dues. B is a resolution approving payment of back wages and benefits. C is a resolution authorizing payment to Sioux City Engineering Company for the Big Sioux River Erosion Repair Project. D is a resolution authorizing payment to Mark Albanese for the 1110 Larson Park Road Flood Repair Project. 14 are actions relating to property. A is a resolution inviting proposals for the lease of land in the Donner Park Urban Renewal Area, announcing the intent to accept the proposal of Burlington Short Line Railroad, fixing the date for receipt of proposals and scheduling a hearing. The property is a city-owned rail yard in Southbridge Business Park. B is a resolution proposing to sell a vacated Amanda Street, petitioners John and Margaret Fitch. See as a resolution inviting proposals for the sale of land in the central Sioux City combined CBD urban renewal area announcing the intent to accept the proposal of steel acquisitions fixing the date for the receipt of the proposals and scheduling a hearing for the property at 410 Pierce Street. I move to amend that to read the combined central Sioux City CBD urban renewal area. So on the amendment, we have a second. I'll second the amendment.

Rayford?

Aye.

Jaynor? Aye. Scott?

Aye.

Berenstein?

Aye.

Bertrand?

Aye. Bob, I don't have a problem with this staying in the consent agenda because I know this is inviting proposals, but Nicole, can you take a look at the language In the development agreement it talks about when the minimum assessment would begin and I think it's confusing because I think in some of the language it talks about it beginning no later than January 1st of 29 and then in other language it talks about it being the minimum assessment beginning when they do the work on the project.

Are you referencing the L.O.U.?

Yes.

Okay. I was going to say, I don't think we have a finalized development agreement yet.

If you could just make sure there's consistency, that would be great. Thank you.

Actions relating to purchasing A is a resolution awarding a purchase order to Keisler Police Supply for ammunition. B is a resolution awarding a purchase order to Ray O'Hearn for ammunition. C is a resolution awarding a purchase order to Conepler Chevrolet for a Chevy Silverado 1500 pickup. D is a resolution awarding a purchase order number 362790 issued to Burt Gurney and Associates to increase the purchase order due to specification requirements for one backwash pump. Did I do the D? I did. I don't think I did. D is a resolution awarding a purchase order to Ed Stevers Ford for two Ford Maverick all-wheel drive super cab pickups. F is a resolution awarding a purchase order to Danko Emergency Equipment for TNT excavation... A little tongue-tied. Tools, yeah. T is a resolution awarding a purchase order to Bountry Medical for small medical equipment supplies and pharmaceuticals for the fire department emergency medical services. H is a resolution awarding a purchase order to Bolter for buffet tables, chafing dishes, and chafing pans. 16 are applications for liquor alcohol licenses. 17 reports of commissioning committee minutes minutes, but we're going to move to delete 17 F and I'll move that. Second.

Shainer I got all right. Berenstein I Bertrand Rayford I.

And as we get ready to vote on the consent agenda, Mike, can you follow up on something for me? The Human Rights Commission minutes include. a summary of the director's report. Can you check with either their chair or with Karen herself? Is that a complete summary of her daily line item activities or is that a specific summary of meetings and visits with constituents?

Recommendations of Planning and Zoning and Board of Adjustment. 18 is a motion acknowledging the Board of Adjustment Actions of August 25th, 2026. I'll move it.

Second. One moment.

Did we do the consent agenda?

We're still waiting on the vote for the consent agenda. There it is. It'll be coming.

Consent agenda passes 5-0. Now the motion to acknowledge the Board of Adjustment Actions of August 25th, 26th. I move it. Passes 5-0 at 19. A hearing and ordinance amending chapter 25.05 entitled site development to update the requirements for off-premise advertising signs and to repeal the interim sign ordinance petitioners of the city of Sioux City. PNZ recommends approval. I'll move it.

Second.

Public hearing is now open. Anyone to be heard?

Andrew Gleiser, Planning and Zoning Chair. If you guys have any questions on our recommendations, I'm here to answer them.

Sean, you have any thoughts? You're welcome to speak.

Good afternoon. My name is Sean Fester. I'm the Vice President and General Manager of Lamar Advertising here in Sioux City. First, I want to thank Chris and his team and the Zoning Board for giving us the opportunity to work with them as they devise some new sign code here. Overall, from our perspective, we think that it looks great. We do have a couple of thoughts. If you guys have the packet, I don't know if you do or not.

The ordinance itself or their summary?

It's in the ordinance itself. I don't know if anyone has that handy. Do you guys have that?

We have it in our materials.

Okay. All right. Well, I'll just jump right into it then. On page four, there is a section. Let's see here. It is section one, number five under additional regulations. 5A, the second portion of that is it discusses... Cannot have other off-premise advertising signs within 5,000 feet in all directions as far as the digital billboard aspect goes. I understand the perspective of putting that in the sign code. You know, when we look at other areas, what they try and do is instead of all directions, they do the same direction. So, for example, like, let's say you're driving down the street and on the right hand side there's a digital billboard. Well then you go another thousand feet, there's another digital billboard right there. What we're saying with the 5,000 feet is that they can't just be both facing east, for example, We want it to be okay if one faces east for the other to face west. This is something that I've seen happen in Asheville, North Carolina, Greensboro, Lincoln, Omaha, Council Bluffs, Kansas City, Richmond, Virginia, Bozeman, Montana, Billings, Montana. They all have it written that way. So those are our thoughts on that one as well.

