Council - Regular Meeting

Jeff Mendel? Here. Lasky?

Here.

Huber? Here. Johnson? Here. Probably can't afford

Are you specifically referring to permits that are on the agenda for tonight or are you making a generalization of the building inspector and the new permits that were passed previously?

i don't know what what are you asking about if i'm responsible for anything well my property is up next to leading hall before your time they added on to it and it's supposed to be three feet from my property line okay i gave them a waiver so they can come straight off their property lines right So, you know, do you check where the property lines are? I mean, this was before your time, I understand.

Yeah, I don't, I don't go get property pins. All I do is

Satisfactory? Do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda or any changes to the agenda?

I'll motion to approve consent agenda with the exception of removal of item D on new business for table

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. I'm sorry. Did we have someone second that motion? Open the public hearing for the City Code of Ordinances, updated and codified.

Make a motion to open the public hearing at 6.34 in regards to the City Code of Ordinances. Second.

Vanske? Yes. Light? Yes. Johnson? Yes. Huber? Yes. Rendell? Yes.

Okay, as part of our contract with PCCog, as you know, we've been trying to get the ordinances updated for codification from 2013. So this process has been ongoing for several months. So we now have it all for approval for the draft that was sent. It was also available for Office for Review by Public, which is just taking all of the previous documents amendments to ordinances that have happened since then to get them up to code. Then we'll move on to the next one after it's codified to update any to the model code that we feel as a council that you would like to do. So we had no public comment on the ordinance update or visitors into the office regarding the update of the code or codification.

So Ordinance the code of ordinances that you shared with us that is all that is everything that has been changed or updated. What I was wondering if there's any.

Okay, so just to preface what before you go into detail with your question, that would be everything that city staff was able to find a. Motion that followed all the way through to either a 2nd and 3rd waving or a. waiving or an approval. So previous to any of our time, I believe, there were a few incidences, I think, where an ordinance was maybe placed on an agenda and it didn't go further or it wasn't like officially amended. So we went through every agenda since the 2013 and then every agenda to find, to make sure that there was a first, second, third reading or a first waived, second, third, whatever. So some of them that you may randomly be like, hey, I remember this. If it didn't get codified, it meant that it never went through the entire process. So, okay, now go ahead with your question.

What I was going to ask is if there's any way, because we're not approving that tonight, right? It's not on here.

Right. No, this is just the hearing.

I think this is just the public hearing for the draft. So yeah, so then we'll move forward if there's...

I guess let me ask my question. Yeah. Because the code of ordinances that you can access on our website now is whatever, however many pages. And the updated revised, what I was hoping is we could get some type of document that told us

you know what i mean like a like a summary yeah somebody wanted it to be um kind of like a marked up marked up yeah okay so yes um sorry the marked up version that was going between the attorney and ec cog is probably the marked up version is probably not the one that was shared with you it's probably the direct the final draft okay Yeah. So I can share the marked up version. Sorry. I thought that had been shared. Just because it's because of the, because of it being as large as it is, is the online mocked up version. Okay. Because we have a whole thread between the attorney and BC cop, which does state the ones that are in discussion as a list. Is that what you're asking? Like, can we have a list of the ones that were amended? Because not every one of them was amended.

Yes.

Okay.

That's really what I'm asking.

So kind of like a summary list. Okay. We have a summary list that did go to the attorney, the summary listed, and the attorney referenced that list to review the draft red line code. That's what you'd like?

Yeah. I guess what I'm trying to, you know, this is such a large document. I would need to approve something that what was inserted or updated that could help us do some cross-reference of the original just to make sure mr jacob

Eastern Iowa.

East Central Iowa.

Do they drive around, take their shoes, send stuff in?

Okay.

I think that's a band work or something. Oh, they do do that if you contract with them. That would be like for the nuisances. Some cities do contract with them for nuisance abatement where they may be taking pictures or doing those things. But no, the city is not utilizing them in that manner, at least not yet.

Because I know a lot of small towns because if there's a vehicle parked on the side of the road and just the one tire was in the grass, get the picture and send them a visual effect. A letter to get the vehicle off that little piece of grass.

Right, no, that's not. We're talking like just the code of ordinance in terms of law and making sure that, it's East Central Iowa Council of Governments, that's the one. I was looking to see what the school stood for. East Central Iowa Council of Governments.

Hubert? Yes. Johnson? Yes. Light? Yes. Medwell? Yes. Paskey?

Yes.

Public hearing is closed. Staff reports. Does the building inspector wish to do any verbal amplification through his Written report? No, everything's in the report unless you have questions. Thank you, sir. On to old business. Open for discussion, the police vehicle, this position. We have option A,

make a motion to open the discussion on the police vehicle. I'll second.

