City Council - Regular Meeting

Wateroo City Council meeting May 4th meeting. City clerk. Roll call, please. All right. Mr. Schmidt here. Mr. Marorrow here. Miss Kraton Smith here. Miss Barry Mr. Salamaka here. And Mr. Barton here. And Mr. S here.

Thank you. This moment I'd like to observe a moment of silence, prayer or reflection, your personal choice. Thank you. Tonight's pledge of allegiance will be led by Kelly Martin at large city council member to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

All right, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Simon, I would like to make a motion to approve the agenda as amended with the removal of resolutions number 14, 15, and 16, as well as the approval of the minutes from April 10th, 2026 council special session and the April 20th, 2026 council regular session as proposed. Second. Motion to second. All in favor? I oppose. Motion carried. Mr. Mayor, Mr. Diamond.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the consent agenda as proposed as well as the addition of bill payments of Monday, April 27th in the amount of $2,868,42047 and Monday, May 4th of the amount of 3,920,628. Second motion second. Roll call vote, please. Mr. Schmidt, yes. Mr. Marl, yes. Miss Kraton Smith, here. Miss um oh uh yay or nay. Okay. Uh Miss Barry. No, it's okay. Uh Mr. Salamanca, yes. Mr. Martin,

yes. And Mr. Simon, yes.

Thank you. We have three appointments tonight. Uh Travis Nichols from Civil Service Listed Park, superintendent of leisure services. Jake Schaefer, assistant uh young arena manager for leisure services and Shelley Fry as executive secretary for the mayor's office. If you're here tonight, please stand. Thank you and appreciate all you do. And then uh we have the conclusion of appointment appointment of Yolanda Space from a solid waste technician. Uh we I just want to personally thank him for his commitment to the city of Wateroo. All right. Public hearings. Mr. Mayor, we'll take number one. Mr. Smith.

Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to receive and file proof publication of notice of public hearing and that's for the street department asphalt emotions seal coat program. Second. Motion second. All in favor? I oppose. Motion carried. Is there anyone from the public that'd like to speak for or against the asphalt emotion seal coat program? Seeing none, Mr. Schmidt. Mr. May, I'd like to make a motion to close the hearing and receive and file any oral or written comments. Second. Motion to second. All in favor? I oppose. Mr. Schmidt.

Mr. Mayor, I'd like to adopt a resolution confirming approval of specifications, bid document, form of contract, etc. and authorizing Jupit. Second. Motion to second. Roll call vote, please. Mr. Schmidt, yes. Mr. Marorrow, yes. Miss Kraton Smith, yes. Miss Barry, yes. Mr. Salamanca, yes. Mr. Martin, yes. Mr. Simon, yes. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to receive, file, instruct the city clerk to read the bids. Is there a second? Second. Oh, thank you. All right. Uh, roll call vote, please. Oh, I'm sorry. Voice. Yeah. All in favor?

I I opposed. I too, by the way. Madam clerk,

we received one bid. It was from [snorts] Batuminous Materials and Supply of De Mo, Iowa. They provided bids on two different types of products. The first product is CRS-2P. Quantity is 60,000 gallons. The unit price is $3.20 20 for a total of $192,000. Second product is CSS-1 dilute [snorts] slash 4:1 ratio. Uh 38,000 gallons, unit price of $180 for a total amount of $68,400. Thank you, M. Schmidt.

Mr. Mayor, I'd like to adopt a resolution approving award of bid to Batuminous Materials and Supply of De Mo, Iowa in the amount of $260,400 approving the contract, bonds, and certificate of insurance in conjunction with the street department asphalt emulsions seal coat program and authorizing the mayor and city clerk to execute said document. Second motion to second. Council, any questions on this roll call vote, ma'am? Mr. Schmidt, yes. Mr. Marorrow, yes. Miss Kraton Smith, yes. Miss Barry, yes. Mr. Salamanca, yes. Mr. Martin, yes. And Mr. Simon, yes.

Thank you. Who'd like to take number two, please? Mr. Mayor to make a motion to approve and file publication notice public hearing amendment to the downtown water riverfront urban renewal and redevelopment plan to update projects and project budgets to be included in the plan. Second. Motion second. All in favor? I opposed. Motion carried. Hearing is now open. Anybody like to speak for or against the riverfront urban renewal redevelopment plan? Mr. Dryer.

David Dryer, 3145 West 4 Street. I guess is there a uh designation of where the blighted areas are, a map or indicated locations or that we are privy to? Mr. Anderson,

Joel Anderson, community planning development director. There is a uh downtown urban renewal map on our city website on the tip district map. Thank you. Any other questions, sir? No. Very good. Anyone else want to speak for against it from the audience? [snorts] Mr. Martin, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to close the hearing and receive and file oral or written comments. Second. Motion second. All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries. Mr. Martin.

Mr. Mayor. I'd like to make a resolution affirming provision to determining of an area of a city to be an area of slum and blight and an economic development area. Determining that the development or redevelopment of said area is necessary in the interest of the public health safety and welfare designated said area as appropriate for an urban renewal project in approving the plan amendment. Second motion second. Council, any questions to this item? All right. See, roll call vote, please. Mr. Schmid, yes. Mr. Marorrow, yes. Miss Kraton Smith, yes. Miss Barry, yes. Mr. Salamanca, yes. Mr. Martin, yes. Mr. Simon,

yes. Thank you. Who would like to take number three, please? Mr. Mayor. Mr. Marl. Okay. Uh, Mr. Mr. Mayor, motion to receive and file proof of publication or notice of public hearing request by the city of Waterlue on behalf of the Iowa National Guard for a site plan amendment to construct a 25,000 square foot building in the M-2P planned industrial district located north of 3106 Airport Boulevard. Second motion is second. All in favor? I opposed. Thank you. The hearing is now open. Is there anyone from the audience like to speak for or against the site plan amendment for the National Guard facility? Thank you. Seeing none, Mr. Marl.

Mr. Mayor, motion to close public hearing and receive and file oral and written comments and recommendation of approval of a planning, programming, and zoning commission. Second. Got a motion, a second. All in favor? I oppose. I. Thank you,

Mr. Mayor. Motion to receive, file, consider, and pass for the first time an ordinance amendment to ordinance number 5079 as amended. City of Waterlue zoning ordinance by amending the official zoning map referring referred to in section 10-4-4 approving a request by the city of Waterl on behalf of the Iowa National Guard for a site plan amendment to construct a 25,000 foot building in the M-2P planned industrial district located north of 3106 Airport Boulevard. Second motion and second council. Any questions regarding this item? Seeing none, roll call vote, please. Mr. Mr. Schmid. Yes. Mr. Marorrow. Yes. Miss Cranton Smith. Yes. Miss Barry. Yes. Mr. Salamanca.

Yes. Mr. Martin. Yes. And Mr. Simon. Yes. Tomorrow. Mr. Mayor. Motion to suspend the rules. Second. Motion. Second. Does anybody have any questions about suspending the rules? Mr. Mayor. Uh, yes. I would just uh timeliness and then also I'm assuming this area is an area that there's not a whole lot else that could be developed in that immediate area. Mr. Anderson, please.

Noah Anderson, community planning development director. We've had a lease uh for a portion of this lot uh I think going back to 2000 with the National Guard to have some of their parking lot on there um in anticipation of this project moving ahead at some point. So, we're excited to be to be partnering with them. Um there is a little bit of hurry there looking to get under construction. We will be bringing a uh longerterm lease or extension of the lease uh to uh it was a 25-year lease. I think it was in 2005 actually. So, uh, we'll do a longer lease for their facility to be out there with the National Guard. Okay. There was a motion to suspend the rules. Roll call vote, please. Mr. Schmidt, yes. Mr. Marl, yes. Miss Kraton Smith, yes. Miss Barry, yes. Mr. Salamanca, yes. Mr. Martin, yes. And Mr. Simon, yes.