Is the distance 1,000 feet or 5,000 feet? 5,000.

5,000, I'm sorry.

No, no, you said 5,000, Sean. I thought it was 1,000.

Chris Madden, planning manager. The proposal from the Planning and Zoning Commission was 1,000 feet between two static signs and 5,000 feet between two digital. Digital, okay.

Mm-hmm.

Let's see here. And there was one more. The only other thought really that we had is right under that sentence on 5B, it says billboards are not to be located on the same property as a freestanding pole or pylon sign. Again, I understand the perspective of that too, right? We don't want a skyline that is loaded with a billboard and then an on-premise sign and everything else. Our only concerns really are, number one, the vast majority of our billboards are on business owners' properties where they also have an on-premise sign. So our thought is, OK, so if this goes into effect, then is almost every single billboard that we own just immediately nonconforming? That concerns us a little bit. And secondly, along with that, we think that it hinders the property rights of landowners to supplement their income through a billboard lease.

Part of the problem is can they take that to Board of Adjustment if they want to or not, or is that lock them out?

Could be a variance request, but they would be allowed to have a monument sign on the same property. This would just be a polar pylon sign.

I think what we've seen is that people spend a lot of money to run a business in our community and they put a sign up and then somebody gets a little 10 by 10 patch of ground puts up this monster sign that blocks the whole next shopping center, which is not fair to those businesses. So I think I'd leave it that way, and you'd have to go get a variance to put it that you're going to prove that you're not blocking somebody else's sign. That would be my vote. What happened out at the Pizza Ranch is unacceptable. It should have never been allowed to go in there.

That wasn't us, by the way. No. For the record.

Chris, do you have those capita numbers with you?

Yes.

The board agreed with.

Yes. Yeah, that should.

Yeah, you did. I don't care if they have the right to do a board of adjustment and put it on. If they put that on the back of that property where they still would add visibility and not. They didn't block the pizza ranch sign. They only blocked the neighbors across the road.

Is it more efficient to manage these questions through a site plan review and approval or through a variance through board of adjustment?

We did have that as an option before the Planning and Zoning Commission was that all new off-premise signs would require site plan approval through Planning and Zoning and City Council. They did determine that they'd rather have that as an administrative review with these additional rules added as it is today.

I don't have a problem with that. I just wondered if maybe we thought it might be more efficient to manage it through this form of discussion rather than through the formal process of board adjustment.

We thought it would be at least less efficient having to have every sign come in front of us.

Not to want to speak for everybody, but that was your opinion as well.

Yeah, I think ultimately our perspective was like if it's, you know, council is obviously going to change over every two years or four years or whatever it may be. There's going to be different people that come and go. The sign code is going to say, I think from our perspective, we were kind of like, Well, if every single thing is going to go to a review board that is subjective, what is the ultimate purpose of having a sign code in the first place was kind of our thought.

First, let's talk about this for a minute.

We did a review of all the other ten largest cities in Iowa as well as the cities in the region Omaha Lincoln and Sioux Falls One of those items that council did request was a comparison of the number of signs in Sioux City To those other communities the best way to do that is in a per capita basis. So as you see in the final Column here that Sioux City does have a significant more a number of off-premise signs per capita than any of the other communities and The highest being Ankeny, which does prohibit any new signs at 89%. More than that in Sioux City than what they would have. So that analysis did show that we were higher than all the other communities.

Right. Is it best to have the comparison on a per capita population analysis or a square mile analysis of the size of our community? I understand the per capita and I'm sure that it probably is relatively similar, but when you consider the size of Sioux City and our layout compared to Des Moines or Davenport or any of the other communities, and then try and understand the number of signs, it's really not the number of people that we have and our density, it's the space of our real estate. And the street, whether it's Singing Hills or Gordon Drive or FLOID BOULEVARD, HAMILTON BOULEVARD, AND OTHERWISE.

WE KNOW WHAT SIZE THESE CITIES ARE.

THIS IS A QUESTION OF THEIR POPULATION BASE, NOT ON THEIR PHYSICAL REAL ESTATE SIZE. AND SIOUX CITY HAS ALWAYS BEEN CONSIDERED TO BE A RELATIVELY LARGE PHYSICAL COMMUNITY, EVEN THOUGH OUR POPULATION BASE IS SMALLER. SO YOUR PER CAPITAL NUMBERS ARE GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT OFF 85,000 people compared to Des Moines Davenport Cedar Rapids and otherwise The number of billboards that we have is going to be I think going to be a little bit skewed I'm not saying that it's wrong But I think the per capita analysis on a population analysis is going to be skewed and I'd rather see it on a Per square mile basis of Sioux City compared to those other communities, but I think you're right Craig I think there's not going to be much difference because we already know that

Omaha, Des Moines, all of these other cities are huge, right?

