[0:20] Regular

[0:30] meeting of the Walke City Council to order. Will everyone please rise for the

[0:33] pledge of allegiance?

[0:36] » Pledge allegiance to the flag

[0:40] and to the republic for it stands nation under God indivisible with liberty and

[0:48] justice for all. All right, Beck, you would please do

[0:52] roll call. Mayor Clark here. Council member

[0:56] Anderson here. Council member Cone here. Council member Grove

[1:00] » here. >> Council member Lion

[1:01] » here. Council member Pierce >> here.

[1:04] All right. Agenda item D is open forum. Open forum is the time for anyone here

[1:09] tonight to address the council on any subject over which the council has the

[1:12] authority to act or any item on the agenda other than a public hearing. Does

[1:17] anyone here tonight either in the council chambers or on Zoom wish should

[1:20] address the council and uh and voice your comments or questions? If so,

[1:24] please approach the podium and we'll go orderly kind of one by one. Uh just as a

[1:28] note, uh when you can go ahead, you can go ahead. Uh when you are recognized, uh

[1:34] you will need to state your name and address for the record and because we

[1:38] have so many people will wanting to speak tonight, we will be enforcing our

[1:41] time limit on which is three minutes typically on our uh open forum comments.

[1:46] So, please go ahead. >> Said you would pass those down the line

[1:51] even though. >> And Courtney, just to remind everybody,

[1:54] we we don't respond. >> Well, if it's a topic that's on the

[1:58] agenda, we can respond. If it is something that is not on the agenda, we

[2:02] are not permitted to respond. So, just so you know. Um, go ahead.

[2:07] » My name is Paul Swinsson. I live at uh 10753rd Street, Walke by the water

[2:13] tower. Um, I would like to ask the city coun the council to change the language

[2:19] in the city code to allow beekeeping in Walke. As far as I can tell, Walke is

[2:26] the only municipality in the metro area that bans beekeeping and that's

[2:32] according to the Iowa Honey Producers Association website.

[2:38] Urbandale changed their code around 2022 to allow beekeeping. I have included

[2:45] which I just passed out the some sample language from Urbandale code to

[2:50] consider. Thank you.

[2:54] » Thank you. Thank you.

[3:03] » Veronica Black. I'm one of your elected soil and water conservation

[3:07] commissioners. I've been very disappointed that the state of Iowa and

[3:12] the city of Walke has not done the mandatory testing of our water for uh

[3:20] trihalomethanes,

[3:24] paleocitic acids,

[3:28] radionuclides, both alpha including uranium and

[3:33] combined radium. Not. They haven't done the acid

[3:38] herbicides. They haven't done the glyophate that's

[3:42] in our president's herbicide trump card. They have not done

[3:49] the nitrogen containing herbicide organo phosphate insecticides

[3:55] and total atrizine tests. They have not done the hexovalent chromium test and

[4:04] they don't do the uh test for hormones in our water. We are unfortunately

[4:12] having like me recurrences of uh inflammatory

[4:18] uh prostate cancers in men and and in women inflammatory breast cancer and

[4:25] because of Ro versus Wade I'm here yet 33 years after my

[4:32] stage 4 inflammatory breast cancer but with these chemicals now I It's coming.

[4:40] » Veronica, >> Veronica, I ask that you address the

[4:43] council, please. >> Okay. I'm I'm sorry.

[4:46] I really think we should have been doing these tests yearly like they were

[4:51] supposed to be done. And I tested I paid 2,000 something last year. And now this

[4:59] year on April 1st, I paid another $2,317.50

[5:05] and just got back today. the hexovalent chromium test. It It costs $158.

[5:14] But anyhow, we need to know what's in our water. Even though I'm not a paid

[5:20] employee, I have to take this out of my social security and pension. I don't

[5:26] have earned income. But I want everybody to know that I care

[5:33] about what we're drinking. And we need to find a filter to take

[5:39] these chemicals out. And the $10,000 well uh Bell Brothers filter from

[5:47] California. It's an honest one. It was honest whole house filter. It's not able

[5:53] to. It reduces the herbicide and pesticides. It reduces the PAS and POS.

[5:59] But there's 27 of them left. And we we got to we got to find a way to filter

[6:07] them out cuz we're not enforcing the drainage laws since 2010.

[6:12] » Veronica >> 2010.

[6:13] » Veronica

[6:19] small farmer. >> No, your your time is up and as always

[6:23] we are always able to have a conversation with you after the meeting

[6:26] about this. Okay. >> I'm going to ask for that. I'm back. Flo

[6:33] again. Okay.

[6:39] » Brothers and

[6:44] » Hi, good evening. Um, my name is Rose Willie Farver. I am the board president

[6:49] of the Iowa Bicycle Coalition. Um, I'm also an active cyclist. I ride

[6:54] about 6,000 miles annually in Iowa and the ability to bike for transportation,

[7:00] recreation, and travel is a big part of why I choose to call central Iowa home.

[7:07] The Iowa Bicycle Coalition appreciates the focus that Walke is making on

[7:11] safety. There are several strong elements in your ordinance that you've

[7:16] recently brought up, um, including in your motor vehicle operations section.

[7:22] We've seen meaningful steps forward. Um, it includes important decisions like

[7:27] bicycle lane, rightway, lateral passing, distance for a person biking in a bike

[7:32] lane or on a shoulder. You've included protections against unsafe dooring,

[7:37] yielding in crosswalks, and restrictions on parking and bike lanes and trails.

[7:41] Those are all very positive additions. Thank you. We also appreciate the

[7:46] inclusion of protections against unsafe actions towards cyclists and the added

[7:50] clarity around hand signals. That said, there are some gaps and the

[7:55] ordinance does not include a requirement for drivers to change lanes when passing

[8:00] and the three-foot um passing standard does not clearly apply when a cyclist is

[8:04] operating within a travel lane. These are areas the coalition has focused on

[8:08] for several years now. So, I just want to elevate those.

[8:12] The biggest concern, however, is the place riding, excuse me, place of riding

[8:16] section. As it's written today, it requires cyclists to use sidewalks,

[8:21] trails, or bike lanes when available. And it removes the ability to safely

[8:25] choose the roadway. It requires riding close to the curb and prohibits riding

[8:30] on roads over 25 mph. Taken together, these provisions

[8:35] actually reduce visibility. They limit predictability and they can re create

[8:40] conflicts with pedestrians making conditions for people biking and walking

[8:44] less safe not more. At the same time, it's important to clearly distinguish

[8:49] the issue the city is trying to solve because we know you are trying to solve

[8:54] an issue. And that is high-powered devices. They're often referred to as

[8:59] emotives, but they are not bicycles under Iowa law. So, we appreciate

[9:05] Walkey's effort to include devices exceeding 750 watts within their

[9:09] definitions. This is a great step forward. However, some devices still

[9:14] remain unadressed, like certain emotos that can exceed 39 39 mph. I wish I was

[9:20] making that up, but that's a I baffles me. And then um these these vehicles

[9:26] actually fall under motorcycle classifications. and then some electric

[9:30] devices without seats such as your e- scooters that don't fit within the

[9:34] current definitions and will remain unregulated.

[9:38] It's also important to note that regional partners including the

[9:42] Metropolitan Planning Organization or MO and the Iowa Department of

[9:46] Transportation are actively working on consistent approaches. So alignment

[9:51] across communities matters. Riders of bicycles are guaranteed the

[9:55] same rights and responsibilities as drivers under Iowa law, and people rely

[10:00] on that access every day. We don't need to restrict bicycles from roadways to

[10:05] solve a motorized device issue. What we do need is a better path forward, and

[10:10] that's one that addresses high-powered devices while preserving safe, legal

[10:14] roadway access. At a minimum, I'd like to respectfully ask that sections A, B,

[10:20] and C under place of writing should be removed from your ordinance. And then I

[10:25] want to say that the Iowa Bicycle Coalition welcomes the opportunity to

[10:28] work with you to refine this ordinance so it improves safety without any

[10:32] unintended consequences. >> Thank you. Your time is up. I appreciate

[10:36] that.

[10:40] » I am going to make uh I am going to make a couple of of comments. Um I appreciate

[10:47] I appreciate your your comments very deeply. We are absolutely trying to

[10:52] address a safety issue that we have. Um we have had multiple conversations with

[10:58] the MO with our neighboring communities with the bike ped roundtable at the MO

[11:04] um and a whole host of other groups. Um I appreciate your feedback and so please

[11:09] understand we will take this under advisement. This has not been done

[11:13] without feedback. However, I I appreciate you pointing out some some

[11:17] areas where we need to maybe have further conversation. Go ahead.

