City Council - Regular Meeting

Regular meeting of the Walke City Council to order. Will everyone please rise for the pledge of allegiance? Pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic for it stands nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. All right, Beck, you would please do roll call. Mayor Clark here. Council member Anderson here. Council member Cone here. Council member Grove here. Council member Lion here. Council member Pierce

here. All right. Agenda item D is open forum. Open forum is the time for anyone here tonight to address the council on any subject over which the council has the authority to act or any item on the agenda other than a public hearing. Does anyone here tonight either in the council chambers or on Zoom wish should address the council and uh and voice your comments or questions? If so, please approach the podium and we'll go orderly kind of one by one. Uh just as a note, uh when you can go ahead, you can go ahead. Uh when you are recognized, uh you will need to state your name and address for the record and because we have so many people will wanting to speak tonight, we will be enforcing our time limit on which is three minutes typically on our uh open forum comments. So, please go ahead.

Said you would pass those down the line even though. And Courtney, just to remind everybody, we we don't respond. Well, if it's a topic that's on the agenda, we can respond. If it is something that is not on the agenda, we are not permitted to respond. So, just so you know. Um, go ahead.

My name is Paul Swinsson. I live at uh 10753rd Street, Walke by the water tower. Um, I would like to ask the city coun the council to change the language in the city code to allow beekeeping in Walke. As far as I can tell, Walke is the only municipality in the metro area that bans beekeeping and that's according to the Iowa Honey Producers Association website. Urbandale changed their code around 2022 to allow beekeeping. I have included which I just passed out the some sample language from Urbandale code to consider. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Veronica Black. I'm one of your elected soil and water conservation commissioners. I've been very disappointed that the state of Iowa and the city of Walke has not done the mandatory testing of our water for uh trihalomethanes, paleocitic acids, radionuclides, both alpha including uranium and combined radium. Not. They haven't done the acid herbicides. They haven't done the glyophate that's in our president's herbicide trump card. They have not done the nitrogen containing herbicide organo phosphate insecticides and total atrizine tests. They have not done the hexovalent chromium test and they don't do the uh test for hormones in our water. We are unfortunately having like me recurrences of uh inflammatory uh prostate cancers in men and and in women inflammatory breast cancer and because of Ro versus Wade I'm here yet 33 years after my stage 4 inflammatory breast cancer but with these chemicals now I It's coming.

Veronica, Veronica, I ask that you address the council, please.

Okay. I'm I'm sorry. I really think we should have been doing these tests yearly like they were supposed to be done. And I tested I paid 2,000 something last year. And now this year on April 1st, I paid another $2,317.50 and just got back today. the hexovalent chromium test. It It costs $158. But anyhow, we need to know what's in our water. Even though I'm not a paid employee, I have to take this out of my social security and pension. I don't have earned income. But I want everybody to know that I care about what we're drinking. And we need to find a filter to take these chemicals out. And the $10,000 well uh Bell Brothers filter from California. It's an honest one. It was honest whole house filter. It's not able to. It reduces the herbicide and pesticides. It reduces the PAS and POS. But there's 27 of them left. And we we got to we got to find a way to filter them out cuz we're not enforcing the drainage laws since 2010.

Veronica 2010. Veronica small farmer. No, your your time is up and as always we are always able to have a conversation with you after the meeting about this. Okay. I'm going to ask for that. I'm back. Flo again. Okay. Brothers and

Hi, good evening. Um, my name is Rose Willie Farver. I am the board president of the Iowa Bicycle Coalition. Um, I'm also an active cyclist. I ride about 6,000 miles annually in Iowa and the ability to bike for transportation, recreation, and travel is a big part of why I choose to call central Iowa home. The Iowa Bicycle Coalition appreciates the focus that Walke is making on safety. There are several strong elements in your ordinance that you've recently brought up, um, including in your motor vehicle operations section. We've seen meaningful steps forward. Um, it includes important decisions like bicycle lane, rightway, lateral passing, distance for a person biking in a bike lane or on a shoulder. You've included protections against unsafe dooring, yielding in crosswalks, and restrictions on parking and bike lanes and trails. Those are all very positive additions. Thank you. We also appreciate the inclusion of protections against unsafe actions towards cyclists and the added clarity around hand signals. That said, there are some gaps and the ordinance does not include a requirement for drivers to change lanes when passing and the three-foot um passing standard does not clearly apply when a cyclist is operating within a travel lane. These are areas the coalition has focused on for several years now. So, I just want to elevate those. The biggest concern, however, is the place riding, excuse me, place of riding section. As it's written today, it requires cyclists to use sidewalks, trails, or bike lanes when available. And it removes the ability to safely choose the roadway. It requires riding close to the curb and prohibits riding on roads over 25 mph. Taken together, these provisions actually reduce visibility. They limit predictability and they can re create

conflicts with pedestrians making conditions for people biking and walking less safe not more. At the same time, it's important to clearly distinguish the issue the city is trying to solve because we know you are trying to solve an issue. And that is high-powered devices. They're often referred to as emotives, but they are not bicycles under Iowa law. So, we appreciate Walkey's effort to include devices exceeding 750 watts within their definitions. This is a great step forward. However, some devices still remain unadressed, like certain emotos that can exceed 39 39 mph. I wish I was making that up, but that's a I baffles me. And then um these these vehicles actually fall under motorcycle classifications. and then some electric devices without seats such as your e- scooters that don't fit within the current definitions and will remain unregulated. It's also important to note that regional partners including the Metropolitan Planning Organization or MO and the Iowa Department of Transportation are actively working on consistent approaches. So alignment across communities matters. Riders of bicycles are guaranteed the same rights and responsibilities as drivers under Iowa law, and people rely on that access every day. We don't need to restrict bicycles from roadways to solve a motorized device issue. What we do need is a better path forward, and that's one that addresses high-powered devices while preserving safe, legal roadway access. At a minimum, I'd like to respectfully ask that sections A, B, and C under place of writing should be removed from your ordinance. And then I want to say that the Iowa Bicycle Coalition welcomes the opportunity to work with you to refine this ordinance so it improves safety without any unintended consequences.

Thank you. Your time is up. I appreciate that.

I am going to make uh I am going to make a couple of of comments. Um I appreciate I appreciate your your comments very deeply. We are absolutely trying to address a safety issue that we have. Um we have had multiple conversations with the MO with our neighboring communities with the bike ped roundtable at the MO um and a whole host of other groups. Um I appreciate your feedback and so please understand we will take this under advisement. This has not been done without feedback. However, I I appreciate you pointing out some some areas where we need to maybe have further conversation. Go ahead.

