[0:12] Good evening.

[0:12] Call the regular meeting of the Ames City Council for Tuesday, March 24th to order.

[0:17] And we will get right into business on Consent.

[0:22] Staff has asked that we pull

[0:24] item number eight.

[0:26] The applicant is not ready to proceed as of yet.

[0:29] And I would like to pull item 36.

[0:32] Anything else that Council wants to pull tonight?

[0:37] Hearing none.

[0:37] Entertain a motion to approve Consent less

[0:39] Item eight and 36.

[0:40] So moved. Second.

[0:42] Thank you. Role call.

[0:43] Betcher? Aye.

[0:45] Junck? Aye.

[0:48] Corrieri? Aye.

[0:49] Rollins? Aye.

[0:51] Beatty-Hansen? Aye.

[0:53] Gartin? Aye.

[0:56] All right.

[0:56] Item 36. Mark, would you please,

[1:00] I have a question for you.

[1:01] If you would.

[1:10] As we are, and Council is entering into a resolution

[1:13] on, development agreement, final plat, public improvements.

[1:18] Just wanted to just

[1:20] reconfirm that, your office and you are supportive of this,

[1:24] item.

[1:28] It I mean, I think maybe supportive.

[1:30] It's just not the right, quite right word.

[1:34] There's been this issue raised about an Iowa Code section

[1:37] that says that we can't give away property.

[1:41] Cities cannot give away property for free.

[1:44] Right.

[1:44] It's it's very clear in the Iowa Code. And,

[1:49] it's been,

[1:51] we have we have done similar things in the past.

[1:54] We've had a lot of, consideration in return for that.

[1:58] So we've been able to sort of justify it.

[2:00] Well, giving this away for less than fair market value.

[2:03] But we're getting this and this and this in return for it.

[2:07] That may be here.

[2:09] I have concerns whether we have enough here or not.

[2:12] And I don't really know what those items are.

[2:15] And but it's,

[2:18] you know, I think we have to be cognizant of that

[2:20] Iowa Code section and that there's a certain level of risk here.

[2:24] If we go ahead.

[2:26] Honestly, the courts that there's a constitutional provision in Iowa

[2:31] that says the cities cannot give money away, that's separate

[2:35] from the Iowa Code section, says we can't give real property away.

[2:39] The the constitutional provision, the,

[2:44] Iowa Supreme Court has said we can give money to,

[2:49] for economic development purposes, and it doesn't violate the Constitution.

[2:53] Okay.

[2:54] Other purposes.

[2:54] We can't just give money. We have to contract for services.

[2:57] You know, which we do.

[2:58] We can't just give money that like, hey, you're good organization.

[3:02] I'm going to give you money to support.

[3:04] You can't do that right. Buy services from them.

[3:07] So we can give but we can give money for economic development purposes.

[3:10] That's that's clear in Iowa law.

[3:13] So what we what we could

[3:15] have done in this situation is we could,

[3:18] we could have just given money to Keystone,

[3:21] and then they could have turned around and use that money to buy

[3:23] the property from us.

[3:26] You know, but we

[3:27] didn't do that where we're looking at just, you know,

[3:30] basically transferring ownership of the property to them.

[3:33] I have concerns about that.

[3:36] I, I don't know,

[3:39] if we were to get sued over it, if we would win.

[3:43] Okay, so there's a certain amount of risk there.

[3:45] You may decide that the risk is worth it.

[3:47] And you really want to do this, and you want to go ahead.

[3:50] Okay.

[3:50] So I just feel an obligation to sort of

[3:53] just tell you about that risk and my concern about it.

[3:57] But, you know, I, I'm not really making a recommendation here

[4:00] that we should move ahead or not move ahead.

[4:02] I'm just saying, there is a certain amount of risk.

[4:06] You know, Kelly may have some thoughts on

[4:08] what the benefits are that we're that we're getting out of this.

[4:12] And, you know, you know, maybe there's enough to, to justify it.

[4:16] I'm just trying to think, like, if the court is looking at this

[4:19] and saying, okay, we have a Code section that says city can't transfer property,

[4:25] on, you know, for free.

[4:28] I can't give it away.