[11:21] » Um, good evening. My name is Larry Laws. I'm a Dallas County resident, uh, living

[11:25] at 16898 Tanglewood Drive in Clive. I'm also a cycling advocate. Um, I commute

[11:32] on Walke Streets daily, both by car and by bicycle, and some days on both. Um, I

[11:39] regularly use the trail head to get onto the Raccoon River Trail.

[11:44] I'm here tonight to speak on the proposed ordinance amending chapter 76.

[11:49] I appreciate the council taking up this issue. It's clear that residents have

[11:53] concerns about the growing number and variety of transportation devices using

[11:58] our streets, sidewalks, and trails. Many of these devices simply didn't exist

[12:03] when chapter 76 was originally written. That said, I suspect most of the concern

[12:09] is not about someone like me, a 67y old riding a bicycle on a side street trying

[12:14] to get to the trail. More likely center concerns on the unsafe operation of

[12:20] high-speed motorized devices, often by younger riders, in ways that put both

[12:25] themselves and others at risk. I share those concerns. However, I oppose the

[12:31] ordinate as currently written because I believe it may unintentionally make

[12:36] sidewalks less safe for everyone. This evening, I'm offering a few constructive

[12:42] suggestions to help the council meet its safety goals while also addressing

[12:46] concerns from the cycling community. First, bicycles should be explicitly

[12:51] permitted on roadways. Under Iowa law, primarily chapter 321, bicycles are

[12:58] treated as vehicles and cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as

[13:02] drivers. State law clearly allows bicycles on roadways and as written, the

[13:07] proposed ordinance appears to conflict with that. I would also caution

[13:13] regarding unintended consequences. Requiring bicycles to use sidewalks

[13:17] increases the likelihood of conflicts with pedestrians. Sidewalks are designed

[13:22] to provide a safe, separate space for people walking, jogging, or children

[13:26] getting to school. Since bicycles are legally considered vehicles, placing

[13:31] them on sidewalks undermines that purpose. From a practical standpoint,

[13:36] sidewalks are often not wide enough to safely accommodate multiple users. When

[13:41] a cyclist encounters a family with a stroller or a person walking a dog,

[13:45] someone will need to exit the sidewalk because there simply isn't enough space

[13:50] for everyone. That increases the risk of accidents, injuries, and unnecessary

[13:55] confrontations and in fact may lead to more constituent calls rather than

[13:59] fewer. Second, motorized bicycles should be addressed separately from traditional

[14:05] bicycles. If chapter 77 is going to be repealed, I would encourage the council

[14:11] to consider repurposing chapter 77 to regulate motorized bicycles. And it's

[14:17] important that uh we be clear about what we're discussing. Motorized bicycles,

[14:22] often referred to as e-ostos or electric motorcycles, are significantly different

[14:27] from traditional bicycles. They are more similar both legally and functionally to

[14:32] mopeds. The devices can have larger motors reaching speeds approaching or

[14:37] exceeding 39 mph. For that reason, it would be more appropriate to regulate

[14:42] them alongside mopeds and similar motorized vehicles rather than grouping

[14:46] them with bicycles and electric scooters. And third, other personal

[14:51] transportation devices such as electric scooters could reasonably rest be

[14:56] restricted from roadways and directed to sidewalks or designated paths. These

[15:02] devices are generally not well suited for roadway use and I believe many here

[15:07] would agree with that approach. >> Sir, sir, your three minutes is up. Can

[15:11] you >> Thank you.

[15:13] » Thank you. Thank you. All right.

[15:21] » Hi. Uh, my name is Matthew. I live at 1211 South 91st Street.

[15:25] » Let us know your last name, too, please. >> Oh, I'm sorry. He's Stefan. uh 1211

[15:29] South 91st Street in West De Moines. Um I regularly use the trails here. I'm

[15:34] also here to talk about section chapter 76, but from a slightly different

[15:37] perspective. Uh I ride one of these electric devices. Now, not the ones you

[15:42] guys are thinking about. I actually agree with you on the wattage

[15:45] limitations for most devices, the speed limits. I know people have gotten hurt

[15:48] going obscene speeds. I know some hurt going 30 miles an hour. It's terrible.

[15:51] My issue concerns the current way it's is written. It's basically saying,

[15:57] "Okay, you're an electric scooter if you have one, two, or three wheels and up to

[16:00] 750 watts." That's fine for most devices, but not self-balancing devices.

[16:05] Because unlike most devices, wattage equals propulsion. And why would you

[16:09] have propulsion that let you break the law? You don't need it. When it comes to

[16:12] a self-balancing device, especially a one, it's kind of like a skateboard,

[16:16] like a flatboard on a wheel. When you lean forward, you go forward because the

[16:19] wheel speeds up to catch you. If there's not enough watts, it doesn't catch you

[16:24] and you tumble and the board goes flying, hits the property, a person on

[16:27] the side who also is on on the sidewalk or on the roadway or wherever and it's

[16:31] not good for anybody. Same thing for breaking. If a child jumps out in front

[16:34] of me, because I don't know if that would be funny that it happens, um I

[16:37] need to be able to break. How do you break? By leaning backwards. If I have

[16:40] to lean backwards pretty aggressively because I don't want to take someone to

[16:42] the hospital, I need to have the kind of power that it has the torque to do that

[16:47] under normal operation on a flat roadway where no one jumps in front of you.

[16:50] There are no pebbles. There are no sticks. There are no cracks in the road.

[16:52] 750 watts is fine. But the peak wattage that I need in order to ride safely

[16:57] exceeds that number. I have a board that meets the definition and I have a

[17:01] chronic in a chronic pain because I fell off my board hitting a tiny crack

[17:05] because I'm a big guy. Physics doesn't love me. Um and I need to have that peak

[17:10] wattage available to me as soon as ever since I got a new board. I've had no

[17:14] accidents. It's been wonderful and I really don't want to lose that here. So

[17:18] my proposed modification would be one of two things. Either give self-balancing

[17:23] boards their own classification. Still keep the speed limit. I'm not saying no

[17:27] speed limit 20 exactly the same. It's just that the wattage doesn't cleanly um

[17:32] align to the safety risk. If not that, then just make it so that only the two

[17:38] and three-wheel devices have the wattage limitation, not the one. I'd rather self

[17:41] balancing, but that's an easy solution if we don't want to write a whole

[17:44] section for that. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, I want to make a comment

[17:49] really quickly is that I I think this perfectly explains some of the

[17:53] complexities that we are trying to address as a city and you can go ahead

[17:57] and and sit down. Uh, I thank you for making your comments. We are trying to

[18:01] make language that allows us to enforce and I know um, our chief will speak

[18:06] about this when we get to the ordinance conversation later that allows us to

[18:10] enforce unsafe be to allows us to address unsafe behavior. Um and and your

[18:16] points are very well taken, but it's also not easy, especially when in state

[18:19] code there are actually definitions that conflict with each other. Uh so we are

[18:24] trying to address that within our language and still allow clarity for our

[18:29] staff in order to try to address this. So your points are very well taken, but

[18:33] I I think you're recognizing there's some complexity here that we're also

[18:37] trying to work around. Go ahead. Uh Scott Sumpter, Ankeny resident, 2909

[18:42] Southwest Ridge View Lane, a founder of Bike Iowa. Uh been involved in cycling

[18:46] 25 plus years. Uh communities like yours, been to a lot of meetings lately

[18:51] on this topic, and it's taken a lot of time for all of us to to try to define

[18:55] this. But uh the problems you guys are are coming up across, I mean, is real.

[18:59] There are issues with high-powered emotos, youth behavior, unsafe riding on

[19:03] trails and roadways, and we're seeing it across Iowa, all over the place, and

[19:06] across the nation. Uh, Chief McCcluskey, your officers, I mean, you guys are

[19:10] getting the complaints every day. You're seeing all the calls. I think you said

[19:13] up to 20 calls a day if the sun was shining on like ebikes and stuff. So,

[19:17] there's there's a there's a there's a problem, a behavioral problem out there.

[19:21] We've got a technology that is evolving so quickly and you're being asked to

[19:25] solve these problems without all the defined tools and guidelines. I mean,

[19:28] you need those. Um, it doesn't, this ordinance doesn't address the problem.

[19:33] It goes much further. It applies broadly to bicycles that we've been riding uh

[19:37] what I call acoustic bicycles. So non-ebike powered bicycles and it begins

[19:42] to restrict where everyday cyclists can legally ride. I mean right now bicycles

[19:46] are treated as vehicles. They operate on the roads. This is how folks commute.