Um, good evening. My name is Larry Laws. I'm a Dallas County resident, uh, living at 16898 Tanglewood Drive in Clive. I'm also a cycling advocate. Um, I commute on Walke Streets daily, both by car and by bicycle, and some days on both. Um, I regularly use the trail head to get onto the Raccoon River Trail. I'm here tonight to speak on the proposed ordinance amending chapter 76. I appreciate the council taking up this issue. It's clear that residents have concerns about the growing number and variety of transportation devices using our streets, sidewalks, and trails. Many of these devices simply didn't exist when chapter 76 was originally written. That said, I suspect most of the concern is not about someone like me, a 67y old riding a bicycle on a side street trying to get to the trail. More likely center concerns on the unsafe operation of high-speed motorized devices, often by younger riders, in ways that put both themselves and others at risk. I share those concerns. However, I oppose the ordinate as currently written because I believe it may unintentionally make sidewalks less safe for everyone. This evening, I'm offering a few constructive suggestions to help the council meet its safety goals while also addressing concerns from the cycling community. First, bicycles should be explicitly permitted on roadways. Under Iowa law, primarily chapter 321, bicycles are treated as vehicles and cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as drivers. State law clearly allows bicycles on roadways and as written, the proposed ordinance appears to conflict with that. I would also caution regarding unintended consequences. Requiring bicycles to use sidewalks

increases the likelihood of conflicts with pedestrians. Sidewalks are designed to provide a safe, separate space for people walking, jogging, or children getting to school. Since bicycles are legally considered vehicles, placing them on sidewalks undermines that purpose. From a practical standpoint, sidewalks are often not wide enough to safely accommodate multiple users. When a cyclist encounters a family with a stroller or a person walking a dog, someone will need to exit the sidewalk because there simply isn't enough space for everyone. That increases the risk of accidents, injuries, and unnecessary confrontations and in fact may lead to more constituent calls rather than fewer. Second, motorized bicycles should be addressed separately from traditional bicycles. If chapter 77 is going to be repealed, I would encourage the council to consider repurposing chapter 77 to regulate motorized bicycles. And it's important that uh we be clear about what we're discussing. Motorized bicycles, often referred to as e-ostos or electric motorcycles, are significantly different from traditional bicycles. They are more similar both legally and functionally to mopeds. The devices can have larger motors reaching speeds approaching or exceeding 39 mph. For that reason, it would be more appropriate to regulate them alongside mopeds and similar motorized vehicles rather than grouping them with bicycles and electric scooters. And third, other personal transportation devices such as electric scooters could reasonably rest be restricted from roadways and directed to sidewalks or designated paths. These devices are generally not well suited for roadway use and I believe many here would agree with that approach.

Sir, sir, your three minutes is up. Can you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right.

Hi. Uh, my name is Matthew. I live at 1211 South 91st Street. Let us know your last name, too, please.

Oh, I'm sorry. He's Stefan. uh 1211 South 91st Street in West De Moines. Um I regularly use the trails here. I'm also here to talk about section chapter 76, but from a slightly different perspective. Uh I ride one of these electric devices. Now, not the ones you guys are thinking about. I actually agree with you on the wattage limitations for most devices, the speed limits. I know people have gotten hurt going obscene speeds. I know some hurt going 30 miles an hour. It's terrible. My issue concerns the current way it's is written. It's basically saying, "Okay, you're an electric scooter if you have one, two, or three wheels and up to 750 watts." That's fine for most devices, but not self-balancing devices. Because unlike most devices, wattage equals propulsion. And why would you have propulsion that let you break the law? You don't need it. When it comes to a self-balancing device, especially a one, it's kind of like a skateboard, like a flatboard on a wheel. When you lean forward, you go forward because the wheel speeds up to catch you. If there's not enough watts, it doesn't catch you and you tumble and the board goes flying, hits the property, a person on the side who also is on on the sidewalk or on the roadway or wherever and it's not good for anybody. Same thing for breaking. If a child jumps out in front of me, because I don't know if that would be funny that it happens, um I need to be able to break. How do you break? By leaning backwards. If I have to lean backwards pretty aggressively because I don't want to take someone to the hospital, I need to have the kind of power that it has the torque to do that under normal operation on a flat roadway where no one jumps in front of you. There are no pebbles. There are no sticks. There are no cracks in the road. 750 watts is fine. But the peak wattage that I need in order to ride safely exceeds that number. I have a board that meets the definition and I have a chronic in a chronic pain because I fell off my board hitting a tiny crack because I'm a big guy. Physics doesn't love me. Um and I need to have that peak wattage available to me as soon as ever since I got a new board. I've had no accidents. It's been wonderful and I really don't want to lose that here. So my proposed modification would be one of two things. Either give self-balancing

boards their own classification. Still keep the speed limit. I'm not saying no speed limit 20 exactly the same. It's just that the wattage doesn't cleanly um align to the safety risk. If not that, then just make it so that only the two and three-wheel devices have the wattage limitation, not the one. I'd rather self balancing, but that's an easy solution if we don't want to write a whole section for that. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, I want to make a comment really quickly is that I I think this perfectly explains some of the complexities that we are trying to address as a city and you can go ahead and and sit down. Uh, I thank you for making your comments. We are trying to make language that allows us to enforce and I know um, our chief will speak about this when we get to the ordinance conversation later that allows us to enforce unsafe be to allows us to address unsafe behavior. Um and and your points are very well taken, but it's also not easy, especially when in state code there are actually definitions that conflict with each other. Uh so we are trying to address that within our language and still allow clarity for our staff in order to try to address this. So your points are very well taken, but I I think you're recognizing there's some complexity here that we're also trying to work around. Go ahead. Uh Scott Sumpter, Ankeny resident, 2909 Southwest Ridge View Lane, a founder of Bike Iowa. Uh been involved in cycling 25 plus years. Uh communities like yours, been to a lot of meetings lately on this topic, and it's taken a lot of time for all of us to to try to define this. But uh the problems you guys are are coming up across, I mean, is real. There are issues with high-powered emotos, youth behavior, unsafe riding on trails and roadways, and we're seeing it across Iowa, all over the place, and across the nation. Uh, Chief McCcluskey, your officers, I mean, you guys are getting the complaints every day. You're seeing all the calls. I think you said up to 20 calls a day if the sun was shining on like ebikes and stuff. So, there's there's a there's a there's a problem, a behavioral problem out there. We've got a technology that is evolving so quickly and you're being asked to solve these problems without all the defined tools and guidelines. I mean, you need those. Um, it doesn't, this ordinance doesn't address the problem. It goes much further. It applies broadly to bicycles that we've been riding uh what I call acoustic bicycles. So non-ebike powered bicycles and it begins to restrict where everyday cyclists can