Mr. Marl, Mr. Mayor, motion to consider and pass for the second and third times and adopt the ordinance. Second. Motion a second. Roll call vote, please. Mr. Schmidt. Yes, Mr. Marl. Yes, Miss Kraton Smith. Yes, Miss Barry. Yes, Mr. Salamanca. Yes, Mr. Martin. Yes. And Mr. Simon, yes. Thank you. Uh, we're going to take number one separately. So, who would like to take uh resolution number one? Mr. Mayor, Mr. [clears throat] assignment. Let's

make a motion to uh for the resolution approving amendment number number three to a professional services agreement with Envision Architecture for an increase of 380,000 for the renovation of 100 East 4th Street for the new city water city hall and authorize the mayor and to execute said document. Second motion and a second. Anyone from the audience wish to speak for or against this item? Seeing none, council questions. Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Marorrow, um, I'm sorry. Did did you want to speak, ma'am? I'm sorry. Please step to the podium. State your name and address. Good catch.

Thank you.

My name is Beverly Cosby. I live at 315 Window Court. I don't know where to start, but I've seen this resolution come up time after time after time. There were questions. I was here when this this this item first came to fruition with the other other council. I watched them go through the rigomearo of getting the approval of everything that needed to be approved. And yet here we stand with this resolution again. I have reservations in the fact that I worked at 620 Malberry Street. That place is a fire hazard waiting to happen. There's not enough electrical outlets. Sometimes the elevator will work, sometimes it doesn't. I'm sure all of you have had a more than enough adequate time to go through all the fine points of what it would take to get this approved. I am asking the city council to go ahead and approve this resolution so that we can get this off the agenda and and on to where it needs to be. Because my fear is if it's not I see a lawsuit coming down the pipeline.

Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else from the audience wish to speak for or against this item? Seeing none. Council, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Marl, um I would have some questions um specifically on what envision, what have they actually done to this point? I know this is a $380,000 question and I know when we met with them, it's probably been a month or month and a half ago said that they wouldn't fully complete it. It was some percentage. So, I'd like to know what has actually been done and to the dollar amount of the 380,000 and uh you know what has been done toward it and then what activities might need to be followed in order to complete it.

Thank you, sir. I believe we have a represent representative from Envision here. Thank you, ma'am. Please state your name and and your working address. I'm Kate Payne with Envision Architecture and I work Envision in the Tech Works building. Thank you.

Um to answer your question, we Hold on, let me pull my notes up. We have completed architecture projects are delivered through a phased process. Schematic design, which is the first phase, is complete. We have issued that document. And we've gotten all of the requirements done for that phase. We have done the same for cons for design development documents. We have completed that phase. We have completed the work for about 50% of the construction documents for the construction documents phase. Um we have not build you for that 50 full 50% yet but we have completed the documents for about 50% of construction documents. We have not done any work in bidding and negotiation phase and we've not done any work in the construction administration phase. To answer your question specifically, the it's hard to separate out our original amendment from the work associated with the $380,000 amendment because the design work is the design work based on the scope of work and we don't separate it out by amendment. It kind of just loops together. Does that answer your question? Well, you not really, but so the first one was 420,000. There was two amendments uh that I think put it to 525,000.

So the two amendments are complete. They were done by other consultants completely outside of our scope. Nothing to do with that. And you have uh invoiced $371,000 to the city of that first 420. So of the 380 that was based on the records that I got. of the all I'm trying to find out is of the 380,000 do you have an estimate of what you've actually spent of that 380?

Um well I don't think I have well maybe I have it broken out. I don't know. I mean it's hard to do that because schematic design portion of that $380,000 went to schematic design which is complete. Schematic design represents 25% of our overall fee. So 25% of that 380 is complete and you know the work has been done. Um another 25% of that I need to check the percentages. I'm saying them out loud without a document in front of me. So you're just going to have to give me a sec because I didn't break it out that way and I don't think I have it in front of me. Um, another our phases are broken out by I'm trying to do math in my head out loud and it's always risky. Um, schematic design is 15 or 20%. Design development is another 20 to 25%. Construction documents is another 25%. Bidding and negotiation is 5% and then construction documents is 25%. That hopefully that adds up to 100.

Actually that adds up to 170%. If I got everything correct. No, you you can't. No, that would be but I guess all I'm trying to what what I'm trying to easily find and I I understand the complexity. If you've done 50% of that, why I mean the city would owe that. That's what I'm trying to understand is what have you done actually of that? We have done all of the schematic design which is let's say 20%. Okay. We have done all of design development another 25% of that 380. Okay.

We have done about 50% of the next 25% which would be construction documents. Correct. We have not done anything of the 5% that represents bidding and negotiation and we have not done any of the 25% that represents construction administration. So if my math is good on that that's 57 and a half% rough number. Okay. So you're 60% done. That's 67.5 67.5. Okay. Sorry I didn't add it good enough in my head. So would that be a pretty good number? It's actually I think higher than we've build you. Um we have sent bills for okay

up to 30% of the overall amount though not of the 380. Okay. Okay. So would I be so would I be correct in making a statement that a good number is 67% of the 380,000 you've done you've that's work you've actually done. Sure. That seems about right. All right. So, okay, I understand that point. Um, let me Somebody else got a question. I want to do a couple numbers here.

Does anyone else from the council have a question? Mr. Mayor, Mr. Please, I'll let Mrs. I'll let Smith, you have a question.

Yes, sir. Um, Mr. Mayor, I was wanted to refer the council to page um in the um document that we have the packet uh under um exhibit A is and I my pages are numbered so you can't follow my numbering but page 202 there is a graph or chart um that says the B% current growth speed um that's the heading of the the columns revised growth fee after amendment different prior build remaining. Then under that there is uh schematic design 20% design development 25% construction documents 25% u bidding and negotiations 5% construction administration 25% under which amend one and amend two are listed and then there are a dollar amount in the current gross fee uh and then a dollar amount in the revised She froze. Okay, then

I'm afraid she's going to come back on and then it's going to be an issue. So, give her just a second here.

Okay. Uh, Mr. Schmidt,

uh, Mr. I was wondering in the last conversation we had about this, I think one of the the things that was causing me a little bit of u discomfort was it seemed like you you' done your due diligence. We kind of looked at this and then as we got closer to things starting to happen, we discovered that in order to move the the PD, as I remember specifically uh into the city hall, it was going to require some additional work done both structurally to the existing building and then also potentially adding on some additional space. I believe storm shelter.

Yeah. Um, can you give me a again a you don't need to be down to the dollar, but can you give me a ballpark idea on how much additional money that would be should we decide to not move the police department into 100 East and maybe move it someplace else, maybe leave it in this building and retro this. I mean, I really want to look at some different options. So, I don't I don't expect you to know those numbers, but just what do you know what it would take to accommodate them at 100 East for.

So the estimate on the structural enhancement to accommodate the police department in that building had a rough construction estimate of about $900,000. The storm shelter uh was about the same amount to add the 1,000 square foot storm shelter. Good. I I think I I mean um you're working from memory here. So yeah. Yeah, I had 1.1 million for the two combined. For the two combined. Okay, that might be right. Yeah, I didn't check that today. So I'm working on memory now.

I have Are there are there any other known and and discrepancy is not the word I want. any other known surprises or things that I'm not sure the previous council was aware of, but I don't think some members of this council are a little concerned about what is the number and the number that we've been given previously, not necessarily by you, but the number that was given previously is not going to be the final number. And I know I want to know what is the final number. Well, you won't know the final number until it bids. I mean, the bidding environment is such that you can't really know until it bids,

but but there's things like, again, not to rehash old news, but knowing what the PD would require. Again, I'm I'm still a little bit of loss why we didn't know that until recently, or if we did, I was never made aware of it. That to me, that's not the kind of surprise that ought to come up at the 11th hour and 59th minute. But I'm So, are you aware of any other? I am not aware of any other. I can tell you that it's likely less expensive to put office space in there than it is to put the police department. So, the square foot cost of that renovation would probably go down. Um, great point. Thank you. That's all I've got.