[19:49] This is how they train, recreate, run errands and access trails. The ordinance

[19:54] uh introduces something different. You can't ride on roadways over 25 miles an

[19:58] hour. And you might be required to leave a road if a trail or sidewalk exists. So

[20:03] in real terms, somebody might not be able to legally ride from their

[20:05] neighborhood or even their home. Uh common routes we used for decades could

[20:09] become illegal and visitors and touring cyclists could unknowingly break the law

[20:13] just by passing through the city. So at a core seems like we're trying to solve

[20:18] a behavior problem, but regulating devices. Um a very good analogy somebody

[20:23] gave at the Ankeny City Council meeting. Um, he said, "I can drive my 700

[20:27] horsepower Dodge Hellcat down the same road as a beat up minivan and we both

[20:32] follow the same rules of the road." And it's about how they are used, not what

[20:36] they are. And that just that just kind of hit home to me. Um, this ordinance is

[20:40] removes the differentiation between a pedal powered bike, a legal ebike, and a

[20:45] high-owered e-to. They're really not the same thing. And we've looked across the

[20:49] state and we've looked across other states, and we have yet to find where

[20:52] this blanket restriction is being made. like at a city level. So it we got to

[20:58] realize that Iowa is also a leader in cycling. I mean Walkit's right on the

[21:01] Raccoon River Trail. People come from all over the US, all over the world to

[21:05] visit. Um a lot of bicycle friendly businesses. You've got uh a lot of

[21:10] gravel routes that start in here. But um policies like this don't affect local

[21:14] riders. They affect how your people experience your community. Uh what's a

[21:19] path forward? Let's get the definitions down, Pat. Let's figure out what we what

[21:23] we've I don't think we really need anything new. It just need more

[21:25] definitions. Invest in education, focus on behavior, and then enforce the

[21:30] existing laws. Um, we reached out to the Iowa DOT and we started going through

[21:34] some of these meetings and we asked for a them to lead a clear statewide

[21:39] educational campaign, like a big PSA. So, we all know about the clicker

[21:43] ticket. We all know about the buzz drive buzz driving is drunk driving. They put

[21:46] some good effort toward that. Let's see if they can do something for us. They

[21:50] responded back and said they they're looking into like a what we've they've

[21:53] got the ATV UTV safety campaign. They're willing to do some of that, but I think

[21:57] if a lot of our communities get together, we can band together and get

[22:01] that community. >> Your time is up. Yep. Yep. I want to

[22:03] speak to that for just a second. Um, so absolutely. Again, we are very proud of

[22:09] our trail system here in Walke. We're very proud of the fact that we are at

[22:13] the head of the Raccoon River belly trail head. We are incredibly proud of

[22:17] that and we continue to put millions into our trail system on an ongoing

[22:20] basis. Uh allowing for recreation is absolutely a focus of our community.

[22:27] However, safety has become a real real issue. Um and we are we we take your

[22:34] point. Absolutely. Education is a primary concern. Nothing we pass will

[22:39] happen without an educational campaign. I would also just comment

[22:44] a lot of what you're seeing from the DOT and the NPO is a result of communities

[22:49] reaching out and asking them to do those things and asking for a coordinated

[22:53] effort because this is not coming from them. This is coming from us saying we

[22:56] need we need a coordinated effort. So I would love to see more leadership on

[23:00] that quite frankly uh and a more coordinated education campaign. We don't

[23:05] disagree that is 100% needed. Thank you. >> Go ahead.

[23:10] Uh, Alex Rice, 21148th Street in De Moines and I'm the executive director of

[23:16] the Street Collective. So, we serve the entire De Moines metro area and our

[23:21] mission is to make the De Moines metro an amazing place to walk and bike and

[23:25] that is why we are so concerned about what this chapter 76 rewrite looks like.

[23:31] There are a few big issues. I'll say there's a a number of people who signed

[23:35] a letter opposing this ordinance right now that counts at 192 people. So

[23:39] there's this is frankly causing an uproar in the bike community largely

[23:43] because of that place of riding section. This would effectively ban biking on

[23:48] most streets in Walke and a few places where that concerns us. Part of our

[23:53] mission is to advocate for pedestrians. We keep hearing about pedestrians who

[23:56] are overwhelmed by all these new devices zooming past them on sidewalks and bike

[24:00] paths. And what this ordinance does is says we're actually going to add more

[24:04] things on two wheels onto the sidewalks because we're going to on many of our

[24:08] streets not allow bicycles to be on those streets and we're going to place

[24:12] them on sidewalks instead. So we're now going to increase the potential for

[24:16] conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists and other users of these

[24:20] different devices. So the fact that bicycles are lumped in with the rest of

[24:24] devices here is very concerning to us. Another piece that's concerning is the

[24:29] fact that this ordinance would ban biking on roads that are over 25 miles

[24:32] per hour. So my sister lives in a subdivision in Walke that you can only

[24:37] access on roads that are more than 25 miles per hour. You cannot access them

[24:41] by sidewalk, by bike path, by bike lane. It is only these roads. So that means my

[24:46] sister and everyone in her neighborhood, if this passes, it will be illegal for

[24:50] them to leave their neighborhood on a bicycle. So, I hope that kind of brings

[24:54] home for you that while I think there are a lot of good intentions and there's

[24:59] obviously a lot of phone calls that have helped generate the need to revisit

[25:02] this, that this solution is not the solution to address the problem. And I

[25:06] know you just mentioned a desire to have a coordinated effort. That's part of

[25:09] what we can do at the street collective. We would be happy to be part of another

[25:13] look at this issue to really come up with something that's not going to

[25:17] compromise that cyclist experience that will be safer for our pedestrians that

[25:21] has the support of the cycling community and that brings a lot of different

[25:24] communities together. >> Thank you.

[25:34] » Uh good afternoon. Uh my name is William Peterson.

[25:38] uh 395 Northeast Bobcat Drive, Walke, Iowa.

[25:43] So uh 20 months ago when I retired, I promised that I would never go speak

[25:50] before a government body again after 30 years as the executive director

[25:56] of the Iowa State Association of Counties. But you brought my attention

[26:02] to this ordinance and I don't understand all the details around all of the

[26:08] different uh vehicles that you're trying to

[26:12] address, but I am particularly concerned about the limit of 25 miles per hour of

[26:19] me having my bicycle on the roadway. Uh yesterday I took a look at the map of

[26:26] Walke and to be honest I ride a lot of gravel roads and I'm trying to figure

[26:32] out which ones I can ride on and which ones I can't. So there needs to be

[26:38] something to address that. Um not all ebikes are bad though. Um my

[26:45] wife uh who cannot ride a traditional bicycle because of balance issues uses a

[26:51] recumbent ebike uh but under the limit and I don't think it'll go 20 miles an

[26:57] hour but um it is important that we have access to the streets as bicyclists

[27:05] uh as a way of training um like many bicyclists

[27:10] several thousand miles a year on various terrains

[27:14] Uh, but I'd hate to lose the ability to just get on my bike and get out of town

[27:19] as fast as possible. So, thank you very much.

[27:28] » Mayor Clark, there's also a hand raised in Zoom. Okay. Uh, we're going to take

[27:33] the hand raised in Zoom first and then we'll come back to you. Uh, there's a

[27:37] Mindy Moore who has her hand raised. Cindy Moore, uh, you are welcome to

[27:41] speak. And again, three minutes, please.

[27:49] Indie, can you hear us?

[27:55] Oh, she lowered her hand. So, I don't know

[28:00] if she's Okay. Well, if you change your mind,

[28:04] raise your hand again. Uh, it'll come back to you. All right. Come on up. Good

[28:08] evening. My name is >> Sorry. Can you hear me now?

[28:12] » Yes. Yes. >> Sorry, I needed the the host to unmute

[28:15] me. Sorry about that. Um I'm I'm Mindy Moore. I am live at 132 East Center

[28:20] Street in De Moine. Um I am an active transportation planner. I'm also on the

[28:25] board of the Iowa Bicycle Coalition and I'm also a member of the De Mo area's

[28:30] active transportation roundt. So, for many years, we've been working

[28:36] on a model bike ordinance. Um, myself and Jeff Wiggins with the city of De

[28:41] Moine um have collaborated on a model ordinance and actually many parts of the

[28:46] ordinance before you tonight is from our model. So, that part of it I applaud.

[28:51] Um, however, the place of writing section is not from our model ordinance.

[28:56] Um, and also I wanted to clarify that that part was never discussed at the

[29:00] active transportation roundt and is not something that we would support as part

[29:04] of a model ordinance, but we do applaud the other protections that were put into

[29:08] place um in this model and I hope that those those parts stick um but we do

[29:13] need to uh revise that place of writing section. Thank you.

[29:18] » Thank you. Okay, now it's now it's yours.

[29:22] » Good evening. My name is Joan Doss. I live at 788 Northeast Macy Way in Walke.