legally ride. I mean right now bicycles are treated as vehicles. They operate on the roads. This is how folks commute. This is how they train, recreate, run errands and access trails. The ordinance uh introduces something different. You can't ride on roadways over 25 miles an hour. And you might be required to leave a road if a trail or sidewalk exists. So in real terms, somebody might not be able to legally ride from their neighborhood or even their home. Uh common routes we used for decades could become illegal and visitors and touring cyclists could unknowingly break the law just by passing through the city. So at a core seems like we're trying to solve a behavior problem, but regulating devices. Um a very good analogy somebody gave at the Ankeny City Council meeting. Um, he said, "I can drive my 700 horsepower Dodge Hellcat down the same road as a beat up minivan and we both follow the same rules of the road." And it's about how they are used, not what they are. And that just that just kind of hit home to me. Um, this ordinance is removes the differentiation between a pedal powered bike, a legal ebike, and a high-owered e-to. They're really not the same thing. And we've looked across the state and we've looked across other states, and we have yet to find where this blanket restriction is being made. like at a city level. So it we got to realize that Iowa is also a leader in cycling. I mean Walkit's right on the Raccoon River Trail. People come from all over the US, all over the world to visit. Um a lot of bicycle friendly businesses. You've got uh a lot of gravel routes that start in here. But um policies like this don't affect local riders. They affect how your people experience your community. Uh what's a path forward? Let's get the definitions down, Pat. Let's figure out what we what we've I don't think we really need anything new. It just need more definitions. Invest in education, focus on behavior, and then enforce the existing laws. Um, we reached out to the Iowa DOT and we started going through some of these meetings and we asked for a them to lead a clear statewide educational campaign, like a big PSA.

So, we all know about the clicker ticket. We all know about the buzz drive buzz driving is drunk driving. They put some good effort toward that. Let's see if they can do something for us. They responded back and said they they're looking into like a what we've they've got the ATV UTV safety campaign. They're willing to do some of that, but I think if a lot of our communities get together, we can band together and get that community.

Your time is up. Yep. Yep. I want to speak to that for just a second. Um, so absolutely. Again, we are very proud of our trail system here in Walke. We're very proud of the fact that we are at the head of the Raccoon River belly trail head. We are incredibly proud of that and we continue to put millions into our trail system on an ongoing basis. Uh allowing for recreation is absolutely a focus of our community. However, safety has become a real real issue. Um and we are we we take your point. Absolutely. Education is a primary concern. Nothing we pass will happen without an educational campaign. I would also just comment a lot of what you're seeing from the DOT and the NPO is a result of communities reaching out and asking them to do those things and asking for a coordinated effort because this is not coming from them. This is coming from us saying we need we need a coordinated effort. So I would love to see more leadership on that quite frankly uh and a more coordinated education campaign. We don't disagree that is 100% needed. Thank you.

Go ahead. Uh, Alex Rice, 21148th Street in De Moines and I'm the executive director of the Street Collective. So, we serve the entire De Moines metro area and our mission is to make the De Moines metro an amazing place to walk and bike and that is why we are so concerned about what this chapter 76 rewrite looks like. There are a few big issues. I'll say there's a a number of people who signed a letter opposing this ordinance right now that counts at 192 people. So there's this is frankly causing an uproar in the bike community largely because of that place of riding section. This would effectively ban biking on most streets in Walke and a few places where that concerns us. Part of our mission is to advocate for pedestrians. We keep hearing about pedestrians who are overwhelmed by all these new devices zooming past them on sidewalks and bike paths. And what this ordinance does is says we're actually going to add more things on two wheels onto the sidewalks because we're going to on many of our streets not allow bicycles to be on those streets and we're going to place them on sidewalks instead. So we're now going to increase the potential for conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists and other users of these different devices. So the fact that bicycles are lumped in with the rest of devices here is very concerning to us. Another piece that's concerning is the fact that this ordinance would ban biking on roads that are over 25 miles per hour. So my sister lives in a subdivision in Walke that you can only access on roads that are more than 25 miles per hour. You cannot access them by sidewalk, by bike path, by bike lane. It is only these roads. So that means my sister and everyone in her neighborhood, if this passes, it will be illegal for them to leave their neighborhood on a bicycle. So, I hope that kind of brings home for you that while I think there are a lot of good intentions and there's obviously a lot of phone calls that have helped generate the need to revisit this, that this solution is not the solution to address the problem. And I

know you just mentioned a desire to have a coordinated effort. That's part of what we can do at the street collective. We would be happy to be part of another look at this issue to really come up with something that's not going to compromise that cyclist experience that will be safer for our pedestrians that has the support of the cycling community and that brings a lot of different communities together. Thank you.

Uh good afternoon. Uh my name is William Peterson. uh 395 Northeast Bobcat Drive, Walke, Iowa. So uh 20 months ago when I retired, I promised that I would never go speak before a government body again after 30 years as the executive director of the Iowa State Association of Counties. But you brought my attention to this ordinance and I don't understand all the details around all of the different uh vehicles that you're trying to address, but I am particularly concerned about the limit of 25 miles per hour of me having my bicycle on the roadway. Uh yesterday I took a look at the map of Walke and to be honest I ride a lot of gravel roads and I'm trying to figure out which ones I can ride on and which ones I can't. So there needs to be something to address that. Um not all ebikes are bad though. Um my wife uh who cannot ride a traditional bicycle because of balance issues uses a recumbent ebike uh but under the limit and I don't think it'll go 20 miles an hour but um it is important that we have access to the streets as bicyclists uh as a way of training um like many bicyclists several thousand miles a year on various terrains Uh, but I'd hate to lose the ability to just get on my bike and get out of town as fast as possible. So, thank you very much.

Mayor Clark, there's also a hand raised in Zoom. Okay. Uh, we're going to take the hand raised in Zoom first and then we'll come back to you. Uh, there's a Mindy Moore who has her hand raised. Cindy Moore, uh, you are welcome to speak. And again, three minutes, please. Indie, can you hear us? Oh, she lowered her hand. So, I don't know if she's Okay. Well, if you change your mind, raise your hand again. Uh, it'll come back to you. All right. Come on up. Good evening. My name is Sorry. Can you hear me now?