Miss Kraton Smith, you're back on. You were froze up for a little bit. Do you have additional questions, ma'am? No. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions here, Mr. Mayor? You'll have done talking. Yes, sir. Mr. Martin. I have a one simple question. We're at war right now with Iraq and Iran, correct? So, the price of costs keep going up every single day. So, the longer we put this off, the higher our costs are going to be for construction costs. Correct. It's pretty safe to assume that the oil the the gas prices will have an impact on bid day.

So, I drive a 2019 vehicle. It cost me $5.16 a gallon to fill up. So that's about $75 a gallon to fill my truck up every time I fill it up. So if we keep going we keep putting this off, it's going to keep going up higher. Correct. I I'm I would assume that, but I can't say that I know that. Okay. Thank you. Anything else, sir? No. Anyone else would speak before Mr. Marl has a second assignment? Oh. Um, go I'll go after you, Mr. Thank you. Go ahead, please.

Um, I don't know exactly the proper procedure to do this, but I I have a proposal, a financial proposal to put on this to for where I can approve it. And do I just do I just state it? How do we do that? Are you make are you making an amendment to this? This Well, I I'm I guess yes, I'm trying to do We're voting on We're voting on the 380,000. I'm trying to change the 380,000 is what I want to do. So, if you want to change the dollar amount Yes. of the agreement. Yes. You would make a motion to amend the agreement to the dollar amount that you would like to see granted. It's a little difficult to negotiate a contract. Yeah. Price. Okay.

So, based on based on Kate's numbers, 67% is $254,600. What I would like to do then, I guess, just make a motion that this $380,000 be changed to that that we're paying them what I think I'm saying, paying them for exactly what they've done to close this resolution out. Okay. Is that Is that correct? Can you say your dollar amount again? $254,600. Okay. Second and 32 cents. Okay. And 32 cents. No, no, no, no. I'm being funny. Okay. Um 26 $254,600. Okay. And then Steve, you said you were seconding that. Okay.

We have a motion and a second to amend this resolution. Any questions from council? Mr. Mayor, Miss Barry, please. Um, Mr. Moro. Yeah. If you I guess I'm confused. Why Why are we doing this? Why? Your numbers are less. And are you suggesting that her numbers are inflated or wrong or No, I'm taking the $380,000 that the initial resolution was and I'm using her number at 67%. This is 67% of $380,000. Okay. Does that though fix our problem, Kate? I mean, in terms of

It does raise a question for me if it's appropriate for me to do that. I don't know. Ma'am, go ahead and speak. What you're suggesting is that you pay us for the work we've completed. Yes. But you're not willing to You're suggesting that we not be paid for the work that is not completed. That includes bidding and negotiation and construction administration and therefore the work that work will not happen.

I didn't say it wouldn't happen. I'm what I'm trying to do is to find a point uh find a point to approve this resolution, get this passed so we can keep moving forward. And so my point is pay you for what you've done and we take take a look at things moving forward. That's what I'm So I'm trying to find a way to have this resolution approved, pay you what you're owed. So you're suggesting then that there's another amendment to wrap up the design work that has not been completed and the construction work that is not completed. I don't know if we have to have a different resolution or how we have to do that moving forward. We would have to have a different amendment to do that.

So if you're changing if what I'm understanding is correct you're wanting to pay them for the work that they've done to this point. Yes. And so I think what Kate is trying to say is that if you only pay them for what they've done at this point and you want to continue moving forward with the project, they'll have to bring another amendment to the council to keep the architectural design and the bidding process and the construction. I'm not trying to stop it. I'm trying to, if you want to call it, pause it, if you will, so we think about it and then we we analyze all the options and then move forward that, but I'm trying to get them paid for what they've actually done. The only thing I would maybe add to that is since if this passes, since we're all doing rough math, yes,

here, I don't want to leave Envision out of what they're truly actually owed. I'm open to having an actual number. I'm open for that. That's not I was trying to use numbers here of what you said, but if they're actual numbers, 263,000, I'm good with that. Okay, but what what I'm wanting to do is what have they actually done? What have they actually spent? They should be paid for. Mr. Mayor, Mr. Barry, you got a comment to this?

Yeah, I do. Thank you. Um, all right. So, if if we did that, it seems like to me that we would still It kind of goes back with to uh what Councilman Martin said, how prices are going up up up. So, I to me I I think the price would be higher than $380,000 if we put it off. I mean, help me to understand that just paying them for what they've done versus waiting and then what who then will they still keep the you know have the contract finished?

I'm not trying to change who has contracts or anything. What I'm trying to do is trying to move on so we can at least pay them for the work they've done. I want them to be paid for what they've got. Yeah, they we owe them money. Pay them and I don't have a problem with paying people for the work they've done. And next what I want to do is is take and look at all the options, everything that we've got. And it it it might it might only take a week. I think it will take a work session and it doesn't take a whole lot of time to put some things together, look at options and move forward. This could this this doesn't be drugg out. I mean, if if we're timely with it, this can happen pretty quickly, right? So, I'm not trying to drag this out. What I'm trying to do is I understand that this isn't a debate. Let's one one person talk at a time, please. Sorry.

Go ahead. I I do understand what you're saying, though, to pay them. I just don't quite understand if there's still more work to be done, but you're just saying, well, they've done work. They should be paid for what they've done, but yet there's still work to do is what I'm getting at. Okay. But what if our review says we change directions a little bit? Then you don't want them moving forward on something that that a plan is different. So then you're spending you're spending money on something that might not happen. So, is that our plan to change directions? I just like to know, Mr. Simon.

Um, I think to to piggyback on this, I I see where you're going with this, Mr. Maro. I I understand what you're saying, but I think at the end of this, we're still going to have Envision finish the project, and they're still going to probably be doing at least that much mile work. Yeah. regardless of how we break down the building and the bids and everything else. So I don't I I trust Envision will not bill us until the job that they are going to do after this is actually done. So all we're really doing is authorizing them to up to the 380,000 if I'm correct in thinking this that any additional billing will be done after we approve this if we do approve it and that's when we can all step in and start line iteming this out. So

am I correct in assuming that you're not going to bill us more than 380,000 if you don't have to.

The $380,000 is not a standalone number. It's it's added to the original 420 and distributed by percentage over the course of the project. So we have a contract with you that you've signed and has gone through council for the original 420 that also includes bidding and a port some bidding and and negotiation fee and some construction administration fee. what you're proposing um is kind of a little bit out of the kind of normal pathway for the way that our contract is written. And I feel like it would be important to maybe read that before you make a I don't I can't tell you what to do. Really not up to me. Um, I just know that the amendment is something that our contract allows us to put in front of you when the scope of work changes. And that's what we did. The thing we didn't do and for which I am happy to apologize is we didn't wait for council approval. I we we absolutely did not and we should have. Um, and I apologize for that, but I don't know that we to to your point, you know, I don't know that our fee if you're asking us to evaluate our fee and change it, that's one thing. If you're just holding off on paying us, that's a different thing. Um, you know, we so the the isolating the 380 is not representative of the way the fee has been allocated to the work we're doing.

I I I go ahead. You're still here. No, I I appreciate that and that's that's I was just trying to say I'm I personally am not in favor of amending this. I want to move forward on however we move on this. Um I think Mr. Mororrow is right in worrying about the dollars and where they're spent. And I think in discussions I've had with other council members, we're all in agreement that we are going to do what we can do to curb the spending for the people and give ourselves a good city hall. I think he's just trying to make sure that that's being done. So I I'm not in favor of amending it, but that's just my opinion. I mean, you can pump the brakes on the project without Correct.