Basti?

Yes.

Bendel? Yes. Light? Yes. Johnson? Yes. Huber? Yes. City administrator, wish to embellish the two options?

I can. I referenced both options in the memo that was sent to the council. So to summarize the two options, so we're talking about the 2023 Chevy Tahoe vehicle. Option A, I went through, I don't, I mean, unless you guys have real detailed questions from the memo, I'm just going to kind of go through the options. So the first option could be that the city considers selling the vehicle to another law enforcement agency. The two clarifications that council needs to be aware of is real property is terms of land and personal property is in terms of vehicle equipment, small items, things like that. this particular thing does not hold the same process as real property. So we did some research on the market value of the law enforcement vehicle. This particular vehicle, as you know, was purchased as a new vehicle. And it was purchased as the Tahoe and then the city paid X number of dollars to, I think it's called uplift the vehicle into a police vehicle. So as it sits, like as the vehicle sets, it's in the best interest of the city to sell it then to another law enforcement agency. That's the best way to get the most value out of the vehicle as it is. So the first one would be to just sell it out to another agency. Option B would be that the city considers the sale of the Tahoe to Benton County Sheriff's Office to consider offsetting the contract that the city already holds for law enforcement services, which I included all of those dollars as closely as I could. Last year, when I did the memo, the cost last year, I think with the law enforcement contract was like $40,000-ish. I think it's like more toward $41,000 or $42,000 maybe for this year. Depending on how the vehicle would be sold, I think is where the question becomes like the market value. Is the market value closer to $55,000 if you can sell it to another agency and then that agency is willing to pay that amount? or if we negotiate a contract, offset a contract and do those things and take the value of that to do something and negotiate with Benton County. Those are the two options. Unless of course, council has another option. I do believe it's in the best interest of the city. We still have another police vehicle that is here as backup vehicle or whatever, but the depreciation of a brand new vehicle like that simply does not really make sense. And Benton County is interested in it. It is the turnover of the fiscal year. They personally reached out asking if the city was at a point where they were interested in selling the vehicle. And so that's kind of how I've come up with some different options for council. Did you have more specific questions that I can provide that weren't maybe in the memo or in one of the two resolutions? Because obviously, based on that discussion, it would be A or B is how I try to set that up legally.

And B is the next one. If B gets voted down, then the city keeps the vehicle.

I guess my take here, It gets the vehicle back in service. It's not doing anybody sitting there. And then obviously, you know, the option to get a reduction or offset some of our contract costs would be also be able to.

Comments from other members? sitting there not getting used, that's harder on the vehicle than being put in service. In the interest of efficiency, do I have a motion to vote on option B?

I make a motion to vote on option B. Then I'll second.

Huber?

Yes.

Option B has been selected for the disposition of the 2023 model. New business, considering purchase of real property. The two items under discussion on uh together so there won't be a choice between a and b they're a package so open motion to open uh consider purchase of real property i'll motion to open consideration and purchase of real property i'll say it Yes. Do you have amplifying information on the real property?

Well, I don't like the new word, amplify, because I'm not really sure if I have anything to amplify. But, you know, I always have something to say. Okay. I always have something to say. But, again, I believe, so we held two closed sessions. purposely to see if we could get as many of the council members for the input the session was had during the closed session obviously if there was additional questions or information that I can provide that I haven't already sent like the mayor said the resolution comes with the the purchase agreement which the purchase agreement is just something that would be given to the seller just to give them um uh what's the word i'm looking for reassurance that the city is going to move forward with that um that's kind of why it's the package deal thing so that's how it's on the agenda um unless there was other questions i think In my eyes, I think that we had two thorough discussions during the closed session. So tonight is for action. Unless somebody has a more specific question.

Middle? Yes. Huber? Yes. Johnson? Yes. Light? Yes. Batsky?

Yes.

City has approved the purchase of the real property located in the downtown area. I have a motion to consider resolution 2027.

This one is just a motion. for the agreement, is that the one that you're on now? Sorry, I just want to make sure.

B?

Okay, I didn't know if you were doing them both at the same time.

Okay. 30 p.m make a motion to set the public hearing for august 12 2026 at 6 30 for the 27 budget amendment number one resolution 2704 i'll suck it

And the item D has been tabled for the next meeting.

Yes.

As per the consent agenda motion and vote.

Yes. And I will also have binders for that that were not completed for tonight. But as soon as those are ready, I can have council pick those up so you do have plenty of time for review. Which goes with also the memo that motion to adjourn all those in favor aye

Did you ever hear about your nest?