Yes. Yes.

Sorry, I needed the the host to unmute me. Sorry about that. Um I'm I'm Mindy Moore. I am live at 132 East Center Street in De Moine. Um I am an active transportation planner. I'm also on the board of the Iowa Bicycle Coalition and I'm also a member of the De Mo area's active transportation roundt. So, for many years, we've been working on a model bike ordinance. Um, myself and Jeff Wiggins with the city of De Moine um have collaborated on a model ordinance and actually many parts of the ordinance before you tonight is from our model. So, that part of it I applaud. Um, however, the place of writing section is not from our model ordinance. Um, and also I wanted to clarify that that part was never discussed at the active transportation roundt and is not something that we would support as part of a model ordinance, but we do applaud the other protections that were put into place um in this model and I hope that those those parts stick um but we do need to uh revise that place of writing section. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, now it's now it's yours.

Good evening. My name is Joan Doss. I live at 788 Northeast Macy Way in Walke. I'm a mother and I um currently ride my bike throughout the city with a child trailer behind my bike. So, my device is normally too wide for your traditional sidewalks. Um and when I originally uh heard about this ordinance amendment over the weekend, I was particularly dismayed. as many have mentioned before of just how this amendment creates such a broad definition of a bicycle. Um it would be better to be more specific when it comes to the term of ebike, emoto or traditional bicycle. An electric motorcycle or emoto has no pedals and is not an ebike. An ebike is pedal assist bicycle that has a maximum speed, no throttle and is used by many people. Um, I ask you to not ban ebikes or even traditional bikes from riding in the street because of people that are currently abusing electric electric motorcycles. If passed, this amendment would prevent people nearly entirely from using bicycles as a form of transportation instead of simply recreation. There are few sidewalks in the city that are wide enough to serve both a traditional bike and pedestrian at the same time. There are also many sidewalks in this city that make it that are in poor condition that make riding a bicycle on them unsafe. And particularly with my situation with a child riding behind me, I don't want to crash. Um I I personally would not be able to bike from my house to the public library due to either no sidewalk or too narrow of a sidewalk along a road that has a 35 mph speed limit. I would also not be able to bike to the grocery store due to not having a sidewalk along a 45 mph road. And I would also not be able to directly bike to my daughter's future school without a major reroute to avoid

the narrow sidewalks along yet another road of 30 mph. Additionally, incre with the increasing cost of gas, I am personally trying to use my car as little as possible and this amendment would force me to resume driving pretty much everywhere. There are definitely compromises to be found to address this issue that don't include making traditional biking illegal. With some smart changes and a bit more forethought, I believe everyone will benefit in the long run. Thank you, and I appreciate your consideration to these concerns. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, Veronica, if this is about the same topic, well, it's about walkers. I mean, there's people like me that are disabled just kind of like balance on the bicycle issue and I we have a problem sometimes on the six lane intersections getting across in the allotted time. You push the button, you wait for the pass. And so it's kind of like we're losing the right to safely take a grocery cart across from Hi. You should not be taking a grocery cart across from Hi. But your point on walking. Okay.

Yeah. Or a backpack and uh then get across in time. And it isn't because we're daddling or anything. It's just it's a six lane highway now and it's a long ways to get across and I I think that we are changing our sidewalks into motored a little bit fast. Thank you.

Okay. All right. Open forum is closed. Thank you all for being here tonight. Uh agenda item E is agenda approval. Can I get a motion? Move to approve. Second. You are all more than welcome to stay and wait for further discussion on this topic. By the way, I don't mean for people to leave, but uh any discussion on the agenda? All right, please vote. Council member Grove, yes. Council member Cone, yes. Council member Pierce, yes. Council member Lion, yes. Council member Anderson, yes.

Agenda item G1 is a public hearing on plan specifications form of contract and estimate of cost for the Walke existing public safety building renovation project for bid package 13, earthwork and utilities rebid. I now declare this public hearing open. Becky, have we received any written correspondence on this? No. None received in the city clerk's office. Thank you. All right. Uh Brad,

thank you, Mayor. If you recall last month, uh we brought to you for consideration uh bid packages 2 through 12. Um there was one remaining bid package 13 that at the time the rest of the projects uh our packages were bid out did not receive any bids. And so tonight's public hearing is specific to bid package number 13, which is earthworking utilities uh related to the renovation project associated with 1300 Southeast LA Grant Parkway. Um this time be happy to answer any questions and would recommend holding the public hearing.

Does anyone here tonight either in the council chambers or on Zoom wish to address the council and voice their comments or questions on this particular public hearing item? Only on this particular public hearing item. If so, please approach the podium uh at this time or if participating via Zoom, you can click on the raise hand icon located in the reactions controls.

There are no hands raised in Zoom. Ben Nizzy 660 Walnut Walke I just have a is there federal money attached to this job is the question. Go ahead. There is no federal money. This is being paid for with local option sales tax. Okay. I just thought that there was federal money left over from the other safety building used for this. Am I wrong?

Uh we didn't receive we received some rebates relative to some um sustainability measures um within it, but uh certainly not enough to cover the cost of that facility. So no federal money at all. There's no federal money associated with this project. Yep.

Right. Does council have any questions at this time? And now declare this public hearing closed. Agenda item H1 on the Walke existing public safety building renovation project big package 13 H1A consideration of approval of a resolution approving plans specifications form of contract and estimate of cost. Can I get a motion? Move to approve. Second, Ren. Thank you, mayor. The um spec plan, specifications, form of cost, and estimate of cost, form of contract, and estimate of cost uh have been on file with the city clerk's office. Staff would recommend approval of the resolution. Thank you. Any questions? Please vote. Council member Cone, yes. Council member Pierce, yes. Council member Anderson,

yes. Council member Lion, yes. Council member Grove. Yes. Item H1B, consideration of approval of a resolution awarding contract. Can I get a motion? Move to approve. Second. Brad.

Thank you, mayor. Uh the city took bids on bid package number 13 on April 23rd, 2026. A total of three bids were received with an alternate. Uh this is related to some additional paving that the city uh staff recommended uh subject to uh favorable bids. Uh the engineers estimate provided by Ryan Companies for the total project including the alternate was $410,142. Uh the three uh bids that were received uh the low bid u is from Kelly Cordom um which is $45,580 which is approximately 1.1% below the engineers estimate and staff would recommend approval of the resolution awarding contract to Kelly Cordum Inc.