What difference? They're square miles. We're doing a fine ordinance for Sioux City.

We are, but I'm just saying that even though these cities are massive, we're still above them in the number of signs.

We charge these guys with doing it. If you've got the major sign guy here and he's only got a couple complaints, I'd say you did a reasonably good job. This is a lot of work.

So one of the other comments that we heard was that when certain sign companies go to a community that others will follow and often times and there's a theoretically there's going to be a process where they can apply for up to ten locations. We've been told that their intent is to acquire the locations, build the poles and the signs and then sell them. Would it be a consideration that when a new company comes in town, acquires their locations, builds their signs, that we have a, not a moratorium, but a hold period of two years, five years, that we prohibit the sale of the property?

I'd have to look at Nicole, but I don't know if that's an item that we would be able to enforce.

I would probably not go that direction. I think there are some pitfalls that could potentially happen related to that. We could analyze that if you would like us to look at it further.

I think you can create conditions and covenants on the sale of real estate and the development of real estate in a real estate contract. I don't necessarily personally think that it's an issue, but if one of the things that's been shared with us is that one of the concerns is that companies will follow, they'll acquire space, they'll build locations simply for the purpose of selling. If that's an issue for us, then I'm curious whether we can manage that by contract and by ordinance.

We have not previously done that by ordinance, and I have not seen it done. I'm not saying it can't be done, but I would be cautious about looking at that.

Fair. Is there anyone else to be heard?

Another quick comment. First, I don't think anybody said it. Your signs look great. I'm sorry? Your signs look good.

Thank you.

You guys spent a lot of money.

Yeah, we have. We've spent a lot of money upgrading the signs, painting them.

Yeah, painted them, cleaned them up. It'll look good. I mean, that should have been the first thing out of our miles is thanks for that. Yeah, certainly.

Look, we're happy to be here. And I know the zoning team has probably heard me say it a million times, but we at Lamar, we're a 125-year-old billboard company. We're publicly traded now. We're still run by the same family. This was like the one patch of the United States where it felt like we didn't really have a presence. And 45 states allow billboards. We are excited to be here. And Lamar doesn't sell. We are the billboard company that's going to be here forever. And that's, in a sense, too, why we wanted to work with Chris and his team looking at the idea of a cap and replace because, you know, I've gotten to develop a relationship with some members of the Avery family, and I feel like the Avery family were good stewards of the community. Throughout the years, they could have built a bazillion billboards wherever they wanted.

They built way more than they should have.

And maybe some have been taken down since I got here.

And that's why those percentages are like that, but go ahead.

Yeah, but so I guess my point being as well is that going back to... Your original point as well is that, yeah, I mean, if you don't do a cap and replace, you're going to have 100 permits on your desk tomorrow. That's just the way that it goes. We see it everywhere.

So that was the warm and fuzzy. So my question to you is you've got boards around the country, and the only question I have is you guys build billboards where? Where do you place billboards?

Where?

Yeah.

Like how do we decide where to put them?

No, just where do all billboards go? Yeah.

Yes, how do you decide what...

They go on public infrastructure, right? Most of the time, they mirror... Well, they go on... But they mirror... Your goal is you want to hug private and public infrastructure, right? Roads.

Yeah, for sure.

Yeah, that's just common sense. So my question is, when you look at the tax base on those, and we can't play with that, is there any other community that goes out there and says... And puts an annual fee on it or some type of an inspection or... I look at it from... When we reviewed the tax base, I was like, man, the Averys really did a good job of beating down their tax base over the last 40 years. Because, man, them should have a lot higher taxes on them. They did a really good job of lobbying these councils over the year. So my question is, do other... states have any type of an annual inspection or an annual user fee or anything like that in there? I mean, I'm just going to be honest with you. You're on public infrastructure. I kind of put billboards kind of in that same category as a food truck. It's like you don't put a food truck out in the middle of an alfalfa field. You put it on public infrastructure. So they don't pay property. So my question to you is, does that exist on any other states? And would you guys be open to something like that? I mean, you know.

Yeah. I mean, look, it's your guy's city. You can do whatever you want. Um, I've only in all the States that I've ever worked in the communities I've been, I've only ever seen one other community who did something.

Something like that. Okay. And what was their reasoning behind it?

I don't recall. Um, to be completely honest with you, you could probably look at it.

Mine's pretty good.

It's Helena, Montana is, is who did that. So.

Okay. Okay. I know we took, cause I know, did that even come up Andrew at PNZ at all?

We talked about maybe a fee for kind of assessment of it, but we didn't feel that we could quite get the fee to where it made sense for the effort for city staff. I guess that's kind of the way I looked at it. But we did discuss it, yes.