I mean, any way you want you have the right to stop the project, do anything you want based on our contract. Yeah. So, thank you. Anyone else, Mr. Mayor? Mr. Salamanca, the And I don't know. It's This isn't for you, Kate. You're You're good. Uh, but you're good. But I do I got a question for you. So don't leave.

I do want to know what has been done to address the governance question that lays at the root of my vote at least. Um because that part hasn't been addressed. So I don't know if that's Mr. Anderson or if that's Miss Miss Kelly, but I still think we have a fundamental issue that needs to be addressed. Uh because I I took it upon myself to visit both the police station, had good conversations, visited the annex, had great conversations. I've seen these buildings. I've explored these buildings. So, I get the need and I understand the justification. So if it's I also weigh the governance aspect of it because as as I've pointed out as I've asked if a if a mayor within their perceived authority can make decisions without council approval then why are we why do we have a council? And that question is at the crux of my concerns. So, if I could have somebody just speak towards that and just explain what steps we've done as a city to address this discrepancy in our governance, I would greatly appreciate it.

This doesn't have anything to do with this is a separate which I agree with, but it's a separate I think we need to do this point on your amendment. Yeah. Can I if anybody else has anything else they want to mention, I'd like to say one other thing, Kate. So, just to make sure we're clear, you've spent, we'll say 250,

Mr. Mr. Moral's numbers. Um, so the 130 from 250 to the 380 that we're planning on voting on, if we were next week to say, "Oh, you know what? We're going to move the PD someplace else, not going to be part of the East Fourth Street, or we're going to move the PD there and move city hall someplace else." Whatever. what you would do from now and then I mean are we going to be burning some of this $130,000 difference the 250 to the 380 that you would not do if you knew that's where we're going that's I think why we're trying to pump the brakes on this is that if we are going to step back take a look at the big picture would you be doing some things in the background that should we take not a complete change in direction but maybe a little dev viation. Um, would that be wasted effort and wasted expense to the city? Are you following me?

I mean, my take on this right now is that we won't move forward until you give us the green light to go. Right. If you think that there's a chance that you want rework done in the design of the space that's been allocated to the police, that's rework. That's work that we would have to start over again. Our contract allows us to bill you for rework when there's a design change.

All those things are negotiated and up for conversation. Since I don't know what you want to do right now, it's very hard to say what we will do. Um I think what we really want to get to is what do you want? You know, what do you want the building to be and what can you move ahead with and what are you comfortable paying for? We we want that. That's our goal, too. Um, right now the fee that's on the table represent is a percentage of the overall construction amount divided into phases. So, if you want to stop, we'll stop billing you. You know, well, we have stopped billing you since, I don't know, February or something. Um, so again, I just we just need direction on what you [clears throat] want the building to be and we will evaluate our fee and the work and the time and the everything against what it needs to be. If there are changes, if it's going to go ahead as it is, our fee is based on a percentage of that construction amount that we have designed. So, if we were to approve this 380 and you already spent 250, theoretically,

we would have $130,000 credit sitting there for whatever it is you do next. No, it does. It's not like that. It's the the credit the part that has not been spent of the 380, but it's not just 380. It's 380 plus

Yeah. Yeah. that has not been spent because we assume that we will be involved in bidding and negotiation and through construction administration. There's fee in that pool of money to pay our services for those phases. We really only have about $100,000 worth of fee delegated to the rest of this project to put the construction documents on the street. I I I just have a real issue with what's going on right now. That that's just me. Okay. Uh I don't think we're grasping the fact that when you start talking 20% 25% 12 and a half% whatever percent it is. It's it's of the overall project and it's it's just bits and pieces that put this entire project together. Uh you can if this passes and you want to just pay a certain amount and cut it off, then we have to have an amendment to the to the agreement to come from you to do any more future work and then we have to have a work session or whatever and come before the council. I'm not saying we can't do this. I'm not saying it at all. But I am saying that we just keep kicking this can down the road and and we're going to end up voting for it for one project or another and we're going to increase construction costs. We're going to delay the any project if whether it's city hall by itself, whether it's city hall and the police department. We've got to come to a consensus. We've got to come to a a conclusion and we've got to move this project forward one way or the other. Do you have something to say, Mr. Marl? I I I I I would I wish we would have talked about this ahead of time, but it's your prerogative to to bring it to council.

No, that's right now. That's fine. Okay. So, I think I've learned a little bit here. Um and apologize if some of the things I'm not up to speed on, but if we if I understand correctly, if we keep the 380 and we approve it, we're basically going to only be build for what they've done and the le rest of this is going to be wait until something is is actually done. In my understanding, bill you against the work we have completed. Okay. So, which means uh so which means if we approve it as written, we're only going to get only going to pay for what they've done.

And on top of that, we still need them to represent us in in the construction portion of it and everything else that's going to come. No matter what we do with the building, we still are going to owe them to move forward with the construction plans, the bidding, and all of that. Okay, I grasp that. So, can I modify and just basically pull this back to where we'll go back to the original uh 380? Can I pull my I don't know if I can pull that motion off the table. Let me do some reading real quick. Okay, you can. I just want to do it right. Thank you.

[clears throat] [snorts]

Okay.

You just have to say I want to withdraw my motion. Sorry about that. I'm sorry. You say what now? You just have to say I want to withdraw my motion. Okay, Mr. Mayor, I want to withdraw my motion. It doesn't second. Does it take a second? We don't have to do that, do we? It doesn't appear to consent. Yeah, the mover has to be the one to Okay. withdraw it. So, I think we're good. Okay. So, now the motion on the table is where we started. Okay. So, we're back to the 380,000. Uh, Mr. Mr. Salamanca, you you started. Please finish. I you were talking about governance.

I do. I was. Yes. Governance. So, back to my original point. If I could have someone explain to us why we're addressing this discrepancy, I'd be greatly appreciated. You're looking at me. Mr. Anderson. Mr. Anderson, please. Old Anderson, community planning development director. I think I've shared all the minutes of the meetings uh with the uh council and a mayor was present uh at the meetings and told them to move ahead and I believe as Kate has apologized for moving ahead, they moved ahead. I'm not sure what else we can say.

Mr. Anderson, is there any written policy now that exists to address this from ever occurring again? I would assume it's just the normal policies that the council must approve things and you want me to try to stop mayors from saying things I can try. I appreciate that. I challenge him to do that. But that being [laughter] said, I've had some issues that have come forward and with Mr. Anderson has sent that to me and I said it goes before the council. Okay. Things that he's asked me to sign off on. I said bring it to the council. in the two years I'm here. That's how I'm going to run run this show. So, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Can I ask Barry, please?

Question. Yeah. Um, it seems like the conrnation is trying to retrofit Kate. Um, the building for the police department, right? Because there's a lot of money that or a lot of upgrades that is required by law to no. Okay. Well, can you state your question again?

I said it seems like All right. Let me Yeah, thank you for asking me to just kind of restate it because maybe I will even rephrase it. How far Let's just keep the police department out of it right now. And if the city hall and the departments move there, how close to ready is that building? Well, the top floors are good unless those departments move downstairs. Okay. Um, we could leave the downstairs uh as a shell and have nothing in it and outfit as we planned on the other two floors and leave it open. That would be a very efficient way to go forward. It may not give you the plan that makes the most sense. I don't I don't know that.

Okay. But by retrofitting the building to make sure we accommodate the our our law enforce our police department. So we evaluate we went back and evaluated with the city lawyer as to whether or not the storm shelter and the enhanced structure is indeed necessary in a renovation project. Mhm. And we've been told and given direction that that structural enhancement um I'm not sure you've given us direction on that honestly but the storm shelter is not required or was it the other way around? It's the other way around.

