[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.