[29:28] I'm a mother and I um currently ride my bike throughout the

[29:35] city with a child trailer behind my bike. So, my device is normally too wide

[29:43] for your traditional sidewalks. Um and when I originally uh heard about this

[29:49] ordinance amendment over the weekend, I was particularly dismayed. as many have

[29:53] mentioned before of just how this amendment creates such a broad

[29:56] definition of a bicycle. Um it would be better to be more specific when it comes

[30:02] to the term of ebike, emoto or traditional bicycle. An electric

[30:05] motorcycle or emoto has no pedals and is not an ebike. An ebike is pedal assist

[30:11] bicycle that has a maximum speed, no throttle and is used by many people. Um,

[30:18] I ask you to not ban ebikes or even traditional bikes from riding in the

[30:23] street because of people that are currently abusing electric electric

[30:27] motorcycles. If passed, this amendment would prevent people nearly entirely

[30:31] from using bicycles as a form of transportation instead of simply

[30:34] recreation. There are few sidewalks in the city that are wide enough to serve

[30:38] both a traditional bike and pedestrian at the same time. There are also many

[30:42] sidewalks in this city that make it that are in poor condition that make riding a

[30:46] bicycle on them unsafe. And particularly with my situation with a child riding

[30:50] behind me, I don't want to crash. Um I I personally would not be able to

[30:58] bike from my house to the public library due to either no sidewalk or too narrow

[31:02] of a sidewalk along a road that has a 35 mph speed limit. I would also not be

[31:07] able to bike to the grocery store due to not having a sidewalk along a 45 mph

[31:13] road. And I would also not be able to directly bike to my daughter's future

[31:18] school without a major reroute to avoid the narrow sidewalks along yet another

[31:22] road of 30 mph. Additionally, incre with the increasing

[31:26] cost of gas, I am personally trying to use my car as little as possible and

[31:29] this amendment would force me to resume driving pretty much everywhere.

[31:33] There are definitely compromises to be found to address this issue that don't

[31:37] include making traditional biking illegal. With some smart changes and a

[31:41] bit more forethought, I believe everyone will benefit in the long run. Thank you,

[31:44] and I appreciate your consideration to these concerns.

[31:46] » Thank you. >> Thank you.

[31:56] » Okay, Veronica, if this is about the same topic,

[31:59] » well, it's about walkers. I mean, there's people like me that are disabled

[32:05] just kind of like balance on the bicycle issue and I we have a problem sometimes

[32:14] on the six lane intersections getting across in the allotted time. You

[32:20] push the button, you wait for the pass. And so it's kind of like we're losing

[32:27] the right to safely take a grocery cart across from Hi.

[32:32] » You should not be taking a grocery cart across from Hi. But your point on

[32:37] walking. Okay. >> Yeah. Or a backpack

[32:41] » and uh then get across in time. And it isn't because we're

[32:48] daddling or anything. It's just it's a six lane highway now and it's a long

[32:53] ways to get across and I I think that we are changing our sidewalks into

[33:02] motored a little bit fast.

[33:08] Thank you.

[33:16] » Okay. All right. Open forum is closed. Thank you all for being here tonight. Uh

[33:23] agenda item E is agenda approval. Can I get a motion?

[33:27] » Move to approve. >> Second.

[33:31] » You are all more than welcome to stay and wait for further discussion on this

[33:35] topic. By the way, I don't mean for people to leave, but uh any discussion

[33:40] on the agenda? >> All right, please vote. Council member

[33:46] Grove, >> yes. Council member Cone,

[33:48] » yes. >> Council member Pierce,

[33:49] » yes. >> Council member Lion,

[33:51] » yes. >> Council member Anderson,

[33:52] » yes. >> Agenda item G1 is a public hearing on

[33:56] plan specifications form of contract and estimate of cost for the Walke existing

[34:00] public safety building renovation project for bid package 13, earthwork

[34:04] and utilities rebid. I now declare this public hearing open. Becky, have we

[34:08] received any written correspondence on this? No. None received in the city

[34:10] clerk's office. Thank you. All right. Uh Brad,

[34:17] » thank you, Mayor. If you recall last month, uh we brought to you for

[34:20] consideration uh bid packages 2 through 12. Um there was one remaining bid

[34:26] package 13 that at the time the rest of the projects uh our packages were bid

[34:31] out did not receive any bids. And so tonight's public hearing is specific to

[34:36] bid package number 13, which is earthworking utilities uh related to the

[34:41] renovation project associated with 1300 Southeast LA Grant Parkway. Um this time

[34:48] be happy to answer any questions and would recommend holding the public

[34:51] hearing. >> Does anyone here tonight either in the

[34:53] council chambers or on Zoom wish to address the council and voice their

[34:56] comments or questions on this particular public hearing item? Only on this

[35:00] particular public hearing item. If so, please approach the podium uh at this

[35:04] time or if participating via Zoom, you can click on the raise hand icon located

[35:07] in the reactions controls.

[35:14] » There are no hands raised in Zoom.

[35:21] » Ben Nizzy 660 Walnut Walke I just have a is there federal money attached to this

[35:27] job is the question. Go ahead. >> There is no federal money. This is being

[35:32] paid for with local option sales tax. >> Okay. I just thought that there was

[35:36] federal money left over from the other safety building used for this. Am I

[35:41] wrong? >> Uh

[35:44] we didn't receive we received some rebates relative to some um

[35:50] sustainability measures um within it, but uh certainly not enough to cover the

[35:55] cost of that facility. >> So no federal money at all. There's no

[36:00] federal money associated with this project. Yep.

[36:09] » Right. Does council have any questions at this time?

[36:13] And now declare this public hearing closed. Agenda item H1 on the Walke

[36:17] existing public safety building renovation project big package 13 H1A

[36:22] consideration of approval of a resolution approving plans

[36:25] specifications form of contract and estimate of cost. Can I get a motion?

[36:28] Move to approve. Second, >> Ren.

[36:32] » Thank you, mayor. The um spec plan, specifications, form of cost, and

[36:36] estimate of cost, form of contract, and estimate of cost uh have been on file

[36:41] with the city clerk's office. Staff would recommend approval of the

[36:44] resolution. >> Thank you. Any questions?

[36:48] Please vote. >> Council member Cone,

[36:51] » yes. >> Council member Pierce,

[36:52] » yes. >> Council member Anderson,

[36:54] » yes. >> Council member Lion,

[36:56] » yes. Council member Grove. >> Yes.

[36:58] » Item H1B, consideration of approval of a resolution awarding contract. Can I get

[37:03] a motion? >> Move to approve.

[37:06] » Second. >> Brad.

[37:10] » Thank you, mayor. Uh the city took bids on bid package number 13 on April 23rd,

[37:16] 2026. A total of three bids were received with an alternate. Uh this is

[37:21] related to some additional paving that the city uh staff recommended uh subject

[37:26] to uh favorable bids. Uh the engineers estimate provided by Ryan Companies for

[37:31] the total project including the alternate was $410,142.

[37:36] Uh the three uh bids that were received uh the low bid u is from Kelly Cordom

[37:44] um which is $45,580

[37:49] which is approximately 1.1% below the engineers estimate

[37:54] and staff would recommend approval of the resolution awarding contract to

[37:58] Kelly Cordum Inc. >> Thank you. Other questions? So, we're

[38:04] adding in the alternate amount. >> That is correct. That is included within

[38:08] the proposed resolution. >> Have we worked with that company before?

[38:15] » Uh, we do have some um we do have some experience with them and uh I know uh

[38:21] several other municipalities in the area have used them.

[38:25] » Ryan Companies did recommend uh moving forward with this bid.

[38:30] All >> right, please vote.

[38:34] Council member Grove, >> yes.

[38:36] » Council member Lion, >> yes.

[38:37] » Council member Cone, >> yes.

[38:39] » Council member Pierce, >> yes.

[38:40] » Council member Anderson, >> yes.

[38:43] » Item H1C, consideration of approval of a resolution approve contract and bond.

[38:48] Can I get a motion? >> Move to approve.

[38:51] » Second. >> Thank you, mayor. Uh, the contract uh

[38:54] with Kelly Cordom, Inc. uh has been provided for our review and meets our

[38:58] approval. Staff would recommend approval of a resolution approving the contract

[39:02] and bond for uh bid package 13. >> Thank you. Any final questions?

[39:09] » Please vote. >> Council member Grove,

[39:11] » yes. >> Council member Pierce,

[39:13] » yes. >> Council member Cone,

[39:15] » yes. >> Council member Anderson,

[39:16] » yes. >> Council member Lion,

[39:18] » yes. >> Item I1 is the consent agenda. Can I get

[39:23] a motion? Move to approve. Second. >> Any discussion?