I had it right. Okay. So there is inherent savings in the plan right now given that the city has decided that the storm shelter can be uh excluded from the way we interpreted the code but the structural enhancement that is being driven by the police department for the building is still intended to go forward if the police are in there. Now if you think that the police will never go in there, we would not move forward with that work. If you thought there was a chance that the police department would go in there, doing it later after somebody has moved in and there's other people in the building would increase the cost dramatically. Doing it while there's no one in the building is the best time to do it.

The the storm shelter rough estimates a half a million dollars. That's going to be cut off of it. The structural enhancements that include uh reinforcing the roof trusses and the columns that come down is about 600,000 is my recollection. I trust you on this. I don't remember the numbers. So, right now, this building has everything the police officers need with the exception of the leaky roofs and all these other issues that it it's a level four structure that's in badly need of millions of dollars. So, either way, it's going to cost us either way. Okay. Thanks, Kate. [clears throat] Sorry. Anybody else have anything to say before we move to a vote on Mr. Mayor?

Mr. assignment. Okay. First, I want to thank you for answering all the questions. You're welcome. I'm glad to.

I think I think I I personally I had several things that I wanted to have done before I could approve this when this all happened. I I was originally a no vote way back with the previous council, but it passed and it is what it is. I get that. I think going forward what I got what I needed I think tonight and over the last month and a half. Um, you you apologize for moving forward without council approval. Um, I think the city employees have pretty much come out and said that they shouldn't have moved forward without council approval. Um, and I think I think the errors that were made um, you know, I think of it as if you have an employee that you did something wrong, you can't move forward unless you admit you did something wrong. There have been errors made and everybody makes errors and I think there were some errors made here. I think in order to go forward we have to admit the errors and eliminate them going forward the best you can. That's just how you operate any business or city or anything. So I just wanted to thank you. I wanted to thank thank the city staff for answering all of our questions and um I think it's I think it's time to move forward and as a council make good solid decisions with our money in the design of this city council. That's just my opinion. But I wanted to thank everybody involved. So, thank you.

Thank you. And Kate, I'd like to personally thank you for [clears throat] your due diligence and working with this council for the past month, month and a half. I learn some I learn something every time I come, and I appreciate that. So do I. I learn something every time you come. So, uh, are we ready? I think so. On item number one for the $380,000, roll call vote, please. Mr. Schmidt, yes. Mr. Marorrow, yes. Miss Kraton Smith, yes. Miss Barry, yes. Mr. Salamanca, yes. Mr. Martin, yes. Mr. Simon, yes. Seven votes. I got my seven. Okay. Thank you. Who would like to take two, three, and four, please?

You shouldn't clap for that. I should have clapped. Mr. Mayor, I'll take it. Yes, sir. Please. uh resolution accepting and approving a donation agreement and approving a warrant deed to convey real property to the city of Wateroo for a partial rightaway acquisition with Keith D. Smith and Katherine A. Smith for the property located at 2130 Casper Avenue in conjunction with the Fairway Lane Reconstruction Project and authorizing the mayor and city clerk to execute said document. Number three,

resolution accepting and approving a donation agreement and approving a warrant deed to convey real property to the city of Wateroo for a partial rightaway acquisition with Kulie and Kulie Real Estate LC for the property located at 254-256 Upland Drive and 2265 2267 Fairlane Fairway Lane in conjunction with the Fairway Lane recon reconstruction project and authorizing the mayor and clerk city clerk to execute said document. Number four, resolution approving a temporary easement agreement in the amount of $988 with Prime RE2 LLC located at 2039 Crossroads Boulevard in conjunction with the Leaport Road phase 3 reconstruction project and authorizing the mayor and city clerk to execute said document. Second.

Got a motion a second. And before we open it up for public comments, Eric, would you come up and trade places with null? he's going to he has to leave and that way he can uh you can uh address any of these issues. Thank you Mr. Anderson for staying. No. So anybody from the audience wish to speak for or against items 2, three, and four in the resolutions? Seeing none council questions on two, three or four? Anyone? I will tell you that on two and three, it's nice that we're moving forward with the fairway lane in the upland uh division over there for for a housing development. Uh 2, three, and four. Roll call vote, please. Mr. Schmidt, yes. Mr. Marorrow,

yes. Miss Kraton Smith, yes. Miss Barry, yes. Mr. Salamanca, yes. Mr. Martin, yes. Mr. Simon, yes. Did someone take five, five, six, and seven, please? Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor,

Mr. Smith. Item number five is adopting a resolution approving a permanent easement agreement with XL Cult Farms LLC located at 1680 Blue Wing Drive and authorizing the mayor and city clerk to execute said document. Item number six is adopting a re resolution approving a temporary easement agreement with BJ KTJ LLC located at 1799 Insboro Avenue and authorizing the mayor and city clerk to execute said document. And item number seven is adopting a resolution approving a temporary easement agreement with Christristen Schwarz FKA Christristen McKelery located at 307 Upland Drive and authorizing the mayor and city clerk to execute said document.

Second. Got a motion. Second. Anyone from the audience wish to speak to items number five, six or seven? Seeing none, council, any questions on five, six, or seven? Thank you. Roll call vote, please. Mr. Schmidt, yes. Mr. Marl, yes. Miss Kraton Smith, yes. Miss Barry, yes. Mr. Salamanca? Yes. Mr. Martin? Yes. And Mr. Simon? Yes. I'm going to go with who would take eight and nine for me, please? Mr. Mayor. Mr. Simon,

I'd like to make a motion to approve the following resolution approving the development agreement with Mimay and Bor Shine for the construction of one single family home on an infill lot located at 702 West Fourth Street, including an infill grant of $7,500 upon substantial completion and authorizing the mayor and city clerk to execute that document. Number nine is a resolution approving request by Snyder Associates on behalf of Ropes and Homes Incorporated for the preliminary plot of Prairie Meadow Estates second edition of 41 lot residential subdivision in the R3 um R-P planned resident district located east of Mystic Drive with extensions of Grindstone Circle and Morning Dove Drive.

Second motion second. Anyone from the audience wish to speak to number items eight and nine? Please sir, come to the podium. Just state your name and address please.

Uh Odell Sales uh 2613 Idaho. Um Mayor Bosen, Council, how you guys doing this uh and ladies, how you all doing this afternoon? Um I'm in full support of of this resolution uh in regards to uh the partnership with the group that you just mentioned. But uh one observation uh I have with that and may be useful for count uh council in future in future resolutions, the $7,500 infield grant uh uh represents an upgrade from the $5,000 that you give per per per uh earlier development agreement, I believe. But I but I also believe that's based on the location the re revitalization zones. Is that is that correct?

That is correct sir. We have we have targeted zones when we did our elevate housing to try to create more infill development in specific areas in town and we increased the infill development $2,500 to spur housing development in those areas.

Okay. and and as you know I represent Delaton Asset Acquisition LLC and we will have projects in current projects we have now are not in those zones but we will have some in those other zones and I would ask the council to take a look at other areas in the in the water comm community and I don't know what the process in determining what zones are are revitalization zones or not but uh I mean we've been doing a good job of that and just kind of taking in consideration where the needs are and uh continue to support uh uh these types of uh these types of resolutions because we need we need those infield. So I just want to thank you for for for that and hopefully you you will approve this the these these uh person's uh resolution.

Thank you sir. Anyone else wish to speak for against these two items? Council, any questions? Roll call vote, please. Mr. Schmidt, yes. Mr. Marorrow, yes. Mr. Smith. Yes. Miss Barry. Yes. Mr. Salamanca. Yes. Mr. Martin. Yes. Mr. Simon. Yes. Who would like to take 10, 11, and 12, please? Mr. Mayor.