[4:30] The City has given it away.

[4:32] You know.

[4:33] What makes this valid then?

[4:35] Right?

[4:36] We would sort of have the burden of proving

[4:39] why this was a valid property transfer.

[4:42] So that's my concern.

[4:44] Okay, so I have a couple of questions

[4:47] or concerns of my own.

[4:50] So when some of the residents first brought up that Code section,

[4:54] I know we had asked you to come up for comment on that, and I felt

[4:59] I don't know how the rest of Council felt that it was pretty explicit when you said

[5:04] that the Code section, the language is this.

[5:08] But we have

[5:12] the economic development factor right in our favor in this case,

[5:16] because we had spent time justifying why it was for economic development purposes.

[5:21] And you also made a comment that your office

[5:24] had already been discussing this issue, and you felt pretty confident that we were

[5:30] solid in our standing in terms of the economic development argument.

[5:35] Which kind of goes to the consideration piece of it as well,

[5:38] because I think there's been numerous meetings where we've discussed

[5:43] not just economic development argument, but how this supports council goals,

[5:47] how we've considered that factor in relation to,

[5:51] low and moderate income housing

[5:53] and our desire to identify pieces of property that aren't well used,

[5:59] that have room to do increase density to benefit those housing goals.

[6:02] So I'm just a little confused as to why, in all the times that we've discussed

[6:08] that, that we haven't really heard any concerns up until now.

[6:13] Yeah. And that's fair.

[6:14] I it, you know, honestly, I that came up at the Council meeting,

[6:20] I came up and I said, well, you know, we've done this for before

[6:23] with Baker Subdivision and, and, and we had discussed it in the office and,

[6:28] and our thinking at the time was, well, we've done this for the Baker subdivision.

[6:32] It's just that as I have gone on since then and thought about it

[6:36] and, you know, I, I've, I've had second thoughts on it and,

[6:41] and it really kind of came to a head this afternoon because,

[6:45] you know, Renee got an email with an open records request that went through,

[6:49] and I just saw this whole string of things,

[6:52] and it made me worried that, you know, we might get sued on this.

[6:56] So I felt an obligation to tell you that I think there's a risk here.

[7:01] Now, we may have enough.

[7:03] We may have enough to be able to justify this.

[7:06] Okay.

[7:07] As my thinking before was that we did because of all the economic development

[7:10] reasons and such, we may have enough to justify it.

[7:14] I'm not saying don't do it.

[7:15] Okay.

[7:16] Just very clear.

[7:17] I'm not saying don't move ahead.

[7:19] I'm just saying that there is a risk here.

[7:21] And so because there's a risk just I want you to be aware of that.

[7:25] Okay. And,

[7:28] you know, if we if we move ahead of this,

[7:30] I feel like we can defend it, but, I can't guarantee will win that.

[7:35] Right.

[7:35] So just that's just the FYI

[7:39] I am trying to give you here is that I cannot guarantee we would win.

[7:42] So there's a risk.

[7:43] So I just want you to understand the risk and you may find that risk acceptable.

[7:48] And and you know,

[7:51] if we lose, if we were sued

[7:53] and if we lost, and then we end up, you know,

[7:57] it voids the transfer of the property, and we would end up owning property again.

[8:01] There's probably a way we can figure that out.

[8:04] You know, it's kind of a messy situation,

[8:06] but there's probably a way we can figure that out and move forward.

[8:09] But, but my whole point is

[8:13] I just want to let you know there's some risk.

[8:15] And again, my thinking has evolved on this, and and I apologize.

[8:19] I should have, should have gone out on this earlier, but,

[8:23] but I, I'm not saying don't move ahead, okay?

[8:26] I'm not saying that.

[8:27] I'm just saying, you know, where there's a risk, okay?

[8:30] I don't want anyone to say.

[8:31] Mark, why didn't you warn us there was a risk of this happening.

[8:34] So here it is.

[8:36] Okay. She has something else. No.

[8:39] Is there a timing issue associated with this item that this is.

[8:43] We have to do this today because

[8:46] I feel like we need to have a little more.

[8:50] And I don't want to put you on the spot.