[39:29] Please vote. >> Council member Cone,

[39:32] » yes. >> Council member Lion,

[39:34] » yes. >> Council member Grove,

[39:35] » yes. >> Council member Anderson,

[39:37] » yes. >> Council member Pierce,

[39:39] » yes. >> Item I2 for utility rate adjustments,

[39:43] I2A, consideration of approval of an ordinance to amend chapter 92 water

[39:47] rates by amending section 92.02 water rates as specified. This is a second

[39:51] reading. >> Move to approve the second reading of

[39:55] the ordinance and title only. and second >> ready.

[39:59] » Good evening, mayor and council members. Um, up on the screen is a chart. It it

[40:04] represents all of our ordinance readings tonight, our second ordinance readings

[40:07] for our recommended utility rate adjustments. Uh, at the top you can see

[40:11] the three lines shaded in blue. Uh, we're recommending a 1% uh increase to

[40:16] our our water base charge as well as our per 10,000 gallon rate above the minimum

[40:22] usage of a,000 gallons. Uh, and we are recommending the irrigation rate to

[40:26] remain at $4 higher than that 10,000gallon rate. Um, again, happy to

[40:32] take any questions if you have any, but this was covered in our past workshops

[40:36] as we discussed our uh budget for the year. So, staff recommends approving the

[40:41] second reading of the ordinance and title only.

[40:43] » Thank you. Any questions?

[40:48] » Please vote. >> Council member Cone,

[40:50] » yes. >> Council member Grove,

[40:52] » yes. Council member Anderson, >> yes.

[40:54] » Council member Pierce, >> yes.

[40:55] » Council member Lion, >> yes.

[40:58] » Item I2B, consideration of approval of an ordinance from chapter 98, sewer

[41:02] service charges by amending section 98.01, sewer service charges required as

[41:06] specified. This is also a second reading.

[41:09] » I move to approve the second reading of the ordinance and title only.

[41:13] » Second reading. >> Thank you, Madame Mayor. Again, I'll

[41:16] just point to the table up on the screen. It recommending a 1 and a.5%

[41:20] increase to our sanitary sewer rates. And again, these rates will go in effect

[41:23] July 1st of 2026. Happy to take questions. Staff recommends approving

[41:27] the second reading of the ordinance and title only.

[41:30] » Thank you. Any questions?

[41:35] Right. Please vote. >> Council member Grove,

[41:38] » yes. >> Council member Pierce,

[41:40] » yes. >> Council member Lion,

[41:41] » yes. >> Council member Anderson,

[41:43] » yes. Council member Cone. >> Yes.

[41:46] » Item I2C, consideration of approval of an ordinance to amend Chapter 100, Storm

[41:51] Water Management Utility by amending section 100.05, storm water service

[41:55] rates and charges as specified. And this is also a second reading. Move to

[42:00] approve the second reading of the ordinance and title only. Second.

[42:04] » Thank you, Madam Mayor. Again, I'll reference the chart on the screen. Um,

[42:08] for our stormwater utility rate recommendation, a 65cent increase

[42:11] effective July 1st of 2026. Staff, happy to take any questions, but we do

[42:15] recommend the second reading of the ordinance and title only.

[42:19] » Uh, perhaps for those that were not at our previous work sessions on this topic

[42:23] or at the first reading of this, uh, could you address why the increase?

[42:28] » Yeah, absolutely. So our storm uh stormwater utility we did a rate study

[42:32] analysis over the past about uh 16 18 months. Um so this past year and a half

[42:39] and uh from that our recommendation was to adjust our eru units which are

[42:43] equivalent residential units which helps uh determine what um commercial

[42:48] properties pay based on their impervice area as well as a phased in to our rate

[42:53] adjustment. So, this would be year one of a three-year phase in or a cost

[42:58] increase over those three years. And really, that was looking at our

[43:01] operation and maintenance costs for the stormwater utility as well as funding u

[43:06] anticipating the needed funding for capital improvement projects that are

[43:09] also for stormwater utility improvements in our community. So, with that, we

[43:14] looked at a 10-year CIP. Uh we looked at our on& and M costs and we put that all

[43:18] into a nice little uh bowl, mix it up and this was our recommendation based on

[43:22] that for our rate adjustments. So um again this is year one with that

[43:27] adjustment of three. So happy to take any more questions or explain further.

[43:31] Mayor, if you >> any further questions,

[43:36] » please vote. >> Council member Lion,

[43:38] » yes. >> Council member Cone,

[43:40] » yes. >> Council member Anderson,

[43:42] » yes. >> Council member Grove,

[43:43] » yes. Council member Pierce. >> Yes.

[43:46] » Item I2D, consideration of approval of an ordinance to amend chapter 106,

[43:50] collection of solid waste by amending section 106.10 collection charges as

[43:54] specified. This is also a second reading. Move to approve the second

[43:58] reading of the ordinance and title only. >> Second. Rudy.

[44:02] » Thank you, Madam Mayor. Again, I'll reference the screen. Uh, and you can

[44:05] see the last two lines are the recommended rates, an increase and a

[44:09] decrease. Um, don't often see that, but I'll explain that a little bit more

[44:12] detail. Um the just over 18% increases due to actually a pass through cost that

[44:18] we are experiencing. Um our hauler Ankeny Sanitation is required to pass

[44:23] those through from the municipal disposal site. So our landfill metro

[44:27] waste in just outside of Perry, Iowa. Um they saw almost a 60% increase for

[44:32] municipal waste as a tipping fee. So that uh explains that over almost $3.71

[44:38] of an increase uh is a tied to also the cost of service um that Ankeny

[44:43] Sanitation um is uh as part of their contract they have an annual cost

[44:48] increase but it also accounts for that pass through cost for the munipal waste

[44:51] tipping fee at the landfill. So hence why the almost 18.5

[44:56] almost 18.6% increase there. On the flip side, the decrease of almost 60% on the

[45:02] multifamily units um going from the two and a half to $1, that is a result of us

[45:07] again doing a utility rate analysis for our solid waste um enterprise fund and

[45:12] determining that our multi- family units were um basically overpaying. So we we

[45:18] did a review and this is a year two of three of a phase in adjustment to those

[45:24] two customer classes both the the single family residential and then our multif

[45:28] family residential. So happy to take any questions. Um staff recommends uh

[45:33] approving the second reading of the ordinance and title only.

[45:36] » Thank you. Any questions?

[45:41] » Please vote. >> Council member Cone.

[45:43] » Yes. >> Council member Pierce.

[45:45] » Yes. >> Council member Lion.

[45:46] » Yes. Council member Grove. >> Yes.

[45:49] » Council member Anderson. >> Yes.

[45:52] » Item I3, consideration of approval of an ordinance to amend Chapter 76, WAKE

[45:56] Municipal Code Bicycle Regulations to rename Chapter 76 as personal

[46:01] transportation device regulations to update the ordinance and include the

[46:05] regulation of personal transportation devices and upon the effective date

[46:08] repealing chapter 77 Wii Municipal Code skateboards. This is also a second

[46:12] reading. Move to approve the second reading of

[46:15] the ordinance and title only. >> Second, chief.

[46:20] » Good evening, mayor and council. Um we've heard quite a bit this evening and

[46:23] we do listen I took notes. So um our goal is not to um make life difficult

[46:30] for bicyclists. Our goal is simply to create a situation where everybody using

[46:34] our outdoor space is doing so safely and responsibly. And u as we've heard

[46:39] tonight simply between the bicyclists and the I don't remember what you call

[46:44] it >> one wheeled device um there is extreme

[46:48] comp uh complexity in in what we're trying to do and we have listened um we

[46:53] have continued to tweak this ordinance. Anybody that's been involved in this

[46:56] with us over the last year knows that we continue to make tweaks to try to come

[47:00] up with the best uh practical and and um safe option that we have. Um, of course,

[47:08] what we heard tonight was that the majority of this this code, I think, is

[47:11] supported. Um, the safety aspects of it are things that that people agree with.

[47:15] There are some um sections of the code that uh can be uh potentially looked at

[47:21] and see if we can alleviate some of these concerns. So, we will do that

[47:24] going forward. Um, the other component of this is that we need it to be clear.