Salamanca. Resolution approving a variance to section 582 of the traffic code to lift the truck embargo on East Donald Street from Logan Avenue to the East City limits from May 25th, 2026 until September 2027 7th, 2027 for the cooperative project with Blackhawk County for the asphalt overlay of East Donald Street. Number 11, resolution approving supplemental agreement number two to a rise agreement with the Iowa Department of Transportation originally executed April 7th, 2025 in conjunction with the fiscal year 2026 Dakota Drive extension contract number 1129 and authorizing the mayor and city clerk to execute said document. And number 12, resolution approving supplemental agreement number nine with Stanley Consultants Incorporated of De Mo Iowa in the amount of $190,620 in conjunction with the fiscal year 2022 11th Street and Park Avenue bridge replacements project contract number 1013 and authorizing the mayor to execute said document.

Second. Got a motion to second. Anyone from the audience wish to speak to 10 11 or 12, please? [snorts]

Tanya Graves 607 East Donald Street. So on number I didn't catch what you're saying. Lata Graves. Ma'am. Ma'am, I'm sorry. Latana Graves. No, I'm just saying we we can't hardly hear you. Latana Graves. Okay. So, when you say lift the truck embargo on East Donald Street, does that mean more trucks will be traveling on East Donald Street? Because right now, as it stands, there are trucks every single day, all day, and my house shakes. So, if you're going to lift this, does that mean more trucks will be going up and down East Donald Street?

Wayne? Mr. Kudson's gone tonight, so Wayne's filling in.

Hello there. Uh Wayne Castle, assistant city engineer. Jamie is currently stuck on an airplane in Chicago. So uh we currently have an embargo on East Donald Street that covers Memorial Day to Labor Day and that was for the parks. Um with this cooperative project, the county is looking to overlay from Sage Road eastward. They will be using they want to use that portion of Donald Street from 63 to Sage Road to better access for the trucks. So right now trucks can drive on there up until Memorial Day and then they're not allowed until Labor Day and afterwards the embargo is lifted. So this one would take the embargo off during construction season to allow the asphalt trucks to get to the site. So, right now as it stands, like I said, um when those trucks come up and down East Donald Street, um Deacon Meeks can attest to it. We're neighbors, but our houses shake because the trucks are so heavy and is the city going to pay for my foundation repair?

Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else wish to speak for or against items 10, 11, and 12? Thank you, Wayne. David Dar, 3145 West 4th Street. Um, number 12. Seems like that project was done a little bit ago. And why are we just seeing another bill now? And that's pretty substantial amount. I guess why was why is it taking so long? And what was it for? Lane. Wayne Castle, assistant city engineer. So, the contract amount here is to cover the remaining costs of the CRS. Um, that is to there's not much left in the contract. We have some railing and punch list items, but we do have quite a bit of project closeout documentation that needs to be done. It all has to be done before end of September this year. We have substantial uh arrays arars with the DOT. This would be covered by the liquid dated damages. We've been having discussions with the consultant and the contractor. We've come to somewhat of an agreement on the amount is to the DOT for uh concurrence and further direction. So this would be covered by this amount would be covered by our liquidated damages.

And I do remember liquidated damage. You lost me because we went past the the the date that this was supposed to be completed by. Oh, okay. So, they were they were penalized for every day they went past it. I didn't know we were doing that. So, that penalty is paying for this. Correct. Correct. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Appreciate it. No, you don't. Any anybody else from the audience wish to speak for against 10, 11, and 12? Council, any questions? Mr. Mayor? Yes, sir. Just just clarification, please. Wayne, you said I I I didn't know if you were exactly sure that it was going to cover it.

How how confident are you that the them going over the project time is going to cover this? You're somewhat confident. 100% confident. Very confident. Okay. I just wanted to make sure because I didn't catch that part when you said that. So that's all I had. Thank you. Tomorrow, Mr. Simon covered my question. Perfect. Thank you, Wayne. Uh, Miss Barry Wayne, um, I just want to go back to uh, Miss Graves's concern because I do know that area and what is is it that the trucks are actually waiting too much? Are they jig breaking or what's going on that she's feeling her house shake?

I cannot answer that question. I I wouldn't know. But could it be weight? The weight of a of a because I wouldn't like my house shaking every time. It's combination of several factors. It could be weight of the trucks, speed of the trucks, speed, how they're operating, the how close the house is to the road, um the construction of the house, and the age. Number of factors. I cannot answer that. Well, any suggestions on how she could get answers to that? I I'd be very and and Mr. Meeks too. I'd be very concerned if What particular block did they live in? What's your address? 600 600 block. East or west? East.

And it is coming right in by Gates Park there in that area. That's right by the new renovated Gates Park. Renovated. And there are a number of kids in the neighborhood that cross. And sometimes those trucks are not doing the speed limit. They're going over the speed limit. And the speed limit once you get um closer to our end, it drops down to 35. Further out is 45, but some of them are doing well over 35. And I mean the my wall hangings shake. So, that's an indication of how fast they're going.

I can talk to the city engineer. We can have staff take a look at this, but it also sounds like an enforcement issue as well. Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Maybe speed limit changes or something or something. I don't know. Thank you, Wayne. Thanks, Wayne. Chief, is this something that the that your your trailer camera could be placed there? Are they limited in location? Yeah, Rob Duncan, chief of police. Sure, we can put it there or we could have a squad car sit by there as well. The only disadvantage to that is is that if you're picking up a trailer plate and not the semi plate, correct? Makes it extremely difficult because these trucks are switching trailers all the time. That is true. Am I correct in that? Yep. It's going to get there as it goes away. Okay. Well, thank you, Chief.

Mr. Mayor, Miss Graden Smith, please go ahead. Um Wayne, was it Wayne that was or maybe Eric? I'm not sure. Wayne. Um okay. Is there an alternate route? Um is there any other viable alternate route that we could um direct the semis to traverse?

Wastel assistant city engineer. Um, assuming these trucks are coming from the Aspro plant on Airline Highway, their direct route would be airline to 63 to Donald. That would be the most direct route for them to reach the site. Elsewise, if they continued east on airline after the city limits, you're talking gravel roads. Um, that'd be up to the county as well. Did that answer your question, ma'am? Okay. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, Wayne. Uh, roll call vote on 10, 11, and 12, please. Mr. Schmidt. Yes. Mr. Marorrow.

Yes. Miss Kraton Smith. She's froze again. She's locked up. Oh, there she goes. Oh, yes. Okay. Fantastic. Uh, Miss Barry. Yes. Mr. Salamanca. [snorts] No on 10. Yes. On 11. Yes. On 12. Okay. Yeah. Mr. Martin. No. On 10. Yes. On 11. 12. And Mr. Simon? Yes. Okay.

That passed. 13 and 17, please. M.

Mr. Smith. Item number 13 is adopting a re a resolution approving support for the Blackhawk County soil and water conservation district's proposed expansion of their existing dry run creek watershed improvement project into the city of water. And number 17 is adopting a resolution approving a professional services agreement with AECOM Waterl Iowa in the amount of $290,000 for completing an application and applying for a BRIC grant for the reconstruction of Dryrun Arch from the Cedar River to Washington Street and authorizing the mayor and city clerk to execute said documents.

Second. Got a motion and a second on the floor. Uh anyone from the audience? We wish us to speak to 13 or 17. Miss Thornsberry. Thank you for coming tonight.

Thank you. My name is Jerry Thornsberry and I'm proud to serve as the chair of the Blackhawk Soil and Water Conservation District. For those of you who don't know, we are five elected commissioners and our passion is to install conservation practices to protect our water and our soil. And this project is um an [clears throat] extension of the very successful dry run creek project in Cedar Falls. The difference is Cedar Falls had one watershed, dry run creek. We intend to work with the city of Waterlue with at least three maybe five different water sheds, [clears throat] pardon me, uh installing conservation practices. We got the money. All we need is your support. We do need um office space and the project is expected to last five years. We have to develop a watershed management plan in order to figure out what are the priorities and what are the practices to mitigate the issues. So I really would appreciate your support. This is an opportunity where we can really get a grasp on [clears throat] our water quality and water quantity and and make it a better place to live here in Waterlue. Thank you.