[8:51] Mark, I'd like to give you a chance to do a deeper dive talk with colleagues

[8:55] around the state, because this we can't be the first city

[8:58] in the state of Iowa that has one that is something like this. So,

[9:03] the well, is there a tie on it?

[9:05] But is there a timing issue on this project?

[9:08] Yeah. Well, I feel like there is.

[9:10] There is because there's an option agreement that,

[9:13] for that expires at the end of the month.

[9:15] Right. Kelly expires today. Yeah.

[9:18] Okay. Yeah.

[9:19] And that, I mean, that I guess I've always believed

[9:23] this to be an economic development,

[9:26] this idea.

[9:27] Like, that's why they're applying for the housing task force.

[9:31] Housing. Right.

[9:33] Can I just clarify on the timing issue?

[9:34] So the way we wrote an alternative to that,

[9:36] for some reason, it like the development agreement one, added terms what the way

[9:40] the option agreement is written is that if you didn't approve it tonight,

[9:45] the purchaser is relieved from being responsible

[9:48] or having to follow through on anything so they could walk away from the property

[9:52] is what they could do.

[9:53] If you were to continue it to the next meeting in April,

[9:56] they would have to agree to that,

[9:59] for the option agreement to survive all the way till April 14th.

[10:03] If they didn't want to participate anymore and walk away, they could do that.

[10:06] If they didn't want to accept the terms that were put forward by the City tonight.

[10:10] If you change them, they could walk away that that's the limit there.

[10:14] They they have an interest of starting as soon as possible,

[10:18] with construction this spring.

[10:19] But it's really the fact you have an agreement that says it needs to be,

[10:23] executed tonight for both parties to be consistent with that.

[10:26] Agreed.

[10:27] But agreements are modified all the time, and so is, you know,

[10:30] is the developer here.

[10:32] I mean, I have not seen them.

[10:34] They're not aware of any conversation of this matter.

[10:37] It's it's, unusual for us to be in a situation where we're we're having

[10:42] to make sort of a decision on the fly, of this importance,

[10:49] I, I'm wondering

[10:50] if there's the an interest in Council to,

[10:54] pause this issue, come back to it later and give Kelly the opportunity

[10:58] to visit with the developer to see if they'd be interested in just,

[11:02] modifying the option for a month

[11:05] to give us a chance to make sure that we're on all fours on this.

[11:09] I don't know what new information we're going to gather.

[11:12] Well, not not a not factual questions or legal questions.

[11:16] So, I mean, Mark, I guess the question is to you,

[11:19] if you had more time, would that benefit your ability

[11:22] to research this and provide us with sound counsel?

[11:25] It would, but I honestly, I'm not asking for that.

[11:28] All I wanted to do was just I just want I felt the responsibility

[11:32] to say to you that there is a risk here, right?

[11:36] But that's not acceptable for me.

[11:37] I mean, because there's a risk for everything, right?

[11:40] But we we need a greater,

[11:44] level of of description.

[11:48] We can be sued for anything, any time.

[11:50] The question is

[11:51] What is our well, the strengths and weaknesses of such a claim under Iowa law.

[11:56] And so.

[11:57] All right.

[11:58] And I the last thing I want to do is pressure you

[11:59] to answer a question you're not ready to answer.

[12:01] But if you would, you want more time to research.

[12:04] I will tell you, there's not a lot of case law on this.

[12:07] You know, on this kind of a question. So,

[12:10] I mean, there have been some,

[12:12] you know, property transfers that have been voided by the courts

[12:16] because, you know, a city had just given property away.

[12:20] But there's a couple of those.

[12:21] It's there's just not, like, a lot of case law on this.

[12:25] Okay. Is there any other questions for Mark?

[12:28] Well, there is okay. Go ahead.

[12:29] If we're going to do this

[12:31] under economic development and this is under chapter 15A. Yes.

[12:36] in the Iowa Code.

[12:40] Are there things that we

[12:41] need to set out in a Council meeting

[12:45] that creates the, the factual foundation that if we were to be sued?

[12:50] In other words, do we we need to reach some kind of statement

[12:55] as a Council that says we are doing this for these reasons?