[47:29] We need our officers to understand what it means, but more importantly, we need

[47:33] our officers to be able to explain to a parent or to another person in the

[47:36] community what this means. And that's where kind of the disconnect is with

[47:41] state code right now is there's anywhere from 8 to 10 definitions of these

[47:45] devices. And so when our officers are trying to a educate a child or or a

[47:50] parent on this or b do enforcement or talk to somebody about it, it's very

[47:55] very difficult because they have to go figure out which definition this device

[47:58] meets and then circle back to which state code or which city code that falls

[48:02] under and it becomes very complex and to explain that to the parent of a child or

[48:07] something like that. Uh that's just that much more difficult. So um the goal

[48:11] again is safety. Um, but the secondary goal of that is being able to understand

[48:14] and explain in plain language to somebody um, so that everybody is on the

[48:19] same playing field and and knows what's coming. Um, and again, um, the tweaks

[48:24] with the feedback, we appreciate the feedback. I'm always open to discussing

[48:27] this with anybody. Um, I've said that all the way through this. So, I would

[48:30] make a recommendation that uh council table uh the current uh draft of the

[48:35] code until a future meeting um to give us just a little bit of time to look at

[48:39] that and see if there are options for us to alleviate some of the concerns

[48:43] specific to bicycles within the code. And um again, our goal is to to get a

[48:48] better product and to make sure that um we're doing that with safety in mind and

[48:52] then clarity number two. >> Thank you.

[48:58] I want to want to make just a couple of comments

[49:02] in addition and then if if anyone up here would like to make additional

[49:05] comments. We've been working on this for over a year. We've met with many many

[49:09] groups. I believe this is like version 87 of this ordinance as we've taken

[49:14] feedback and tried to make changes. Uh please rest assured that none of us are

[49:19] trying to trap you in your neighborhoods. None of us are trying to

[49:23] make using our um using our uh community amenities more difficult. However, uh I

[49:32] do want to just reiterate that this is coming from a very real place of concern

[49:38] within the community. the number of calls we have gotten about I almost just

[49:42] hit a kid who went across the street without stopping uh or not using uh

[49:48] lights in the dark and uh being very dangerous. Um I've seen them going 30

[49:53] miles an hour down my street. So we are coming from a place of trying to address

[49:58] a very real safety issue in our community and I appreciate your patience

[50:02] with us as we work through this um and your comments tonight. I also just want

[50:07] to reiterate what the chief said that this is very complex and I know some of

[50:11] you said just tie back to state code. Unfortunately, that's not the answer for

[50:15] us because state code conflicts in a lot of places and we need to have something

[50:21] a little bit more clear for our staff to address these with. So, um so thank you

[50:26] for coming tonight. Thank you, Chief, for the incredible amount of work you

[50:30] have put into this over the last year. Uh and any other comments?

[50:35] I would hope that we rely on some of the people who are in this room to help us.

[50:41] We have experts among us who I think are are very knowledgeable regarding some of

[50:47] the challenges in regard to all of the different things that that are happening

[50:54] with with all of the different types of vehicles.

[50:58] And I know a council received some photos this afternoon of a child in the

[51:03] middle of traffic, stopped at a red light on an e motorcycle that had no

[51:09] brake lights, no turning signals, no license plate, and this child was ready

[51:15] to go through the red light. And mayor is absolutely correct. And I think the

[51:20] council only has the best interests of of our community in mind when we try to

[51:26] think about how are we going to keep people safe. We're talking about

[51:30] everybody. And the goal was never to inconvenience anyone. And so I I think

[51:35] that there are definitely some changes that need to be made to um the ordinance

[51:40] that we're working on. And I just hope that we can rely on some of the experts

[51:44] that we have here in the room to help us with those changes.

[51:48] and we took notes, too. So, so thank you. And um

[51:53] we are part of you. I'm new to the bike world. And I I because I'm older, I did

[51:59] just get an ebike. My grandson has what you I learned

[52:03] tonight is called an emoto and it's 600 kilowatts. That's the right

[52:09] term. So, I did check with that. So, I I do understand and I do understand my

[52:16] 13-year-old and his bike gang. So, I we're part of you guys and and

[52:22] please know that I'm I'm excited that you suggested that we table this

[52:26] tonight. >> Uh I would like to a motion to table,

[52:31] please. >> Oh, I have to move.

[52:32] » Uh oh, Steve. >> Uh could we set a specific date? Number

[52:36] one, I'm sure the people in the crowd are interested as to when we might bring

[52:40] this back, but in looking at the calendar, I was thinking June 1st might

[52:43] be the first meeting to allow people enough time to address some of the

[52:49] complaints we've heard here. >> Thank you, Anna.

[52:52] » That was one of my suggestions is if if we could um try to get a timeline narrow

[52:57] down. I know we have a lot of stakeholders and interested parties in

[52:59] the room. Um and I know it's important to you because on a beautiful day,

[53:02] you're inside, not on your bikes, outside in the trails. Um, so I I know

[53:08] um and I appreciate the time that you all took. Um, and I and I do I want to

[53:12] echo some of the comments that have already been made. Um, but I do also

[53:15] want to say I mean this this was in no way an attempt to um circumvent or um

[53:20] otherwise um limit the share the road um act. I know you all especially the the

[53:27] bike the cycling coalition or what used to be the the league of cyclists in

[53:31] Iowa. um you all worked hard for that and I know you fought for that for

[53:35] nearly a decade to get that. Um th this was in no way an intent to attack that.

[53:40] I'm a cyclist myself. Uh we read this ordinance as you can see our focus was

[53:44] safety. Our focus was getting kids safe specifically um and making sure that our

[53:48] sidewalks and trails were safe. Um so when we read that with that lens

[53:53] specifically and I'm sure all of you can see this as well. Um that that was our

[53:57] focus. Um, and so having that narrow lens was in it was in no way meant to,

[54:02] you know, try to circumvent any other rights that cyclists have um, in the

[54:06] state of Iowa because those are important and you fought for those and

[54:08] you did that for a reason. Um, so I just want to say, you know, I I thank you for

[54:13] this and this is why this specific process is in place to allow three

[54:17] separate readings in public forum for an ordinance like this. Um, because the

[54:22] first goound, y'all weren't here. You didn't know. We didn't realize we were

[54:26] still focused on safety and I I don't think anyone showed up to the first

[54:29] reading, right? Um the second reading, here you are. Thank goodness, right? And

[54:33] I'm glad you were here and I'm glad you voiced your concerns and reached out to

[54:36] all of us. Um because as soon as you did it, I think all of us felt, oh gosh,

[54:41] yep, unintended consequences. Let's work together to find a solution. And so I

[54:45] appreciate all of the dialogue. It was very constructive, very positive, very

[54:48] respectful. We reciprocate that back to you and thank you for your participation

[54:52] in this process. Any other comments? >> One of the things that um the public may

[54:58] not know is that we just had um planning session last week and one of the things

[55:05] that was asked of us that that I hadn't thought of before is how do you want the

[55:10] public to perceive the work that you do in the council chambers? And one of the

[55:15] things that came up several of us mentioned we want to be flexible. We

[55:19] want to be responsive to our public and we want to be able to listen to things

[55:24] and change our minds if we need to change our minds. And this is one of

[55:28] those instances where I think that um we get an opportunity to say, "Okay, we

[55:33] hear you. We understand your concerns and we can change our minds."

[55:39] And with that, I'll take a motion to table until June 1st.

[55:44] » You have to say like a specific thing. I don't have

[55:47] » I'm going to give it a shot. >> Yeah. and then I can be told say

[55:50] something else.

[55:53] I move to table the second consideration of the ordinance

[55:59] until further study has been done and then consider it at our June 1st

[56:03] meeting. >> I seconded it.

[56:06] » We all >> we all second it.

[56:09] » Are we good, Steve? >> What's that?

[56:12] » Are we good? >> Yeah, you're good.

[56:14] » I didn't hear a pause, but that's fine. All right, with that

[56:20] » uh >> with that um with that, please vote on

[56:25] the tableling of the ordinance. >> Council member Grove,

[56:28] » yes. >> Council member Lion,

[56:29] » yes. >> Council member Anderson,

[56:31] » yes. >> Council member Cone,

[56:33] » yes. >> Council member Pierce,

[56:34] » yes. Item I4, consideration of approval of an

[56:38] ordinance to amend chapter 169 zoning ordinance city of Walke, Iowa by

[56:42] reszoning certain property from A1 to R2 and R4 a property to be known as

[56:46] Silverleaf. This is also a second reading. Dropping like flies

[56:52] to approve the second reading the ordinance and title only.

[56:54] » Second. >> You don't have to stay by the way. It's

[56:58] all right. We won't get offended. >> It won't be much longer though.

[57:01] » And it gets more exciting. >> You have.