Thank you. And this piggybacks with our work session that we had. Pardon? This piggybacks with our work session we had a couple weeks ago. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Thank you for that, too. You bet. Anyone else from the audience wish to speak to 13 or 17? Council questions on either one. Mr. Marl,

Mr. Mayor, members, um I support the repair and replacement of the Dry Run Creek Arch Arch and all, but I don't support the oneway to two-way street. I know that is a way that they're going to get a grant to get this done, but I've talked to several downtown businesses and I've looked at things and uh I don't know that I support tying this together and I'm wondering is there a way that we can find another grant to repair that uh that arch or that repair that bridged arch? I believe this is an AECOM uh question. Oh, sorry. Sorry. Yeah, this is this is No.

Yes, ma'am. This this is a little more money. So, yes. So, this is the uh for the brick grant. Um and this grant is specifically tied to just the arch. This is not the two-way to oneway conversion. The two-way to oneway conversion is tied to the grant that you previously considered at the um meeting before. The brick grant is specifically tied to FEMA funding in regards to the potential for flooding. um damages to um like so if this fail failed it would cause um some significant impacts to the city's levy system um and core. So this

grant that you're considering tonight is not tied to the oneway to two-way conversion. It is solely tied to the dry run creek. I understand the importance of dry run creek. Yes. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Anyone else from the council have Mr. Mayor?

Mr. Martin, please. Um I actually had a conversation with one of the folks from this project on on 13. Um and actually he asked me to be a liaison on their board for them. Um so with your approval I we'll we'll talk about it. Um so I am in support of this. Um I know how important it is. Um actually I don't know if he's not here today but um he's one of the persons that actually is involved in this heavily. He's agriculture and he actually had a conversation with me and told me how important it is that we do this. Like she said, it's not costing the city of Wateroo any money other than office space. Office space. So, I'm in support of it. Thank you. Anyone else?

Seeing none, roll call vote for 13 and 17, please. Ma'am, Mr. Schmid, yes. Mr. Marorrow, yes. Miss Cranton Smith, yes. Miss Barry, yes. Mr. Salamanca, yes. Mr. Martin, yes. And Mr. statement. Yes. Thank you. Who would like to take the third reading on the ordinances, please? Mr. Mayor, Mr. Marl. Thank you. Uh motion to receive and file and consider and pass on the third time and adopt an ordinance amending amendment to the city of Waterl zoning ordinance number 5079 to update terms and regulations as they apply to hobby farms, farm animals, tobacco, and vape shops and other changes. Second.

Motion to second. Anyone from the audience wish to speak to the third reading of the changes in the zoning ordinance for hobby farms, tobacco tobacco vape shops, and other changes? State your name and address, please. Mr. Mayor and members of the council. Uh my name is Ed Olto, 1225 Downing. Um, given the input from the past two meetings, I spent a little time reading up on 10271U, the hobby farm rule, and um, reading about 40,000 square feet for a keeping a cow, a sheep or a llama, 10,000 for a rabbit, a mink, a ferret, a fowl. Um and from input from the earlier meetings too some questions come to my mind. Um this these numbers 40,000 10,000 uh where do they even come from? Is that something you don't have to answer the question I'm just asking these questions because they seem to be um irrational in my mind. um those those numbers. I mean, if you look at the city of Waterlue, uh I would think that half of the all the houses in the old city don't even have 10,000 ft in their square foot. They couldn't even possibly have something. I I don't think a dozen properties in the city have 40,000 square feet. That's a lot of property. I mean, this this room is own is 5,000. Anyway, um also talked about the handful of permits that were given out for hobby farms and just wondering if they're asking for cows and sheep in their backyard or just the kid wants a a rabbit or a chicken or something like that. And uh so drilling down to rabbits and chickens, I'm making

assumptions here, but rabbits and chickens, most people with who would properly care for rabbits and chickens would make an enclosed structure. Uh uh I don't you're not going to freerange them. You're not going to keep in with a fence that's 4t high anyway. And old farmers said a chicken flies like a helicopter. No fence is going to keep them in. Um, so if you see look at the size of the coups and the setbacks of 10 feet from the property, 25 from the house, that kind of thing. You don't need 10,000 square feet for two chickens. I I just think that whole I I I like you to just revisit the whole rule instead of throwing it out. Uh, I understand why and I I appreciate the effort of the committee that made the recommendations to zoning and planning of of considering options like that. Uh, I wish they would have kept that on the table instead of just throwing the whole thing out. So, um, that's my two cents worth. Um, I'd really like to see you rework the code, not just throw it all out and and give some consideration to the possibilities of having a a rabbit instead of a dog or something like that. Um,

thank you, sir. Just in time. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak for or against this?

Jacob Olto, 1332 Null Avenue. Uh, Mayor Bzen and City Council, uh, I want to start by thanking you for, uh, giving your comments on the handouts that I did provide at the first meeting. I do appreciate that you, uh, actually read through it and did, you know, give give it some consideration. Uh, and I wanted to add some context to that. Um, I wrote it not as necessarily my uh, what I would want to see exactly written in the law. I'm not a lawyer. I don't write laws. I I wouldn't expect that. Um, but I wanted to put forth uh my suggestions which I will agree is less restrictive. Um, if the ordinance was less restrictive, maybe we would have 20 hobby farms in this city instead of 10. Um so with that in mind as just my suggestions um it was meant as as a way to put forth grounds to start conversations uh about compromise which as far as I know was the way that the original ordinance the current ordinance came about through compromise. Obviously some people want it more permissive others want it more restrictive and we find a middle ground there. Um, with that I want to point out the other council business, the next two items are actually extending the moratoriums until this fall, which if this ordinance change does not pass, these moratoriums can continue until we get to a point where we can actually um, yeah, have more conversations, work on a compromise, at least try it. Um, so I I would ask the council to vote down the current ordinance changes so that we can work on compromising first before going the route of completely eliminating them um and kind of at least stopping this conversation for now. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else from the audience wish to speak for against this item? Seeing none, councel, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Salamanca. It was my understanding that the second option which was the other council business wasn't even on the table. Mr. Anderson, can you explain how

or Mr. Can you explain why this is now a feasible option? Um because I I would have much rather have had this portion at the beginning when this was introduced than at the end. So, I'm just trying to understand why we're now giving an option. We're now being provided an option when it wasn't in existence prior.

Eric Schrader, city planner. I wouldn't say that it wasn't in existence prior. Um, staff has made a proposed ordinance amendment based on the input that's been occurring over the last couple of years. uh and the moratorum in place. The timeline for the approval was positioned so that we could get through the ordinance approval before the existing moratoriums would expire. uh based on the first the hearing and first reading and then the subsequent second reading uh where they've passed but on a very narrow split vote [snorts] uh based on the concern that if it did not pass on its third reading tonight those moratoriums expire tomorrow uh and that could lead to issues of applications particularly for uh the tobacco side of things on the um hobby farm side of things if that moratorum lapses um would they be able to then submit applications? Yes, that application still has to go through that approval process which is going to include review by the planning and zoning commission and approval by the board of adjustment uh who primarily the board of adjustment is the one that requested that this amendment be looked at because of their concerns on the hobby farms. So the next two items on the agenda if this item passes can be withdrawn.