[12:59] Yeah, I, I think if you go ahead and you approve this, it's defensible

[13:05] based upon the discussions that have already happened,

[13:08] I can't guarantee we would win. Okay.

[13:11] So that's that's what I'm trying to tell you.

[13:13] I think it's defensible.

[13:14] I think we have a good argument.

[13:16] I just, you know, and sometimes you have to go with.

[13:20] Well, I think we have a good argument, and so we're going to do it.

[13:23] But, but, but but I'm trying to buttress our argument and,

[13:27] and I'm, I'm looking to you to, to give us counsel on this.

[13:30] Are, are there things that you would want us as a Council

[13:34] to say we are doing this for these reasons so that it's a,

[13:39] it's a we have a greater likelihood of success if we're challenged.

[13:43] It I think it's

[13:44] already been made clear that you're doing it for economic development.

[13:47] Okay. Since and that is the key thing.

[13:50] Okay. Okay. Thanks. So yeah.

[13:52] So maybe maybe just to kind of restate,

[13:54] this isn't the first time any of us have seen it. Right.

[13:56] And we went through many steps.

[13:58] This is the last step in a 11 month journey.

[14:01] So we held the public hearing as required by Iowa Code in May of 2025

[14:06] on the disposition of the property that was a published notice.

[14:09] It was a notice meeting.

[14:10] City Council adopted a resolution, as required by law, to accept an offer

[14:15] to purchase the property for $1, with an option agreement

[14:20] subject to the conditions being met, which is that they would build

[14:23] certain types of housing and secure funds for affordable housing.

[14:27] So we had that hearing 11 months ago.

[14:30] We adopted that option agreement at that time.

[14:32] That's when the first conversation where you were Mark commented back to you

[14:36] about the input from the neighborhood.

[14:38] So at that time, we've we've said all along that yes, economic development

[14:43] for the construction

[14:44] and production of housing is essential to the welfare of the city.

[14:47] And that was within our public purpose and our public power to support that.

[14:51] And that was the concept of why, which I think is very important here,

[14:55] that we created an RFP in 2004 to allow for anybody

[14:59] to bid on the property to establish fair market value.

[15:02] No one bid on the property.

[15:04] So it's not that we had offers to do something

[15:08] at a greater amount of money, and we accepted less.

[15:10] So we had no offers.

[15:12] We got a proposal roughly nine months after the RFP was not successful,

[15:17] which is the one that we accepted and said that we would move forward

[15:20] if you gave us the value of the property at $1 to do workforce housing.

[15:26] So to me, we we have gone through an appropriate process

[15:29] of looking for for fair market value offers.

[15:32] We got none.

[15:34] We accepted an offer, had a hearing notice, it notified

[15:36] the neighborhood and have gone through all of these steps.

[15:40] So it's not like tonight we're starting something new.

[15:43] We're just refreshing our memories on everything we have done to get to tonight

[15:47] since. Why?

[15:47] I would agree with Mark is hopefully the record reflects

[15:50] all of that from the last almost two years.

[15:53] But that is why I want to restate all of that.

[15:55] And Tim, I would just agree with Kelly, the it's I think the record is there.

[16:00] You know, you've made that at, at many Council meetings.

[16:03] Okay.

[16:05] What I was trying to do here and, and I apologize.

[16:09] I, I'm not trying to derail this.

[16:11] I'm not saying don't do it.

[16:14] I am saying there's a certain amount of risk here.

[16:16] I just want you to be aware of that. Okay?

[16:19] That's really it. That's my bottom line.

[16:21] So, you know, and like you said, Tim, there's risk in everything in life.

[16:26] You know, anytime you take action, there's risks.

[16:29] And there are questions to that. You want to know.

[16:31] This has been very helpful. Thank you both.

[16:33] Any other questions? No. Entertain a motion. Move alternative one.

[16:38] which is just for clarification for the audience.

[16:40] Oh, to approve the development agreement

[16:43] and final plat and accept the public improvements agreement.

[16:47] Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Roll call.

[16:51] Junck? Aye.

[16:53] Corrieri? Aye.

[16:55] Rollins? Aye.

[16:57] Beatty-Hansen? Aye.

[16:58] Gartin? Aye.