Thank you. Other questions? So, we're adding in the alternate amount. That is correct. That is included within the proposed resolution. Have we worked with that company before? Uh, we do have some um we do have some experience with them and uh I know uh several other municipalities in the area have used them. Ryan Companies did recommend uh moving forward with this bid. All right, please vote. Council member Grove, yes. Council member Lion, yes. Council member Cone, yes. Council member Pierce, yes. Council member Anderson, yes.

Item H1C, consideration of approval of a resolution approve contract and bond. Can I get a motion? Move to approve. Second. Thank you, mayor. Uh, the contract uh with Kelly Cordom, Inc. uh has been provided for our review and meets our approval. Staff would recommend approval of a resolution approving the contract and bond for uh bid package 13. Thank you. Any final questions? Please vote. Council member Grove, yes. Council member Pierce, yes. Council member Cone, yes. Council member Anderson, yes. Council member Lion, yes.

Item I1 is the consent agenda. Can I get a motion? Move to approve. Second. Any discussion? Please vote. Council member Cone, yes. Council member Lion, yes. Council member Grove, yes. Council member Anderson, yes. Council member Pierce, yes. Item I2 for utility rate adjustments, I2A, consideration of approval of an ordinance to amend chapter 92 water rates by amending section 92.02 water rates as specified. This is a second reading. Move to approve the second reading of the ordinance and title only. and second ready.

Good evening, mayor and council members. Um, up on the screen is a chart. It it represents all of our ordinance readings tonight, our second ordinance readings for our recommended utility rate adjustments. Uh, at the top you can see the three lines shaded in blue. Uh, we're recommending a 1% uh increase to our our water base charge as well as our per 10,000 gallon rate above the minimum usage of a,000 gallons. Uh, and we are recommending the irrigation rate to remain at $4 higher than that 10,000gallon rate. Um, again, happy to take any questions if you have any, but this was covered in our past workshops as we discussed our uh budget for the year. So, staff recommends approving the second reading of the ordinance and title only.

Thank you. Any questions? Please vote. Council member Cone, yes. Council member Grove, yes. Council member Anderson, yes. Council member Pierce, yes. Council member Lion, yes. Item I2B, consideration of approval of an ordinance from chapter 98, sewer service charges by amending section 98.01, sewer service charges required as specified. This is also a second reading. I move to approve the second reading of the ordinance and title only. Second reading.

Thank you, Madame Mayor. Again, I'll just point to the table up on the screen. It recommending a 1 and a.5% increase to our sanitary sewer rates. And again, these rates will go in effect July 1st of 2026. Happy to take questions. Staff recommends approving the second reading of the ordinance and title only. Thank you. Any questions? Right. Please vote. Council member Grove, yes. Council member Pierce, yes. Council member Lion, yes. Council member Anderson, yes. Council member Cone. Yes.

Item I2C, consideration of approval of an ordinance to amend Chapter 100, Storm Water Management Utility by amending section 100.05, storm water service rates and charges as specified. And this is also a second reading. Move to approve the second reading of the ordinance and title only. Second. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Again, I'll reference the chart on the screen. Um, for our stormwater utility rate recommendation, a 65cent increase effective July 1st of 2026. Staff, happy to take any questions, but we do recommend the second reading of the ordinance and title only. Uh, perhaps for those that were not at our previous work sessions on this topic or at the first reading of this, uh, could you address why the increase?

Yeah, absolutely. So our storm uh stormwater utility we did a rate study analysis over the past about uh 16 18 months. Um so this past year and a half and uh from that our recommendation was to adjust our eru units which are equivalent residential units which helps uh determine what um commercial properties pay based on their impervice area as well as a phased in to our rate adjustment. So, this would be year one of a three-year phase in or a cost increase over those three years. And really, that was looking at our operation and maintenance costs for the stormwater utility as well as funding u anticipating the needed funding for capital improvement projects that are also for stormwater utility improvements in our community. So, with that, we looked at a 10-year CIP. Uh we looked at our on& and M costs and we put that all into a nice little uh bowl, mix it up and this was our recommendation based on that for our rate adjustments. So um again this is year one with that adjustment of three. So happy to take any more questions or explain further. Mayor, if you

any further questions, please vote. Council member Lion, yes. Council member Cone, yes. Council member Anderson, yes. Council member Grove, yes. Council member Pierce. Yes. Item I2D, consideration of approval of an ordinance to amend chapter 106, collection of solid waste by amending section 106.10 collection charges as specified. This is also a second reading. Move to approve the second reading of the ordinance and title only. Second. Rudy.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Again, I'll reference the screen. Uh, and you can see the last two lines are the recommended rates, an increase and a decrease. Um, don't often see that, but I'll explain that a little bit more detail. Um the just over 18% increases due to actually a pass through cost that we are experiencing. Um our hauler Ankeny Sanitation is required to pass those through from the municipal disposal site. So our landfill metro waste in just outside of Perry, Iowa. Um they saw almost a 60% increase for municipal waste as a tipping fee. So that uh explains that over almost $3.71 of an increase uh is a tied to also the cost of service um that Ankeny Sanitation um is uh as part of their contract they have an annual cost increase but it also accounts for that pass through cost for the munipal waste tipping fee at the landfill. So hence why the almost 18.5 almost 18.6% increase there. On the flip side, the decrease of almost 60% on the multifamily units um going from the two and a half to $1, that is a result of us again doing a utility rate analysis for our solid waste um enterprise fund and determining that our multi- family units were um basically overpaying. So we we did a review and this is a year two of three of a phase in adjustment to those two customer classes both the the single family residential and then our multif family residential. So happy to take any questions. Um staff recommends uh approving the second reading of the ordinance and title only.

Thank you. Any questions? Please vote. Council member Cone. Yes. Council member Pierce. Yes. Council member Lion. Yes. Council member Grove. Yes. Council member Anderson. Yes. Item I3, consideration of approval of an ordinance to amend Chapter 76, WAKE Municipal Code Bicycle Regulations to rename Chapter 76 as personal transportation device regulations to update the ordinance and include the regulation of personal transportation devices and upon the effective date repealing chapter 77 Wii Municipal Code skateboards. This is also a second reading. Move to approve the second reading of the ordinance and title only.