I mean, I just look at like with the cell towers and I look at what they pay in tax for about the same footprint. It seems like that they pay a ton in. I would just like a little bit more love for stuff that's sitting on public infrastructure. I think there's an opportunity there. So this is only first reading, right? So we've got two more readings on this? So this is, and maybe we'll come back and discuss this. I would like to just throw an amendment on vote for there. Pass it, pass it. Just to throw, I'm going to put a stupid number. Let's just say $1,500 assigned annual fee on it as an amendment. It ain't going to go. No, I can add, can't I here?

I think Helen is $40. You can't do it under planning and zoning.

On the readings, can or can't?

Mike, can we do that?

I got some bad advice from Mike then. What's going on over here?

Usually what the council has done in the past is they'll vote on the reading as presented and then direction can be given to staff and we can come back with an alternative.

I wouldn't mind just opening a discussion on it, if that makes sense. When would that happen? How could I do that? Two weeks?

Second and third. I think there'll be consecutive meetings, so the second reading will be proposed for next Monday.

Okay, let's do that. Let's come back and talk about it. I want to do some research on it, too.

Okay.

Okay.

Anyone else to be heard? Two other quick items. We did receive a comment from the Iowa DOT in regards to the Gordon Drive Viaduct that they did ask that if council were to approve the ordinance that it be made effective in three months, end of the year timeframe. So that's something that we could update that as well or extend the moratorium for that timeframe. And also on the RCA in front of you are two items. One is to update the code. The second is to extend the moratorium. The moratorium is set to expire on Saturday. So we want to make sure that you have that opportunity for three readings. So if you do first reading, we do ask that we receive three readings on the extension of the moratorium so there's not a gap.

But Chris, doesn't this new ordinance, though, basically put, isn't this like a de facto moratorium?

If it were to receive all three readings.

Yeah.

Otherwise, there would be a couple weeks gap where there would be no moratorium. It would be under the...

But I'm sure my proposal just sounded outrageous, but at the end of the day, we're going to have a finite amount of boards moving forward if this gets read.

I get that.

No, no, I get that. They need extended so nobody can get in there, sneak in there, get approved. What I'm saying is that... As outrageous as it might sound to put a fee on each billboard, the reality of it is that if this passes as is, there's going to be no new billboards from any other companies.

No, there will be in a two-week period if we don't do that.

No, I know that, but where I'm going with this, Bob, is I know we're trading. I'm saying is that if we've got to extend the moratorium for two weeks.

I think we've got to extend the moratorium.

What I'm saying is that if this passes on its third reading, you're basically putting in a moratorium on any new companies coming into the city.

No, they still won't be able to.

Who? How? It's going to be replaced, isn't it?

No. No, there's still other locations where they could...

identify My name is only more recommend the cap and replace replace So is that a new static sign would require the removal and an existing static a new digital sign would require the removal of to static Only existing signs are gonna be replaced.

So you're blocking out any new customer any new any perspective? That's that's the little intricates of this thing, right or if they buy it they can Lamar doesn't sell

Well, it's not just our signs. We have some Avery signs still around the city.

No, we don't. No, no Avery signs, but there are other.

There are a few others. Hutchinson, Odin. There's a couple other owners in town.

Yeah, give us some light. There's seven other billboard companies in the Sealand area.

Okay.

How many signs do they have? One has one. One has three. Another has probably eight to ten. Another has one, two, three. Another has three, and then a bunch of signs that are on little trailers around Gordon Drive. That's a whole other deal, though. And then I'm not sure how many the other one has, around maybe four or five.

You see where the discussion I'm going with this is that it's going to become a finite amount of signs, if not less, moving forward, correct? Correct.

Well, the cap and replace, two for one.

Yeah, on digital, yeah, and then static, obviously, one for one. I think it still provides an opportunity from at least an aesthetic perspective to make it look better, though. If there's a sign that's an eyesore or whatever it may be, there's a bunch of different scenarios. Ultimately, I think it's good. I think that there are enough billboards available. in Sioux City, Iowa, I think is our perspective.

Yeah, but I don't, I'm kind of a free enterprise guy. I didn't realize we were saying no more sign. Yeah, I mean, you're not. You're not.

Well, I guess, you know.

You've done a better job than the Averys, and I didn't think anybody could do that kind of job, so you've done one even better than those guys.

Well, you know, I think, too, maybe something that is important to touch on, it's pretty common in our industry where even if it's not necessarily a sale where, like, you know, let's say we approach another sign company and we're like, hey, we'll sell you 20 signs in Sioux City, Iowa, but what is common is trading. So we may say, like, hey, you know, you've got those three really good signs in Okoboji and If you give us those three, we'll give you these 10 here in Sioux City. So it doesn't, I understand the perspective of saying that it locks people out, but it doesn't officially lock people out.

All I'm saying is it caps the city's ability to grow more revenue off of that industry.

Well, I mean, if you want to charge $1,500 a bill for it, though.

Property taxes.

Right, but it's so tiny.

But the taxes are tiny, that's what I'm saying. I mean, that's one reason. The reason is, I didn't just conjure this up.

We have identified 1,100... potential sites that billboards could go on. Is that true, Chris?

Correct. After the ordinance were to be approved, this map shows where those 1,100 sites would be.