[16:59] Betcher? Aye.

[17:01] Thank you.

[17:02] Move on public forum.

[17:03] It's time we set aside for comments from the public

[17:05] on topics of City business other than those listed on the agenda.

[17:09] We ask people limit their comments to three minutes or less.

[17:11] I have one person who's signed up for public forum.

[17:15] There are other people

[17:16] interested in talking about other items, but Jeri, do you want to go ahead and,

[17:21] address Council and

[17:28] Jeri Neal, 916 Ridgewood Avenue

[17:31] I'm speaking tonight about solar investments

[17:34] on behalf of a working group from the Ames Climate Action Team.

[17:39] We have been closely following,

[17:41] the City's opportunity to construct a solar field 24.9MW.

[17:46] I believe it is on the municipal airport property.

[17:51] We believe that solar investment,

[17:54] makes a lot of sense for the City for four reasons.

[17:58] One, it helps us to meet our climate goals.

[18:00] Of course.

[18:01] Importantly, though, it is the lowest cost energy generating

[18:05] technology that's available today, and that sources from the DOE.

[18:11] the cost of the actual fuel, which would be sunlight that's free.

[18:15] And it's inflation proof.

[18:18] That's an important point when we think of the future.

[18:20] And this is also the fastest technology to deploy.

[18:23] So we believe I think like you do, that the low cost source of energy

[18:28] is the most responsible action that we can take for our ratepayers.

[18:33] Regional market prices are rising.

[18:36] The future price of gas, which you know, we will be using to fuel our

[18:39] new generators, it's unknown.

[18:43] Historically, the

[18:43] highest electricity prices are during the hottest muggy summer months

[18:49] and these events are not expected to disappear.

[18:53] So we're experiencing the Climate Action Team's sense of urgency

[18:57] about, two things timely city

[19:00] action and timely global action.

[19:04] Regarding the City,

[19:06] there is this ever shrinking window July 4th,

[19:09] 2026, for the developer of this project

[19:13] to meet the safe harbor requirements

[19:16] in the administration's current omnibus tax bill, and that preserves

[19:20] an eligibility for tax credits and additional time for construction.

[19:25] And these credits are significant, and it can come to the utility

[19:29] as a direct payment that's equal to 30% of the project cost

[19:34] or as credits to private investors.

[19:37] If the City chooses to take the energy through a power purchase agreement.

[19:42] But that window is coming very close

[19:45] to the time where it's going to be hard for the developer to safe harbor.

[19:49] What's needed to capture this.

[19:51] The second thing that we're concerned about is timely is the planet.

[19:56] So we failed to meet as the City.

[19:58] Our rather ambitious 2025 City goals for solar and wind,

[20:03] and the urgency of moving

[20:05] towards systems that reduce our greenhouse gas

[20:08] footprint cannot be overstated.

[20:12] Ecosystems, human health, economic stability

[20:16] these are all at increasing risk.

[20:19] For the first time ever,

[20:21] scientists have stated with statistical confidence

[20:25] that global warming is accelerating, not merely

[20:29] continuing at a steady rate.

[20:32] So those are the things that are concerning us and what we look forward to.

[20:36] We're looking forward to hearing more about the proposed solar project,

[20:41] and we want to urge the Council to recognize the need

[20:45] and the value of a diverse mix of electric generating resources.

[20:51] So thank you for your time.

[20:53] Thanks, Jeri.

[20:55] Anybody else want to address Council under public forum

[20:58] items that are not on the agenda?

[21:04] You just state your name and you may start.

[21:07] I'm, Nate Kuhn.

[21:10] I'm a resident of am at Fort or.

[21:11] Excuse me, Ames at 4116 Quebec Street.

[21:13] But, tonight I'm presenting as the Vice Chair of the Ames,

[21:17] Area Economic Alliance Young Professionals organization.

[21:20] So, a couple weeks ago, our organization, submit a letter of support

[21:25] to the City Council for the LINC project in the Ames Event Center.

[21:28] I'm here tonight to further reinforce our organization's

[21:31] belief that this project represents an opportunity to transform

[21:34] not only our downtown space, but our city as a whole

[21:38] AREA YP’s mission is to be transformative leaders, enhancing the quality of life

[21:42] through a community

[21:42] focused on leadership, growth, philanthropy, and social engagement.