Second, chief. Good evening, mayor and council. Um we've heard quite a bit this evening and we do listen I took notes. So um our goal is not to um make life difficult for bicyclists. Our goal is simply to create a situation where everybody using our outdoor space is doing so safely and responsibly. And u as we've heard tonight simply between the bicyclists and the I don't remember what you call it

one wheeled device um there is extreme comp uh complexity in in what we're trying to do and we have listened um we have continued to tweak this ordinance. Anybody that's been involved in this with us over the last year knows that we continue to make tweaks to try to come up with the best uh practical and and um safe option that we have. Um, of course, what we heard tonight was that the majority of this this code, I think, is supported. Um, the safety aspects of it are things that that people agree with. There are some um sections of the code that uh can be uh potentially looked at and see if we can alleviate some of these concerns. So, we will do that going forward. Um, the other component of this is that we need it to be clear. We need our officers to understand what it means, but more importantly, we need our officers to be able to explain to a parent or to another person in the community what this means. And that's where kind of the disconnect is with state code right now is there's anywhere from 8 to 10 definitions of these devices. And so when our officers are trying to a educate a child or or a parent on this or b do enforcement or talk to somebody about it, it's very very difficult because they have to go figure out which definition this device meets and then circle back to which state code or which city code that falls under and it becomes very complex and to explain that to the parent of a child or something like that. Uh that's just that much more difficult. So um the goal again is safety. Um, but the secondary goal of that is being able to understand and explain in plain language to somebody um, so that everybody is on the same playing field and and knows what's coming. Um, and again, um, the tweaks with the feedback, we appreciate the feedback. I'm always open to discussing this with anybody. Um, I've said that all the way through this. So, I would make a recommendation that uh council table uh the current uh draft of the code until a future meeting um to give us just a little bit of time to look at that and see if there are options for us

to alleviate some of the concerns specific to bicycles within the code. And um again, our goal is to to get a better product and to make sure that um we're doing that with safety in mind and then clarity number two.

Thank you. I want to want to make just a couple of comments in addition and then if if anyone up here would like to make additional comments. We've been working on this for over a year. We've met with many many groups. I believe this is like version 87 of this ordinance as we've taken feedback and tried to make changes. Uh please rest assured that none of us are trying to trap you in your neighborhoods. None of us are trying to make using our um using our uh community amenities more difficult. However, uh I do want to just reiterate that this is coming from a very real place of concern within the community. the number of calls we have gotten about I almost just hit a kid who went across the street without stopping uh or not using uh lights in the dark and uh being very dangerous. Um I've seen them going 30 miles an hour down my street. So we are coming from a place of trying to address a very real safety issue in our community and I appreciate your patience with us as we work through this um and your comments tonight. I also just want to reiterate what the chief said that this is very complex and I know some of you said just tie back to state code. Unfortunately, that's not the answer for us because state code conflicts in a lot of places and we need to have something a little bit more clear for our staff to address these with. So, um so thank you for coming tonight. Thank you, Chief, for the incredible amount of work you have put into this over the last year. Uh and any other comments? I would hope that we rely on some of the people who are in this room to help us. We have experts among us who I think are are very knowledgeable regarding some of the challenges in regard to all of the

different things that that are happening with with all of the different types of vehicles. And I know a council received some photos this afternoon of a child in the middle of traffic, stopped at a red light on an e motorcycle that had no brake lights, no turning signals, no license plate, and this child was ready to go through the red light. And mayor is absolutely correct. And I think the council only has the best interests of of our community in mind when we try to think about how are we going to keep people safe. We're talking about everybody. And the goal was never to inconvenience anyone. And so I I think that there are definitely some changes that need to be made to um the ordinance that we're working on. And I just hope that we can rely on some of the experts that we have here in the room to help us with those changes. and we took notes, too. So, so thank you. And um we are part of you. I'm new to the bike world. And I I because I'm older, I did just get an ebike. My grandson has what you I learned tonight is called an emoto and it's 600 kilowatts. That's the right term. So, I did check with that. So, I I do understand and I do understand my 13-year-old and his bike gang. So, I we're part of you guys and and please know that I'm I'm excited that you suggested that we table this tonight.

Uh I would like to a motion to table, please. Oh, I have to move. Uh oh, Steve. Uh could we set a specific date? Number one, I'm sure the people in the crowd are interested as to when we might bring this back, but in looking at the calendar, I was thinking June 1st might be the first meeting to allow people enough time to address some of the complaints we've heard here. Thank you, Anna.

That was one of my suggestions is if if we could um try to get a timeline narrow down. I know we have a lot of stakeholders and interested parties in the room. Um and I know it's important to you because on a beautiful day, you're inside, not on your bikes, outside in the trails. Um, so I I know um and I appreciate the time that you all took. Um, and I and I do I want to echo some of the comments that have already been made. Um, but I do also want to say I mean this this was in no way an attempt to um circumvent or um otherwise um limit the share the road um act. I know you all especially the the bike the cycling coalition or what used to be the the league of cyclists in Iowa. um you all worked hard for that and I know you fought for that for nearly a decade to get that. Um th this was in no way an intent to attack that. I'm a cyclist myself. Uh we read this ordinance as you can see our focus was safety. Our focus was getting kids safe specifically um and making sure that our sidewalks and trails were safe. Um so when we read that with that lens specifically and I'm sure all of you can see this as well. Um that that was our focus. Um, and so having that narrow lens was in it was in no way meant to, you know, try to circumvent any other rights that cyclists have um, in the state of Iowa because those are important and you fought for those and you did that for a reason. Um, so I just want to say, you know, I I thank you for this and this is why this specific process is in place to allow three separate readings in public forum for an ordinance like this. Um, because the first goound, y'all weren't here. You didn't know. We didn't realize we were still focused on safety and I I don't think anyone showed up to the first reading, right? Um the second reading, here you are. Thank goodness, right? And I'm glad you were here and I'm glad you voiced your concerns and reached out to all of us. Um because as soon as you did it, I think all of us felt, oh gosh, yep, unintended consequences. Let's work together to find a solution. And so I appreciate all of the dialogue. It was very constructive, very positive, very

respectful. We reciprocate that back to you and thank you for your participation in this process. Any other comments?

One of the things that um the public may not know is that we just had um planning session last week and one of the things that was asked of us that that I hadn't thought of before is how do you want the public to perceive the work that you do in the council chambers? And one of the things that came up several of us mentioned we want to be flexible. We want to be responsive to our public and we want to be able to listen to things and change our minds if we need to change our minds. And this is one of those instances where I think that um we get an opportunity to say, "Okay, we hear you. We understand your concerns and we can change our minds." And with that, I'll take a motion to table until June 1st.

You have to say like a specific thing. I don't have I'm going to give it a shot. Yeah. and then I can be told say something else. I move to table the second consideration of the ordinance until further study has been done and then consider it at our June 1st meeting. I seconded it. We all we all second it. Are we good, Steve? What's that? Are we good? Yeah, you're good. I didn't hear a pause, but that's fine. All right, with that uh with that um with that, please vote on the tableling of the ordinance. Council member Grove, yes.