And we don't need 1,100 new billboards.

That would meet all the different setback requirements. Right.

I don't know if you guys spend a lot of time in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, but pay attention next time you drive up there. There's 90 digital billboards there. That is what will happen here if we don't.

But they're located in one area, aren't they?

Certain areas, now they are. There's pockets of...

Right, but now they have to stay.

But to say that you can't go to a board of adjustment, a sign company, and compete against you really is...

No, I mean, look, again, ultimately, it's up to you guys. I'm trying to put it from the perspective of someone who's seen this happen in like 10 different markets, just letting you know what's going to happen.

I'm the one guy that screamed the loudest about that mess on Highway 75, but that doesn't mean I don't want any.

And that was the part that the board had the hardest time with. Yeah, I do too. The most divided, but at the end of the day, the majority agreed with the cap and replace, just so you guys are aware.

I know most people think I'm a real liberal, but when it comes to free enterprise, I'm not.

And to be fair, we had no idea we were charging $1,500 a billboard.

We're not. It's a suggestion.

Yeah.

And as the city grows, then maybe there's more opportunity for more signs. Not if you've got this sign. Well, that's how you bring it back.

I agree. I'm going to approve this because I know we've got a second and third that are coming. If we need to extend the moratorium for that period of time, we will. You're going to have two weeks where they're going to be banging those in, just so you know.

Yeah, we've got to extend the moratorium. The proposed moratorium, the next, I guess, item that's coming up, it's an extension through... I think December 15th. And then when the third reading passes on the sign ordinance, if the council goes through all three readings on that, it's automatically in the proposed draft that it will repeal the section that contains the moratorium. Okay.

Thank you. Thanks, Sean. First reading then. Passes 4 to 1. Bertrand votes no. 20 is a hearing and ordinance amending chapter 2505 entitled site development to provide an extension of the interim signed ordinance petitioners of the city of Sioux City. I'll move that. Second. Public hearing is now open. Anyone to be heard? Seeing none, the hearing is closed. Passes 5-0. Is anybody opposed to waiving the statutory rule? No. I'll move. Second.

Scott?

Aye.

Berenstein? Aye. Bertrand?

Aye.

Rayford? Aye. Shainer? Aye.

Move second and third. Second.

Berenstein?

Aye.

Bertrand? Aye. Rayford? Aye. Shainer? Aye. Scott?

Aye. 21 is a resolution accepting and approving the final plat of Bowmeyer second addition and minor subdivision to Woodbury County. The petitioner is JD Legacy Farms. PNZ recommends approval. So this is because it's within a two-mile jurisdiction. It's not the ground that farm sold in two pieces. Correct. So it's the east farm that they're doing.

Correct. Yep. The developer is looking to develop seven lots with frontage on 110th Street in the county.

Emotion is second, right?

Hey Dan, thanks for spending money. Appreciate you guys spending some money out there so keep building. Gonna build some more.

5 0. 22 is a hearing and resolution approving plans and specs for the Expo Center Drive sanitary sewer main relocation for the Gordon Drive Viaduct. I'll move that. Second. Public hearings now open. Anyone to be heard? Seeing none, the hearing is closed. Passes 5-0. 23 is a hearing resolution accepting the proposal of Siouxland Developers for the purchase of a vacated portion of Cone Park adjacent to Line Drive in the Donner Park Urban Renewal Area and authorizing and approving its development agreement and a minimum assessment agreement. A motion is requested to defer this item to September 28th. I'll move that. Second. I wish I had looked at that.

What, two proposals?

I'm going to go on vacation that day, and I have real strong feelings about, it passes 5-0, about. Deferring it? No, not deferring it. Let's hear it.

What do you got, Mr. Mayor? You're not going to be here, so tell us what you got.

Would you like to defer?

If the council doesn't mind, I would like to be here for that.

I have no problem to bring it to when Bob's back.

Procedurally, we need a motion to reconsider.

I'll move to reconsider.

Thank you. Second. Sorry. One moment.

Just a student of procedure down here.

Bertrand?

Aye.

Rayford? Aye. Shaner? Aye. Scott?

Aye.

Berenstein?

Aye. So I would move to... October whatever that is.

Two weeks will be September 28th.

Yeah, that was and we've got to move it to October 5th. 6th?

5th.

October 5th. I'll move that we defer to October 5th. Second.

Rayford?

Aye.

Shaner? Aye. Scott? Aye. Berenstein? Aye. Bertrand?

Aye. 24 is ordinance amending title 10 of the municipal code and title traffic to increase the rate changes of hourly, daily, monthly, and bulk parking in the municipal parking ramps and parking meters to increase the overtime parking fees and other related parking fines. I move first reading. Second. Anyone to be heard?

Is this for regular people?

I don't know what I'm supposed to talk, but I am a business owner. My name is Mary Warden Fiedler. I own Big Mama's downtown. I have a lot of older customers, ages 65. I know that's not old, but it's Medicare age, and all the way up to 95. My customers are on fixed income. I'm reading this. I know my buddy Tiffany said it doesn't include parking meters, but it says and parking meters. Are you going to increase... the quarter for 15 minutes? I'm asking you not to. I don't care about the parking ramp. But this says and meters. Am I reading that incorrectly?