[57:03] » All right, Alyssa. Okay, good evening, mayor and council. Uh, the property is

[57:08] located at uh north of 310th Street and east of T Avenue. Contains approximately

[57:12] 70 acres in area outlined in blue on the screen. Uh, the request is to reszone

[57:16] the property from A1 Agricultural District to R21 and two family

[57:20] residential district and R4 road dwelling and town home dwelling

[57:23] district. Again, I'll show the reszoning areas. So, the area in green on the

[57:28] screen is the R4 and then the rest of that like the purplish color is the R2

[57:32] areas. Uh staff is recommending approval of the

[57:35] second reading of the resoning and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[57:40] » Thank you. Are there any questions? >> Where is it?

[57:49] » All right, please vote. Council member Grove,

[57:52] » yes. >> Council member Cone,

[57:54] » yes. >> Council member Lion,

[57:56] » yes. >> Council member Pierce,

[57:57] » yes. >> Council member Anderson,

[57:59] » yes. Item I5, consideration of approval of a

[58:04] resolution approving preliminary plat for Timberline Estates.

[58:07] » Move to approve. Second, >> Andy.

[58:10] » Hello, Mayor Clark and council members. Uh before you tonight is consideration

[58:15] of approval of a preliminary plat for Timberline Estates. Uh the owner and

[58:19] applicant is Timberline Estates LLC. Uh the property is outlined in blue on the

[58:24] screen. Um, it is roughly 90.32 acres in area located south of Southeast Westtown

[58:29] Parkway and generally west of Southeast LA Grant Parkway. Uh, if the council

[58:34] will recall, um, earlier this year, the council acted on the annexation of this

[58:38] property. Uh, this is the former new Pioneer Gun Club property. Um, as well

[58:43] as, uh, approved a resoning for the property to the R21 and two family uh,

[58:48] residential district. Uh the preliminary plat identifies 127

[58:53] single family lots. All lots meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the

[58:57] R2 zoning district. Uh the minimum requirements are 65 ft in width and

[59:02] 8,000 square ft in area. I can tell you that uh probably uh 80 to 85% of the

[59:08] lots within this development far exceed those requirements. Um particularly on

[59:12] the southwest side of the development. Um, extensions of several streets are

[59:17] proposed, including an extension of South Warrior Lane that would connect up

[59:21] to Westtown Parkway in addition to an extension of Southeast Trillium Drive,

[59:26] uh, that would connect into the Stone Prairie development that is directly to

[59:29] the east of the property. Uh, public sanitary sewer, uh, public storm sewer

[59:34] and public water main will serve the development. Um, we are actively

[59:37] reviewing the construction plans, uh, for this subdivision, um, as we speak. A

[59:43] 10- foot wide trail would be extended along the uh east side of South Warrior

[59:48] Lane that would connect up into the trail system within the Glen Village

[59:52] neighborhood. Landscape buffer easements would be required and plantings along

[59:56] all lots that abut South Warrior Lane. Several outlots are shown on the

[1:00:01] preliminary plat here. This kind of gives you a little bit better view of

[1:00:03] it. Uh several outlots are shown on the preliminary plat. Um most of those are

[1:00:07] either flood plane or for storm water management. Um those outlots would

[1:00:11] either be owned by the adjoining lot owner uh particularly the flood the

[1:00:15] flood plane um outlot that you can see here on the west side of the plat that

[1:00:21] would be tied to the owner of this lot. They would own and maintain that um in

[1:00:25] addition to a couple other storm water detention outlots that would be owned

[1:00:28] and maintained by the homeowners association in the future. Outlot Y um

[1:00:33] is this kind of L-shaped piece right here that's kind of centrally located.

[1:00:38] Um because this is a residential development, parkland dedication

[1:00:42] requirements do uh apply to this. Uh based on the number of lots within the

[1:00:46] development, uh 2.48 acres of parkland are required. Uh outlot Y is 2.61 61

[1:00:53] acres in area and that directly adjoins approximately 4 and a half acres that

[1:00:58] the city already owns directly to the east that was dedicated as part of a

[1:01:03] previous residential project. Uh staff would anticipate that in the coming

[1:01:07] years um we would begin planning for that neighborhood park um uh within this

[1:01:13] area. Um, as discussed during the reasoning,

[1:01:17] uh, soil remediation would be required as part of this, uh, profit or

[1:01:21] development, I should say, uh, due to its, uh, nature as being a, a shooting

[1:01:26] range for the last several decades. Uh, the applicant is working with their

[1:01:30] environmental consultant in the Iowa Department of Natural Resources to

[1:01:33] complete their work plan for uh, that soil remediation. And once the work plan

[1:01:38] has been approved by the DNR, um they could commence the work to do the soil

[1:01:43] remediation. During that soil remediation process, the Iowa DNR as

[1:01:48] well as the applicants environmental consultant would monitor um and inspect

[1:01:52] the remediation process. And then once that work has been completed and um the

[1:01:58] contaminated soils have been either disposed of or um uh contained

[1:02:04] appropriately, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources would issue a

[1:02:08] certificate of completion. Um again, based on uh staff's review of

[1:02:13] the preliminary plat, uh the preliminary plat does meet uh all the requirements

[1:02:17] of the zoning ordinance as well as the subdivision ordinance. Uh staff would

[1:02:21] recommend approval of the preliminary plat. and I'm happy to take any

[1:02:24] questions. >> Thank you very much. Are there any

[1:02:27] questions? >> Oh,

[1:02:31] all right. Uh, please vote. >> Council member Cone,

[1:02:35] » yes. >> Council member Pierce,

[1:02:36] » yes. >> Council member Anderson,

[1:02:38] » yes. >> Council member Lion,

[1:02:40] » yes. >> Council member Grove,

[1:02:41] » yes. >> Item I six, consideration of approval of

[1:02:45] a resolution approving site plan for Legacy Cottages at 1505 Southeast Laurel

[1:02:50] Street. Can I get a motion? Move to approve.

[1:02:54] » Second, >> Melissa.

[1:02:58] » Uh, the owner is Well Tower, Iowa Hold Co. LLC. The applicant is O'Brien

[1:03:03] Construction. The property is located south of Pikmin Road and west of

[1:03:07] Southeast Legacy Point Boulevard. It contains 2.96 acres in area. It is

[1:03:11] outlined in blue on the screen. Uh, the property is zoned R3 multif family

[1:03:16] residential district with a plan development overlay. The property

[1:03:20] currently includes a building that is just over 12,000 square feet in area and

[1:03:23] it was built for a memory care facility back in 2010. The property owner plans

[1:03:27] to demolish the existing building and develop town homes for independent

[1:03:31] living. The site plan includes a total of six town home buildings for a total

[1:03:36] of 18 units. So that is what the site plan uh looks

[1:03:41] like. Um each building includes between two to

[1:03:45] four units and each unit includes two bedrooms and is uh just over 1500 square

[1:03:51] feet in area. Each unit includes an attached garage. Two accesses will be

[1:03:56] provided into the site, one at the north and one at the south. Sorry for the

[1:04:00] orientation of the site plan. Uh north is to the right.

[1:04:05] Um the internal street will be privately owned and maintained. Five foot wide

[1:04:09] sidewalks will be provided adjacent to the site along both public streets and

[1:04:13] then also within um within the site. Private sidewalks will be provided on

[1:04:18] both sides of the street. Pedestrian connections will also be provided into

[1:04:22] the site from the public sidewalks. Parking, landscaping and lighting

[1:04:26] requirements are being met. Uh private utilities will serve the development.

[1:04:30] Storm water detention will be provided with a basin which is located at the

[1:04:33] northeast corner of the site. Then the buildings go to that.

[1:04:41] So the building elevations will look somewhat like this in different um color

[1:04:45] variations. The materials are stone veneer, vinyl sighting, and asphalt

[1:04:50] shingles. Um staff is recommending approval of the

[1:04:54] site plan and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[1:04:57] » Thank you. Are there any questions? >> Um oh,

[1:05:01] » go ahead. I was just going to ask um will these remain under one like one

[1:05:05] owner? >> There will be one lot and one ownership.

[1:05:07] » Okay, got it. >> And will these have basements or are

[1:05:11] there on a slab? >> They are slab on grid.

[1:05:19] » All right, please vote.

[1:05:25] » Council member Pierce, >> yes.

[1:05:27] » Council member Grove, >> yes.

[1:05:28] » Council member Cone, >> yes. Council member Anderson,

[1:05:31] » yes. >> Council member Lion,

[1:05:33] » yes. >> Item I7, consideration of approval of a

[1:05:38] resolution approving site plan for Smart Clean Edition at 755 Southeast Frontier

[1:05:42] Avenue. Can I get a motion? >> Move to approve.

[1:05:46] » Second, Melissa.