Council member Lion, yes. Council member Anderson, yes. Council member Cone, yes. Council member Pierce, yes. Item I4, consideration of approval of an ordinance to amend chapter 169 zoning ordinance city of Walke, Iowa by reszoning certain property from A1 to R2 and R4 a property to be known as Silverleaf. This is also a second reading. Dropping like flies to approve the second reading the ordinance and title only. Second. You don't have to stay by the way. It's all right. We won't get offended. It won't be much longer though. And it gets more exciting. You have.

All right, Alyssa. Okay, good evening, mayor and council. Uh, the property is located at uh north of 310th Street and east of T Avenue. Contains approximately 70 acres in area outlined in blue on the screen. Uh, the request is to reszone the property from A1 Agricultural District to R21 and two family residential district and R4 road dwelling and town home dwelling district. Again, I'll show the reszoning areas. So, the area in green on the screen is the R4 and then the rest of that like the purplish color is the R2 areas. Uh staff is recommending approval of the second reading of the resoning and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Are there any questions? Where is it?

All right, please vote. Council member Grove, yes. Council member Cone, yes. Council member Lion, yes. Council member Pierce, yes. Council member Anderson, yes. Item I5, consideration of approval of a resolution approving preliminary plat for Timberline Estates. Move to approve. Second, Andy.

Hello, Mayor Clark and council members. Uh before you tonight is consideration of approval of a preliminary plat for Timberline Estates. Uh the owner and applicant is Timberline Estates LLC. Uh the property is outlined in blue on the screen. Um, it is roughly 90.32 acres in area located south of Southeast Westtown Parkway and generally west of Southeast LA Grant Parkway. Uh, if the council will recall, um, earlier this year, the council acted on the annexation of this property. Uh, this is the former new Pioneer Gun Club property. Um, as well as, uh, approved a resoning for the property to the R21 and two family uh, residential district. Uh the preliminary plat identifies 127 single family lots. All lots meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the R2 zoning district. Uh the minimum requirements are 65 ft in width and 8,000 square ft in area. I can tell you that uh probably uh 80 to 85% of the lots within this development far exceed those requirements. Um particularly on the southwest side of the development. Um, extensions of several streets are proposed, including an extension of South Warrior Lane that would connect up to Westtown Parkway in addition to an extension of Southeast Trillium Drive, uh, that would connect into the Stone Prairie development that is directly to the east of the property. Uh, public sanitary sewer, uh, public storm sewer and public water main will serve the development. Um, we are actively reviewing the construction plans, uh, for this subdivision, um, as we speak. A 10- foot wide trail would be extended along the uh east side of South Warrior Lane that would connect up into the trail system within the Glen Village neighborhood. Landscape buffer easements would be required and plantings along all lots that abut South Warrior Lane. Several outlots are shown on the preliminary plat here. This kind of gives you a little bit better view of it. Uh several outlots are shown on the preliminary plat. Um most of those are

either flood plane or for storm water management. Um those outlots would either be owned by the adjoining lot owner uh particularly the flood the flood plane um outlot that you can see here on the west side of the plat that would be tied to the owner of this lot. They would own and maintain that um in addition to a couple other storm water detention outlots that would be owned and maintained by the homeowners association in the future. Outlot Y um is this kind of L-shaped piece right here that's kind of centrally located. Um because this is a residential development, parkland dedication requirements do uh apply to this. Uh based on the number of lots within the development, uh 2.48 acres of parkland are required. Uh outlot Y is 2.61 61 acres in area and that directly adjoins approximately 4 and a half acres that the city already owns directly to the east that was dedicated as part of a previous residential project. Uh staff would anticipate that in the coming years um we would begin planning for that neighborhood park um uh within this area. Um, as discussed during the reasoning, uh, soil remediation would be required as part of this, uh, profit or development, I should say, uh, due to its, uh, nature as being a, a shooting range for the last several decades. Uh, the applicant is working with their environmental consultant in the Iowa Department of Natural Resources to complete their work plan for uh, that soil remediation. And once the work plan has been approved by the DNR, um they could commence the work to do the soil remediation. During that soil remediation process, the Iowa DNR as well as the applicants environmental consultant would monitor um and inspect the remediation process. And then once that work has been completed and um the contaminated soils have been either disposed of or um uh contained

appropriately, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources would issue a certificate of completion. Um again, based on uh staff's review of the preliminary plat, uh the preliminary plat does meet uh all the requirements of the zoning ordinance as well as the subdivision ordinance. Uh staff would recommend approval of the preliminary plat. and I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you very much. Are there any questions? Oh, all right. Uh, please vote. Council member Cone, yes. Council member Pierce, yes. Council member Anderson, yes. Council member Lion, yes. Council member Grove, yes.

Item I six, consideration of approval of a resolution approving site plan for Legacy Cottages at 1505 Southeast Laurel Street. Can I get a motion? Move to approve. Second, Melissa.

Uh, the owner is Well Tower, Iowa Hold Co. LLC. The applicant is O'Brien Construction. The property is located south of Pikmin Road and west of Southeast Legacy Point Boulevard. It contains 2.96 acres in area. It is outlined in blue on the screen. Uh, the property is zoned R3 multif family residential district with a plan development overlay. The property currently includes a building that is just over 12,000 square feet in area and it was built for a memory care facility back in 2010. The property owner plans to demolish the existing building and develop town homes for independent living. The site plan includes a total of six town home buildings for a total of 18 units. So that is what the site plan uh looks like. Um each building includes between two to four units and each unit includes two bedrooms and is uh just over 1500 square feet in area. Each unit includes an attached garage. Two accesses will be provided into the site, one at the north and one at the south. Sorry for the orientation of the site plan. Uh north is to the right. Um the internal street will be privately owned and maintained. Five foot wide sidewalks will be provided adjacent to the site along both public streets and then also within um within the site. Private sidewalks will be provided on both sides of the street. Pedestrian connections will also be provided into the site from the public sidewalks. Parking, landscaping and lighting requirements are being met. Uh private utilities will serve the development. Storm water detention will be provided with a basin which is located at the northeast corner of the site. Then the buildings go to that. So the building elevations will look somewhat like this in different um color variations. The materials are stone veneer, vinyl sighting, and asphalt shingles. Um staff is recommending approval of the site plan and I'd be happy to answer any

questions. Thank you. Are there any questions? Um oh, go ahead. I was just going to ask um will these remain under one like one owner? There will be one lot and one ownership. Okay, got it. And will these have basements or are there on a slab? They are slab on grid.