Tiffany Claiborne, Parking and Skywalk Division Manager. No, we are not looking at increasing the meters. Okay, thank you.

And please don't put those QR codes. We hate them. The young people hate them. We don't like them. My customers give me quarters for my older customers and we're happy the way it is. We are happy. Don't change something that's not broke. Yank up the prices if you want for fees. Yank up the parking ramp, but leave our meters. Leave our older customers alone. Have mercy on us. Thank you, guys.

Thank you.

Hi there. Regan Cody, Downtown Partners. I do care that you don't hike up everything, so that's why I'm up here. One thing that I would request is that you not remove the first hour free. A lot of our businesses do use that when they're talking to customers from out of town and others that need more time. it's beginning to kind of compile that a little bit more. So it's something that they're able to use to enforce and utilize the ramps, which I think has always been our biggest piece to this is making more people use them. Currently they're at about 55% full. If they were at 100% full, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion. But for that purpose, I really want that hour to remain if possible. The other thing I wanted to just kind of reading through the ordinance, And maybe I should be quiet about it, but it's not crossed out on there. So maybe if that is going to be passed, take a look at that. The other thing that was moved at the board meeting was to remove the 200 and over section at all. I don't know where that was written or not written, but in the ordinance, it's not removed. And the parking board did approve to remove that?

No, but in the second meeting, it was decided not to. The mail was sent out, actually. Oh, OK. And just because that would have been a larger jump for some of the people to get to the next tier, it would have been a $10 to $15 increase. So we decided to keep the tiers like that. And the reason why you didn't see it in the ordinance crossed out with the first hour free, because you said you had discussions with council members and it would never be passed. So that's why I kept it out of there. We'll never be past a strong point.

But yes, we did have discussions. Yes. So if that's something that I would like you.

I just want to make sure I'm clear. You're saying that the sense is that the council will not approve removing the one hour free? I just want to make sure I'm clear on what you're talking about.

The one hour free is what we were talking about. Yes. It's not crossed out in the ordinance.

Your thought that it's in the ordinance to delete it, but you're thinking the council won't approve that.

I did not even take it. No, I did not put it in the ordinance to remove. I didn't cross anything out. No, it was just mentioned in your RCA.

Okay.

So the ordinance remains fine. Very good. Yeah. Thank you.

Oh, here comes Teresa.

Teresa Fitch, Assistant City Manager. I just want to clarify, the board approved to remove the hour free. Tiffany didn't include it because Reagan indicated that she didn't feel it would be approved by the council. So the board did want to approve to remove the one hour free. We didn't include it because of that. So just for clarification.

Teresa, question. On the ramp itself, so the people that live downtown I'm gonna be ignorant here. I don't know this answer. They have it. They buy a monthly permit, right? Correct. I knew that part. Yes. And is that different than like a if you work downtown permit? Is it the same?

That depends if we have any development agreements in place. There are some places that have development agreements in place where they get a reduced parking.

That's my question is, does this affect the development agreement to a tenant that's already down there? I had that question from two people.

There's one of the agreements in particular states exactly the dollar amount, like the badger. It states that will not change because it doesn't say the current rate.

You don't know what that means.

So in the agreement, sometimes it'll say the current rate, whatever the current rate is, or the group rate. But in the Badger, it specifically states a dollar amount, so that will not be increased there.

So does the landlord buys it down then?

It would say the rate that says 200 plus parkers. That would be your rate. So if the rates change in that category, then it would change. But in the Badger, it specifically says the dollar amount on which they pay, which does not change. Okay. Because that, yes, because that.

You didn't reserve the right in the development agreements that the monthly rate would change in the event that the ordinance is changed. Correct.

And I believe the Badgerall is the only one that reads like that.

Is it going up or not?

Not the Badrow, because it's got a specific dollar amount. The others that are tied to a specific group within the ordinance, if that group changes, it does change.

So let me ask you, Teresa, can you identify that group or it's not an identifiable group?

What do you mean?

I mean, someone that actually lives downtown.

Well, if they're not in one of the groups with the development agreement attached to it, they pay their normal rate that is tied to the ordinance that will increase.

So is there a way for them to identify themselves that they as a tenant downtown that it can stay there with their ad or not?

They can contact Tiffany and Tiffany would be able to tell them.

Okay. Yep. So I'll hit her back and just say get a hold of you. Yeah, absolutely. Again, if you're living down there, I think they feel like they've got a flat rate that was worked in. I don't know if it was going to fall back to the landlord. It depends on where they live.

Some of the landlords, yeah. Some of the landlords actually pay it.

That's probably part of the lease.

Yeah, and sometimes the landlords pay more or they charge more in the rent than what the actual.

That should stay there. Yeah. That's fair. They live down there.

I would assume so.

So of the four, there's four ramps, right? Is it four? And all four, they have the first hour free?

All of the ramps do, yes.