[21:46] We strive to promote the businesses, attractions, and events

[21:49] that make Central Iowa communities a great place to live, work, and play

[21:53] is for this reason that the LINC and the Ames Events

[21:55] Center are such a necessary development for our community.

[21:58] Their purpose directly aligns

[22:00] with our mission of promoting businesses, attractions, and events.

[22:04] The Community Vision statement says that Ames is a forward

[22:07] thinking community committed to fostering creativity and innovation.

[22:11] The LINC in the Ames Event Center gives us an opportunity to be forward thinking.

[22:15] AREA YP is uniquely positioned to understand

[22:18] the needs and priorities of young professionals in our community.

[22:21] The proposed mixed use development directly addresses several key

[22:24] livability factors, including expanded amenities, diverse

[22:28] retail options, and the potential for significant economic growth.

[22:32] These improvements support a higher quality of life for our members

[22:36] and the broader young workforce.

[22:38] Ames seeks to attract and retain.

[22:41] Ames is strategically located in central Iowa along the corridors

[22:44] of Highway 30 and Interstate 35, making it an ideal location

[22:47] for individuals, businesses, events, conferences and conventions.

[22:51] Amenities and attractions and retail options further influences

[22:55] people's decisions on where they choose to live or host an event.

[22:59] People love to attend events in vibrant areas

[23:01] where there is a variety of things to do, including shopping, dining, etc.

[23:05] our young professionals want restaurants, shopping, apartments,

[23:09] green spaces and the LINC provides those.

[23:12] They want it to be centrally located in a vibrant downtown

[23:14] area, like so many of our surrounding communities.

[23:17] All of these can have a significant, substantial,

[23:20] substantial economic impact on our community.

[23:24] Continuing with the Ames Promise,

[23:26] it reads, Ames is positioned as an intelligent, progressive community.

[23:30] It creates a city and a region

[23:31] where everyone has opportunities to discover and thrive.

[23:35] The development provides valuable resources and

[23:38] or excuse me and contributes to the continued growth of downtown

[23:41] Ames, allowing current business owners to thrive.

[23:44] New jobs in hospitality and retail create

[23:47] greater opportunities for employment, allowing residents to thrive.

[23:51] Revitalization and enhancing downtown Ames attracts talents, supports innovations,

[23:55] and provides a central gathering space for future generations to thrive.

[24:00] These combined efforts will ultimately grow the local economy and increase Ames

[24:04] as a pure for businesses, families, students, and young professionals alike.

[24:08] It signals to current and future residents that Ames

[24:11] is investing in its next generation.

[24:14] It fills a gap in our community offerings by addressing

[24:17] some of our biggest opportunities for improvements and help.

[24:19] shames into or excuse me,

[24:21] helps shape Ames into a vibrant community that we're proud to call home.

[24:26] For these reasons and many others, AREA YP

[24:28] is proud to support economic development in the city of Ames,

[24:32] including the LINC Project and the Ames Event Center.

[24:35] Thank you. Thank you.

[24:38] Anybody else?

[24:43] All right.

[24:44] We'll close public forum and move on to item number 37.

[24:47] Staff report on tree removal at 624 Duff

[24:50] Avenue.

[24:54] Anita? Anita?

[24:55] Did you want to.. Go ahead,

[24:57] Anita. Sorry.

[25:00] Yes. I, I have had the opportunity to speak with the family,

[25:05] and they've asked if we might pause this one for a future

[25:10] agenda.

[25:12] So I am making that motion.

[25:14] Motion to table it to a future agenda.

[25:18] Yes. Okay.

[25:19] Is there a second? Second?

[25:20] Okay. There's a hand motion.

[25:21] Please say aye. Aye.

[25:25] any opposed.

[25:27] Motion carried.

[25:28] Thank you, Anita.

[25:28] One thing on this mayor that I would be interested in.

[25:33] And, I, I'm looking for options to give us flexibility

[25:38] in how we, negotiate this with the property owners.