Withdrawn. Okay. And then additionally, say the ordinance fails this time around, it would we would be voting on one two other council business and what necessarily would be the consequences in voting yes for one and two for other council business would be is there any consequence? I mean not

if if this action on the ordinance fails and then the other business uh action items to extend the moratoriums were passed. The consequences is the continued inability for anyone to submit an application [clears throat] for either uh a new tobacco license or a new hobby farm. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none. Thank you, Eric. Roll call vote on third reading uh of the ordinance. Mr. Schmidt, no. Mr. Marorrow, yes. Miss Kraton Smith,

yes. Miss Barry, yes. Mr. Salamanca, yes. Mr. Martin, yes. And Mr. Simon, yes. Thank you. That passes. [clears throat] We just need someone to ask to remove these next two items. Um, why don't I just do a motion in a second to vote these down? Mr. Simon, you want to take that? Uh, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Simon,

I would like to make a motion to consider the resolution extending the moratorium on the issue issuance of new tobacco permits in the city of Wateroo, Blackhawk County, Iowa until August 15, 2026 and a resolution extending a moratorium on the issuance of a special permit or variance for hobby farms in the city of Wateroo Black County, Iowa until September 15, 2026. Second motion is second. So a no vote will just remove these these items. There's no need for a moratorum now that these have both been voted. Um, any questions? Roll call vote. Ma'am, Mr. Schmidt, no. Mr. Marorrow, no. Miss Kraton Smith, no. Miss Barry, no. Mr. Salamaka,

no. Mr. Martin, no. Mr. Simon, we voting no on this. Oh, no. Thank you. Sorry. I was surprised. Okay. I apologize. That being said, it's now time for public comments. Anyone from the audience can can come up and speak to any non-aggenda related item. Please come to the podium and state your name and address, please. And you have three minutes.

Hello. Brian Burton, Boys and Girls Club of Cedar Valley, 515 Lime Street. Um, just wanted to hand these out. They are. We have an event on Friday evening at the Hilton Garden. Um it's our biggest event of the year. We're giving away both a Harley-Davidson motorcycle and a camp camper from Camping World. Um we will be we'll have auction items, all that. We just wanted to make sure that the city council knew. Um, and we want to thank them for supporting us in the past and continue supporting us. That's it. Thank you, sir. I got a question for him. Oh, please.

Uh, Boys and Girls Club of Iowa or Waterloo. Why didn't we have this at the Civic Center? It was originally going to be at the Cattle Congress. Um, there were some issues that were happening and we moved it. Uh, I did talk with Mayor Boosezen about it being at the civic center. Um, but timing um did not allow us to move it at the time. Okay. Basically, when the when electric park was struggling with their with their liquor license, I made the offer to move it to the convention center, but the people that were organizing this had already stepped up and moved it to the Hilton Garden ends. This will be in Waterl next year. All right. Thank you.

We worked. We tried. All right. Thank you, Brian. Anyone else from the audience wish to speak public comments, please Cosby Carsby?

Beverly Cosby 315 Window Court. At the last council meeting, there was a issue um not an issue, but the fact that um there was money uh for um Gase Park and I want to know has anybody ever has has it ever been considered putting a fence along the park, especially over on Lester Street by the um playground equipment? Um, to me that's a very dangerous It could be a very dangerous situation if you have kids playing and they were to run into the street. Um, I'm not sure why a fence wasn't put up in the first place, but if you look at it, um, you I would think you would think that there's a fence needed there or some kind of barrier to keep the kids from running into the street and maybe getting hit by a car. So, uh, I just wanted to know if that could be something that could be considered, um, so that we could protect the little kid. Well, because it's going to be little kids playing on that that that playground equipment. Well, it might be some big kids, too, but just for safety safety value. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Renee Carson, 1108 Vine Street. And um I want to commend y'all again for moving things through. I want to commend Mr. Simon when he said, you know, that things um things happen. You know, you apologize for him, you move on. And I'm glad and for you too, Mr. mayor when you spoke up to move this along. It's it's time out for keep kicking the can as everybody's been saying. Keep kicking that same can. Let's move it along and fix it as you go. That's all I've got to say. Y'all y'all y'all still on the good list right now. [laughter]

Thank you for your kind words, ma'am. All right. Uh, LA Jefferson Jr., uh, resident of Wateroo. I'm here to officially place council on formal notice of an ongoing concerns involving due process violations, unequal treatment and enforcement of practices and systemic accountability failures uh within the city of Wateroo's law enforcement and related government authorities and functions. These concerns are not isolated. They reflect patterns based inconsistencies within the administration of justice including disparities and bond setting charging decisions procedural safe grounds among similarity uh and situated individuals. These in inconsistencies raise serious concerns and constitutionals or constitutional concerns under the principles principles of equal protection and due process. Where these patterns persist without corrective action, they raise questions regarding oversight, policy enforcement, and institutional accountability at the municipal level. Accordingly, I'm requesting that this council initiate an independent and transparent review of the law enforcement practices, inter agency coordination, and bond related disparities disparities to ensure compliance with constitutional standards. This statement is being made to establish a clear and documented public record that the city has been placed on notice of these concerns. I also have initiated and want to know let you know you are formally I will be formally launching a community petition. I've started online already

but today is a a new day to just bring things forward to this council that may have not been spoken about. But I just wanted to let you know and uh I will continue to pursue any appropriate legal and public avenues to ensure this accountability. Thank you for your comments, sir. [cough] [clears throat]

Aaron Stacy Roberts 411 Almond. I want to sign that petition that you have. Get a hard copy, too, so I can help you pass it around. Uh I want to first suggest with the transparency that the city invest in a document camera or visualizer as they have in de mo. So if I took the composite drawing of this person Charles Tedesco a de mo's police officer that went in the bathroom of my daughter and I set it right here then it would show up on the screen so that people can see because had he not already died they might be able to help you know uh get some information

a little bit and you'll be on camera. Well, what I'm saying is if we have the document camera, I can set it right here and anyone else, whether it's a map or a composite drawing of a sex offender that sent a message for John Deere case insurance policy 0446840. So, that would make it a lot easier on the victims. Also, I want to say that when I started the LA when the last meeting I started, I wanted to say something to Mr. Salomando and I'm talking to you now. What I wanted to tell him I'm talking to you now. Thank you, sir.

What I wanted to tell him was I appreciate the fact that he plays attention fine detail to codes and the rule of law. That's very important and being in the position that you are all in. And as he said, constitutional law, due process, equal and fair protection under law is what has had me here for years. And we have a problem here. And it was pointed out through the 247 Wall Street report. And not only do we need to deal with that, but as a community, if it's five people that can take a little time from football or basketball, whatever y'all into to pay attention to what's going on and what's going to be affecting our children and grandchildren as long as they have roots in Waterlue. And a lot of them are moving away just because of this. We were the worst place in the United States for African-Americans. It was said for a reason. Some of the reasons, the number one reason is probably me and what has happened to my children and other children in Waterlue through the school systems, the city as well as the police. How they have took and turn children into informants to be a part of their basically criminal organization that has directly affected me and my children. So, I'm not guessing at this. I'm telling you what has been going on that you may not have seen. We need to address the corruption that's going on in Waterlue, Iowa. Have a good day.

And thank you, sir. And I want to I appreciate your recommendation on that video. I watched it the next day.

I won't get everybody in the camera picture. Excuse me. Pardon me. Appreciate that, sir. Thank you for your indulgence. I ain't giving you my name. Well, that you need to give a name to I ain't giving you my name and uh I'm not here to commend you, mayor. Well, I'm not asking for your commitment. I'm just asking Mr. Mayor. Point of order. I would like to motion a recess. I would like to speak. You're not going to let me speak. If you have to state your name and address, sir. Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a motion to recess. My name's Kevin. I'm the angry vet. I'd like to make a motion to adjourn. Mr. I was actually I was going to commend you because you seem to be the only person you know temporarily adjourn. So you're going to adjourn this the meeting.

So you're going to adjourn the meeting and not not hear