[1:05:49] » The owner and applicant is Smart Clean. The property is located north of

[1:05:52] Southeast Frontier Avenue and west of Southeast Als. Contains just over an

[1:05:56] acre in area. Uh the property is zoned M1 Light Industrial District with a plan

[1:06:01] development overlay. Uh the site currently includes an

[1:06:05] existing uh multi-tenant building. The building was constructed in 2006. The

[1:06:10] applicant is requesting approval of a site plan for an addition to the

[1:06:13] building along the west side. Um the addition is uh 2,486 square feet

[1:06:22] in area and then the overall building area with the proposed addition will be

[1:06:27] 12,600 square ft. The project also includes us um adding a small amount of

[1:06:32] pavement along the north side of the site for access to the addition. Um no

[1:06:36] new accesses are proposed from the public streets. Those will remain.

[1:06:40] They're already in place. There is one at the northwest corner and then also

[1:06:44] one at the southeast corner of the site. Uh parking and landscaping requirements

[1:06:48] are being met. No new public sidewalks or trails are proposed as they already

[1:06:53] exist adjacent to the site. Um public utilities are provided to the site.

[1:06:57] Storm water detention is provided with a regional detention basin which is

[1:07:01] located to the west. I'll go back one so you can see that large detention basin

[1:07:04] located just west of the site. Um the building elevations

[1:07:10] go to that. So the materials are similar, the colors

[1:07:15] are not so much. Um the materials are pre-cast concrete panels, aluminum

[1:07:20] storefront system, and metal wall panels. Um an overhead door will also be

[1:07:25] provided along the north elevation for the addition. Staff recommends approval

[1:07:29] of the site plan. And I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[1:07:32] » Thank you. Are there any questions? the comment. I remember going to a ribbon

[1:07:37] cutting at this business about three years ago, so it's neat to see him

[1:07:41] expanding.

[1:07:45] » Please vote. >> Council member Grove,

[1:07:48] » yes. >> Council member Cone,

[1:07:49] » yes. >> Council member Anderson,

[1:07:51] » yes. >> Council member Pearson,

[1:07:53] » yes. >> Council member Lion,

[1:07:54] » yes. Item I8, consideration of approval of a

[1:08:00] resolution approving site plan for Smart Clean Warehouse at 975 Southeast

[1:08:04] Frontier Avenue. Move to approve. >> Second, Melissa.

[1:08:09] » Okay, so we're just going to the east one lot. Again, same owner and

[1:08:13] applicant. Um, this lot is just under an acre zoned

[1:08:18] M1. This site is currently vacant. um includes a little bit of pavement um

[1:08:24] with some spot some parking spots and uh shared access drive off of the off of

[1:08:29] Frontier. Um the building that they are proposing

[1:08:33] is a singlestory warehouse building. Um 12,500 ft in area and 23 feet tall, very

[1:08:40] similar to the building to the west. Um a trash enclosure is proposed at the

[1:08:44] northeast corner of the site. Uh the existing shared access into the

[1:08:49] site will remain and then a shared access will also be provided into the

[1:08:53] site at the north side of the site from the adjacent property. A new 5 foot wide

[1:08:57] sidewalk will be provided at the south side of the site and parking and

[1:09:02] landscaping requirements are being met. Public utilities will be provided. Storm

[1:09:06] water detention will be provided um with the basin which they're um proposing at

[1:09:11] the south side of the site. And then building elevations are very similar. Um

[1:09:16] materials go to that

[1:09:20] so it'll look like that. Um materials again um it is concret uh pre-cast

[1:09:26] concrete panels, aluminum storefront and then metal wall panels and then the

[1:09:31] trash enclosure is proposed to be constructed of pre-cast concrete panels

[1:09:34] to match the building. Staff recommends approval of the site plan and I'd be

[1:09:37] happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you. Are there any questions? Uh

[1:09:42] assuming construction for both of these, it'll probably happen at the same time.

[1:09:46] » I think that is their plan is to do that at the same time. Yeah. Okay.

[1:09:52] » Please vote. >> Council member Pierce,

[1:09:56] » yes. >> Council member Cone,

[1:09:57] » yes. >> Council member Lion,

[1:09:59] » yes. >> Council member Anderson,

[1:10:00] » yes. >> Council member Grove,

[1:10:02] » yes. >> All right. Item I nine, Rem Remington

[1:10:07] Point. I9A, consideration of approval of a resolution approving final plat for

[1:10:12] Remington Point Plat 8. Can I get a motion?

[1:10:14] » Move to approve. >> Second,

[1:10:17] Melissa. >> And I'll go ahead and present on both A

[1:10:20] and B at the same time. Um the owner and applicant is Remington Point LLC. Uh the

[1:10:25] properties are located south of University Avenue and west of 17th

[1:10:28] Street. Contains uh 0 58 acres. Um it is zoned R2 one and two family residential

[1:10:35] district. Uh it's very small to see, but it's outlined in red on the screen.

[1:10:40] Let me go to the final plats here. Uh these properties were originally platted

[1:10:45] as lots 1 and 31 of Remington Point plat 2. Recently, a final plat was approved

[1:10:50] for uh Remington Point Plat 4, which is located just to the west of these

[1:10:54] properties. Um and then the most eastern two lots within Remington Point Plat 4

[1:11:00] included taking portions from these two lots, lot one and 31 of Remington Point

[1:11:04] Plat 2. So the purpose of these final plats uh for Remington Point plats 8 and

[1:11:09] nine is just to clean up the remaining portions that they took for um plat 4.

[1:11:15] Both of the plats include one single family residential lot each. Um the lot

[1:11:20] within plat 8 is 12,500 ft. Lot within plat 9 is just under 12,000 square feet.

[1:11:27] Um no changes to streets, utilities or e easements are being proposed. And then

[1:11:31] all public improvements have already been provided to both of these. Staff

[1:11:35] recommends approval of the final plats and I would be happy to answer any

[1:11:38] questions. >> Thank you. Are there any questions?

[1:11:42] » So will there be access through Castle Point as well? It looks like maybe there

[1:11:48] is to the south.

[1:11:51] » Um Castleton Point's a little bit to the west.

[1:11:55] » Okay. Southwest. Okay. There will eventually that street will continue to

[1:11:59] the south. >> Okay. Any

[1:12:04] other questions?

[1:12:07] Please vote. >> Council member Cone,

[1:12:11] » yes. >> Council member Lion,

[1:12:12] » yes. >> Council member Pierce,

[1:12:14] » yes. >> Council member Grove,

[1:12:16] » yes. >> Council member Anderson,

[1:12:17] » yes. >> Item I 9B, consideration of approval of

[1:12:22] a resolution approving final plat for Remington Point Plat 9. Can I get a

[1:12:26] motion? >> Move to approve.

[1:12:28] » Second. Melissa, >> I have nothing further to add.

[1:12:32] » Thank you. Any questions? Please vote.

[1:12:38] » Council member Pierce, >> yes.

[1:12:39] » Council member Grove, >> yes.

[1:12:41] » Council member Anderson, >> yes.

[1:12:43] » Council member Lion, >> yes.

[1:12:44] » Council member Cone, >> yes.

[1:12:48] » Item J, reports. >> Brad,

[1:12:52] » thank you, Mayor. First of all, um I'm beginning to feel my age a little bit uh

[1:12:56] because I recall bringing the legacy cottages site plan for the building

[1:13:01] that's now being torn down to the city council for approval. So, it's somewhat

[1:13:06] disheartening um that some of my projects are now being demolished. Um

[1:13:11] just briefly, uh just really one quick thing for you tonight. Uh Safety City is

[1:13:16] one of our more popular uh summer programs for the incoming

[1:13:20] kindergarteners that's put on by our police department. Uh today we received

[1:13:24] um all the new town buildings which the new town is is a big part of that uh

[1:13:30] overall program. Um and perhaps even more excitingly is that all those new

[1:13:36] buildings were paid for by a grant from Prairie Meadows. So we're excited that

[1:13:40] to add that to um our programming and uh are anxiously awaiting the incoming uh

[1:13:45] kindergarteners uh being able to use those uh new storefronts.

[1:13:50] Thank you, >> Steve.

[1:13:52] » No report. >> You don't have a report, but just a

[1:13:55] comment of it was just refreshing to see the community come in and speak their

[1:13:59] concerns and us be able to listen and table it to reconsider.

[1:14:05] » No report. >> Rob,

[1:14:06] » no report. >> No report. I just want to thank staff

[1:14:11] and um the rest of the council for a very productive and very helpful for us

[1:14:17] um new council members um comprehensive planning process last week. It it really

[1:14:24] um was beneficial and I felt like we got a

[1:14:27] lot done so it was great. Thank you. >> All right with that I will take a motion

[1:14:34] to adjurnn. So move >> second.

[1:14:36] » All those in favor? Bye. Have a good week, everybody.

Waukee City Council Meeting May 4, 2026

Transcript