[25:43] And I would be interested if, maybe the City Attorney

[25:47] could give us options for either a special assessment

[25:51] or a mortgage to help secure an obligation going forward.

[25:55] I just I would like to go into that meeting with those options available.

[25:59] I'm not sure I have

[26:00] a particular recommendation, but just to have that as an option. Do you want to make a motion?

[26:05] I would move that.

[26:06] We ask the legal department to review

[26:10] the options for securing,

[26:13] this financial obligation.

[26:14] If we are able to reach an agreement.

[26:17] Is there a second?

[26:18] Second. Any discussion?

[26:22] Those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye.

[26:24] Any opposed?

[26:28] Thank you. Motion carried.

[26:29] All right.

[26:31] Move on to item number 38.

[26:32] Resolution declaring Jordison Construction.

[26:36] to be a noncompliant,

[26:37] orr non responsible contractor for the purpose of bidding on City

[26:41] projects tabled from March 10th.

[26:53] So you have a memo from me.

[26:56] Jordison the contractor has, their attorney has sent a letter,

[27:00] in which he raised, well,

[27:03] He and I had a discussion a while back, and he raised this issue of the

[27:07] of an Iowa Code section that that he believes would keep us from, you know,

[27:12] prohibiting someone from

[27:13] bidding on City projects for a period of time.

[27:17] On its face, it seems to do that.

[27:19] I think it would take a lot more legal research to really decide

[27:22] if that's what that means or not.

[27:24] But, but he has at least a valid argument.

[27:28] So, you know, my recommendation was to take that off the table.

[27:31] The council action form has been has been amended to take that part out of it.

[27:37] But but also, the Jordison’s

[27:40] attorney sent a letter to us that,

[27:44] says that, Jordison is asking to

[27:48] withdraw its bid on the Resource Recovery project,

[27:51] and that seems to deal with the current issue at hand.

[27:55] So, my recommendation is that the Council adopt a motion that would,

[28:01] approve, Jordison withdrawing its,

[28:05] bid on the Resource Recovery project and,

[28:08] and then, not proceed with the non,

[28:11] the determination as to whether they're a non responsible bidder.

[28:16] Questions?

[28:18] So, if, if

[28:20] we were to do this, is there any expectation in terms

[28:24] of limiting, Jordison opportunities to bid

[28:29] a project next week?

[28:31] Their attorney believes that that has to be done on a case by case basis.

[28:35] Like each time they bid on something, we'd have to determine them.

[28:38] Not responsible bidder.

[28:40] You know, and and, again, I'm going to have to do a deep

[28:44] dive research into this to, to come up with my opinion.

[28:47] I don't want to give you an off the fly opinion.

[28:50] It and, you know, my conversation with him just happened, you know, late last week.

[28:55] So, there was really no time to, to delve into that, but,

[29:01] you know, my guess is

[29:03] that Jordison is not going to bid on any City of Ames projects for a while.

[29:06] So, but, you know,

[29:09] probably eventually they will and then we can look at this again then.

[29:13] So, and I'm, I'm not going to fight on this tonight.

[29:17] I if this is an easy way for us to resolve this,

[29:20] but I just want to make sure that,

[29:23] six months from now, a year from now, if they bid on another project,

[29:28] the Council is not prohibited from going forward

[29:31] and addressing this right at that time. Absolutely.

[29:36] Okay, that's all I need.

[29:37] Any other questions,

[29:40] Mark.

[29:41] As in the bidding process, there's typically a bid bond that is submitted.

[29:46] And so if someone were to withdraw bid they would that the,

[29:51] the owner could cash that or redeem that difference.

[29:56] Would it be appropriate at this point just to include

[29:58] in a motion to also authorize returning. Yes.

[30:02] Bid security

[30:03] back to them as a courtesy in light of all this that’s gone on. Good point, Mayor.

[30:07] Yes.

[30:09] Okay.

[30:11] If there's no further questions.

[30:12] I'd entertain a motion to, one of the alternatives.

[30:16] And if you're interested in

[30:19] alternative one, maybe adding and also, returning,

[30:23] the bid security or bid bond to a Jordison construction.

[30:26] Also, I would move alternative one that we accept

[30:30] Jordison Construction's bid withdrawal for the Resource Recovery

[30:33] and Recycling Campus project.