Do we know how much revenue that would come or not come?

Yeah, so last year it was $23,100 if we charged for that first hour. It would have been $23,170.50, so it's not a huge amount. But that also included the FEMA workers last year at Heritage, and those numbers were high. So I can't anticipate that it would be more than that this year.

And so then, you know, as we look to try to rebuild downtown and those things are, you know, would removing that first hour discourage visits and those things? I mean, can we say we know?

Might. We don't know that. So the goal, when we sat down and tried to come up with some creative ways to get people back into the parking ramps, the thought was the more people we get into the ramps, the less it actually costs people. So the goal is to try to get people back into the ramps so we can reevaluate in a year to say, okay, now we've increased the number of parkers, so we don't need to do increases across the board to everybody. you know, until we get the ramps full, the parkers have to take on the cost of the ramps. So right now, the parking meters offset some of the ramp costs. So, I mean, the more we can get people to park in the ramps and on the streets and pay for it, the less the cost should be.

But if we're trying to get more people into the ramp and we're taking away that free hour, I mean, essentially, I mean, wouldn't it be that then people was like,

Well, they might go to the street or they just might not come. We don't know that. I mean, it's hard to guess if they would park on the street or if they park in the ramp or they just wouldn't come downtown. There's those three options. I have no idea what they would do. We don't know that.

That out, right?

It is not currently in the drafted ordinance.

Yeah, I did not put it in there. I put it in the RCA, but I did not change the ordinance. It's still staying free.

Yes, so it was still state.

Yes, yeah, I did not change that.

So what's what's in the RCA is what the board actually suggested, but from feedback from Reagan it was not included in the ordinance update. OK, yeah, so in a year from now will we look at that? We look at that fund and see what it may need to do.

So when you looked at adjusting the rates, either Tiffany or maybe this is for Reagan. How did our rates compared to other communities?

So just, I mean, we are lower, like I compared Davenport, Cedar Rapids, they're at $65 a month. Omaha, of course, is way higher, but I didn't want to compare apples to oranges.

I always include Sioux Falls because everyone always says we should be more like Sioux Falls. Those things come along with it.

They were substantially higher. I did some comparison. They are. We are by far the lowest.

Reagan, is it your sense, having your finger on the pulse of the downtown sector, the owners, the merchants, those that come down to the community, the customers, that this will be an issue to raise the rates?

Anytime you raise rates, obviously, it's an issue. But for not doing the transient parker, that does help. However, these are the people that live and work in downtown. These are the people that are supporting this amount, so that makes it very difficult to raise. As far as the other cities across Iowa, we meet monthly with other downtowns. We are pretty much Spot on, we're in the 60, $65 range. A lot of those do obviously resident rates as well. Cedar Rapids, Davenport, some of those others do like a $40. If you're a resident across the board, they do one rate. So that's why we started talking about all the different rates and scales and things like that. But in general, we're sitting about the right seat. It's far better than 10 or 12, but it is a raise nonetheless.

And then we also met, Teresa and Sarah and I met, just how to get people downtown during the day. Because nighttime, people are downtown, but that's when it's free. So we talked about doing, and you saw in the RCA about doing a student pass, because a lot of the kids, we have a ton of the parents calling about the pass. I wanna be honest and it's like, I want them to figure it out. And by giving a $25 pass, I think it's still gonna give us a little additional revenue by doing, you know, rather than the daily parking that they do. And then also just to get new parkers, give a $10 discount for six months just to try to get, because our goal is to get them filled up, but we just don't know how to get them filled up when there's so much free parking downtown. So that's what we're running into is, I mean, if you can walk three extra blocks to park for free, people are going to do it.

I do appreciate the student pass. I just spoke with a couple of parents and staff and I really appreciate you guys doing that in there too.

I think having the pass alleviates a lot of stress. Some of the students don't have debit cards. They don't have cards. They struggle. If a parent can purchase a pass for them and it's a once a month expense then they don't have constant issues in the ramp. It alleviates a lot of stress for them.

Hi. I want to speak on a couple things here. One, as Explorer Siouxlands ED, but also as a board member of Downtown Partners. So when we refer to Bragan says, I think her entire board stands behind her on that. We all feel the same way about that, about taking that one hour away. But I also recently had a call from someone. We were trying to get an event here in town. It got canceled. taken to Omaha, and we're really big on following up on why, because we want to learn, we want to do better, and we were told, well, if they go to Omaha, this particular convention has a lot of spouses that come, and they need something for those spouses to do, and so they said when they're in the old market, they can go around and they can shop, they can do things. They said our downtown of Sioux City, we do not have enough retail stores, we have too many vacant spaces. So I think that's one of the challenges too that we have been discussing a lot at Downtown Partners is the vacant spaces and how many people go to the Morningside area to other areas to shop because it's convenient. First off, there's a lot of shops there, but there's also no cost of parking. And I think that free hour really is critical for our businesses so that customers will come. And hopefully what we are doing is we fill those empty spots. And I would think you're going to make up in taxes from actually having retail spaces filled, whatever you would lose for that one hour parking, just something I'd like you guys to consider. We're not taking it away.