All right, please vote. Council member Pierce, yes. Council member Grove, yes. Council member Cone, yes. Council member Anderson, yes. Council member Lion, yes. Item I7, consideration of approval of a resolution approving site plan for Smart Clean Edition at 755 Southeast Frontier Avenue. Can I get a motion? Move to approve. Second, Melissa.

The owner and applicant is Smart Clean. The property is located north of Southeast Frontier Avenue and west of Southeast Als. Contains just over an acre in area. Uh the property is zoned M1 Light Industrial District with a plan development overlay. Uh the site currently includes an existing uh multi-tenant building. The building was constructed in 2006. The applicant is requesting approval of a site plan for an addition to the building along the west side. Um the addition is uh 2,486 square feet in area and then the overall building area with the proposed addition will be 12,600 square ft. The project also includes us um adding a small amount of pavement along the north side of the site for access to the addition. Um no new accesses are proposed from the public streets. Those will remain. They're already in place. There is one at the northwest corner and then also one at the southeast corner of the site. Uh parking and landscaping requirements are being met. No new public sidewalks or trails are proposed as they already exist adjacent to the site. Um public utilities are provided to the site. Storm water detention is provided with a regional detention basin which is located to the west. I'll go back one so you can see that large detention basin located just west of the site. Um the building elevations go to that. So the materials are similar, the colors are not so much. Um the materials are pre-cast concrete panels, aluminum storefront system, and metal wall panels. Um an overhead door will also be provided along the north elevation for the addition. Staff recommends approval of the site plan. And I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Are there any questions? the comment. I remember going to a ribbon cutting at this business about three years ago, so it's neat to see him expanding. Please vote. Council member Grove, yes. Council member Cone, yes. Council member Anderson, yes. Council member Pearson, yes. Council member Lion, yes. Item I8, consideration of approval of a resolution approving site plan for Smart Clean Warehouse at 975 Southeast Frontier Avenue. Move to approve. Second, Melissa.

Okay, so we're just going to the east one lot. Again, same owner and applicant. Um, this lot is just under an acre zoned M1. This site is currently vacant. um includes a little bit of pavement um with some spot some parking spots and uh shared access drive off of the off of Frontier. Um the building that they are proposing is a singlestory warehouse building. Um 12,500 ft in area and 23 feet tall, very similar to the building to the west. Um a trash enclosure is proposed at the northeast corner of the site. Uh the existing shared access into the site will remain and then a shared access will also be provided into the site at the north side of the site from the adjacent property. A new 5 foot wide sidewalk will be provided at the south side of the site and parking and landscaping requirements are being met. Public utilities will be provided. Storm water detention will be provided um with the basin which they're um proposing at the south side of the site. And then building elevations are very similar. Um materials go to that so it'll look like that. Um materials again um it is concret uh pre-cast concrete panels, aluminum storefront and then metal wall panels and then the trash enclosure is proposed to be constructed of pre-cast concrete panels to match the building. Staff recommends approval of the site plan and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Are there any questions? Uh assuming construction for both of these, it'll probably happen at the same time. I think that is their plan is to do that at the same time. Yeah. Okay. Please vote. Council member Pierce, yes. Council member Cone, yes. Council member Lion, yes. Council member Anderson, yes. Council member Grove, yes. All right. Item I nine, Rem Remington Point. I9A, consideration of approval of a resolution approving final plat for Remington Point Plat 8. Can I get a motion? Move to approve. Second, Melissa.

And I'll go ahead and present on both A and B at the same time. Um the owner and applicant is Remington Point LLC. Uh the properties are located south of University Avenue and west of 17th Street. Contains uh 0 58 acres. Um it is zoned R2 one and two family residential district. Uh it's very small to see, but it's outlined in red on the screen. Let me go to the final plats here. Uh these properties were originally platted as lots 1 and 31 of Remington Point plat 2. Recently, a final plat was approved for uh Remington Point Plat 4, which is located just to the west of these properties. Um and then the most eastern two lots within Remington Point Plat 4 included taking portions from these two lots, lot one and 31 of Remington Point Plat 2. So the purpose of these final plats uh for Remington Point plats 8 and nine is just to clean up the remaining portions that they took for um plat 4. Both of the plats include one single family residential lot each. Um the lot within plat 8 is 12,500 ft. Lot within plat 9 is just under 12,000 square feet. Um no changes to streets, utilities or e easements are being proposed. And then all public improvements have already been provided to both of these. Staff recommends approval of the final plats and I would be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Are there any questions? So will there be access through Castle Point as well? It looks like maybe there is to the south. Um Castleton Point's a little bit to the west. Okay. Southwest. Okay. There will eventually that street will continue to the south. Okay. Any other questions? Please vote. Council member Cone, yes. Council member Lion, yes. Council member Pierce, yes. Council member Grove, yes. Council member Anderson, yes.

Item I 9B, consideration of approval of a resolution approving final plat for Remington Point Plat 9. Can I get a motion? Move to approve. Second. Melissa, I have nothing further to add. Thank you. Any questions? Please vote. Council member Pierce, yes. Council member Grove, yes. Council member Anderson, yes. Council member Lion, yes. Council member Cone, yes. Item J, reports. Brad,

thank you, Mayor. First of all, um I'm beginning to feel my age a little bit uh because I recall bringing the legacy cottages site plan for the building that's now being torn down to the city council for approval. So, it's somewhat disheartening um that some of my projects are now being demolished. Um just briefly, uh just really one quick thing for you tonight. Uh Safety City is one of our more popular uh summer programs for the incoming kindergarteners that's put on by our police department. Uh today we received um all the new town buildings which the new town is is a big part of that uh overall program. Um and perhaps even more excitingly is that all those new buildings were paid for by a grant from Prairie Meadows. So we're excited that to add that to um our programming and uh are anxiously awaiting the incoming uh kindergarteners uh being able to use those uh new storefronts. Thank you,

Steve. No report. You don't have a report, but just a comment of it was just refreshing to see the community come in and speak their concerns and us be able to listen and table it to reconsider. No report. Rob, no report. No report. I just want to thank staff and um the rest of the council for a very productive and very helpful for us um new council members um comprehensive planning process last week. It it really um was beneficial and I felt like we got a lot done so it was great. Thank you. All right with that I will take a motion to adjurnn. So move

second. All those in favor? Bye. Have a good week, everybody.