No, we're not. Okay.

Well, I just wanted to make sure because I know that was one of the things that got discussed.

No, we're not taking it away. We're not. We're keeping it in place. Wonderful.

and i do think the most salient point is we as a community have to figure out a way to revitalize our downtown and we as a city council staff the community we need to start rethinking this because the reason i ask the question whether the five dollar increases or such are consistent with other communities is because i think it's fair to be consistent with other communities at the same time we have to find a way to to better utilize our downtown our downtown sector i think when we start getting a little bit more direction from others when we look at the entertainment district on the walgreens site when we start working with unity point and their intent i think it's going to give us some options but i think we need to be very open-minded and i think we need to be very aggressive whether it's downtown partners directly or whether it's the city and our economic development group we have to find a way to better utilize our downtown that will increase our commercial traffic, our residential traffic, and it will better utilize the ramps.

The more people we have downtown, the more people that park, and hopefully the less increases we have to do. We have to get these mixed use bills.

Block by block. That's the goal. That's it. Already got it. Three votes. Who's going to step up, right, Reagan?

Anyone else?

And so we're voting on the, as it's written here with the, not the RCA that was correct.

The language ordinance.

So the, the one hour free remains in the ordinance first reading and it doesn't, it doesn't do parking meters either. Right.

Correct. It's just contained in the heading. Cause it covers more than what's being changed. So the heading included parking meters.

Passes 5-0. Is anybody opposed to waiving the statutory rule?

No.

I'll move it.

Second. Shainer? Aye. Scott?

Aye.

Berenstein?

No, because I would like to have some additional discussion, but I respect wanting to move it.

Bertrand?

Aye.

Rayford? Aye.

I'll move second and third.

Second. Scott?

Aye.

Berenstein?

No.

Bertrand?

Aye.

Rayford? Aye. Shainer? Aye.

25 is a resolution amending resolution number 2026-0360 relating to the hearing on a manager's report and resolution declaring a structure to be dangerously dilapidated and authorizing a 90-day delay in demolition. The property is 1416 West 3rd Street. Property owner is Freda Bream Estate. Carol? Carol?

Parabolic Inspection Services Manager.

Second. Okay.

Through several negotiations and talks with the family, they have moved forward and have brought in their $10,000 cashier's check and the estimated repairs and other documents that are required for this and staff does support this state of demolition.

Quick question, Darrell. Are we, or is there any possibility or a way that someone can, I mean, what is the expectation, 90 days, what are we hoping for, what are we looking for?

This particular project, I would say less than a month. Okay. It should go within probably a week or two, simply because of the things that are in place and being able to move forward quickly. The nice part of this is that they've also applied for some funds through some programs that Jill has to take it even beyond the red tag removal, which is great for the area.

I'd just like for us to just keep an eye so that we don't get to that 90-day.

Yeah, typically what we do is, like with any other building permits and so forth, if they have active progress and they've had successful inspections during that time period, we continue to work with them until that's done because each time that clock starts starting over again once they hit that, as long as they've had successful inspections, which means that progress is moving forward. Thank you. Thanks, Daryl. Yep.

Perhaps it's 5-0-26 resolution waiving the requirements for sidewalk insulation at 2827 Hamilton Boulevard. I'll move that.

Second. Second.

What we have here is the Hy-Vee on Hamilton came in with an improvement for their building where they're going to put in some kind of drive-through for grocery deliveries. Yeah, deliveries for pick-up groceries of some sort. Pick-up groceries. Pick-up groceries, thank you. And that triggered the requirement to have sidewalks installed along Hamilton in front of their property.

Is the proposal that it actually include from the corner where the small Hy-Vee is located all the way north to the McDonald's or just in front of the Hy-Vee?

Just in front of the Hy-Vee because that's a separate property.

So you'd be requiring a sidewalk to the street... and then the property in front of Minerva's and as it extends would not have sidewalk.

Correct. Okay. Question. Why did it not get triggered when they did, I mean, name it, UnityPoint, Wilmus Hardware, those all had to have building permits. How did that not trigger it?

Couldn't answer that one. I just know it came through. We looked at it. We said, yeah, it doesn't require that. We took it also to Active Transportation Committee, although it wasn't on the agenda, so they couldn't vote on it, but they did review it, and they all agreed that, yes, they should put one in at that time. And then right after that, Mr. John Gleason, who's here in the audience, contacted me and said that about 40 years ago when Hy-Vee was installed, or when they built it, He had an agreement with the city to not install sidewalks on that side if they participated and put sidewalks on the east side of the street. Which he did. Which they did. Which they did. Right. It's in there, so, yeah. So I'm just, at this point, we're just asking for this waiver. There's sidewalks on the east side? Yeah. Oh, yes.

Yeah, and he paid, when they did the Hy-Vee, he participated in the cost of that. Yep.

Yes, there is.

And I'm a sidewalk guy.

Sidewalk on the east. We put billboards in that garden there? All the way to Outer Drive.