[30:36] And address their status as a

[30:37] responsible bidder on a case by case basis for future bids.

[30:42] And also return to them their, Security, their bid security.

[30:46] Good. Yeah.

[30:47] Thank you sir.

[30:48] Is there a second? Second. Moved and seconded.

[30:51] those,

[30:57] Roll call on this one.

[30:58] for a motion or just a voice vote?

[31:01] I, I think we ought to do a roll call. Okay?

[31:03] Okay. Yeah.

[31:05] Corrieri? Aye.

[31:07] Rollins? Aye.

[31:10] Beatty-Hansen? Aye.

[31:11] Gartin? Aye.

[31:12] Betcher? Aye.

[31:13] Junck? Aye.

[31:17] Thank you.

[31:18] All right

[31:18] Council, I know there's a number of people here

[31:20] that are here regarding the Ironwood Estates.

[31:24] I would like to-

[31:25] I'm going to go ahead and move item number 42, which is staff report

[31:29] on Ironwood Estates’ request for woodlot restoration of Iowa DOT property up

[31:34] on the agenda. And then we'll let others,

[31:38] just slide down just out of respect for those that are in the audience,

[31:41] because some of these items may take a little longer to, discuss.

[31:44] So we'll move on to item 42.

[31:55] Good evening, Mayor and City Council.

[32:00] With that, I think this is item 40.

[32:04] Just, I just want to make sure that we're working on 40 and not 42, so.

[32:09] Okay, so which is, full disclosure, I have an older agenda for this.

[32:14] We are we're talking

[32:15] about the staff report on Ironwood Estates, whatever the number is.

[32:19] No, that's that's good.

[32:20] I just wanted to thank you.

[32:22] I, I, I, I should so double check that.

[32:26] Yeah. So with the, with the staff part,

[32:29] you know, a lot of information, you know, with it

[32:31] and what I'm going to do first and, and we have,

[32:35] you know, kind of giving a little history, but what I'm going to do first is have,

[32:39] Don just kind of go through how did we get

[32:42] to where we are with the transmission line?

[32:45] With the removal of trees and things of that sort.

[32:48] And then I'll come back and talk about the options.

[32:51] All right.

[32:52] Good evening.

[32:53] So what we're talking about here is, is,

[32:56] Ames Electric Department has a multi-year plan on

[32:59] rebuilding a lot of our 69,000 volt transmission system.

[33:03] The first project that we started working on was the vet met to Mortenson Line.

[33:07] So there's a Mortenson substation, and the line goes basically

[33:11] it kind of hugs highway 30,

[33:14] along and on DOT right of way.

[33:17] And a section of this line happens to go by the Ironwood

[33:21] homeowners group that's up there, the, where we're building the line.

[33:27] So this line was put in in the 70s.

[33:28] So it's a little bit old and does need to be replaced.

[33:32] Our typical process then is, is,

[33:34] Keith called them trees, I’d more call them scrub and brush and Keith may even

[33:40] you have a picture of that what it looked like.

[33:43] If not, we'll keep going.

[33:45] And so typically our process is is it's

[33:48] and again it's not trees but it's, it's more scrub and brush.

[33:52] And so

[33:53] what we do is, is we go in there, clear the right of way

[33:56] so that we can get our trucks in there to basically rebuild the line.

[33:59] So this is actually a picture after that

[34:02] right away has been cleared. Now

[34:06] the trees that you're looking at in the first picture

[34:09] was basically from that's the right of way going east.

[34:15] And then with trees looking down onto highway 30.

[34:19] There's actually a fence there.

[34:20] This the contractor is not completely done.

[34:22] They need to go in and do some final cleanup there.

[34:25] But the intentions are that the goal is is we

[34:28] we clear the brush out of there so that they can rebuild the line.

[34:31] The contractor finished this project

[34:34] from the construction standpoint in early January.

[34:37] They're going to still come back and clean it. Typically

[34:39] then our process would be,

[34:43] because we're

[34:44] we're actually cleaning out brush and things that shouldn't be there.

[34:48] We would typically, seed this with grass seed and let it come back,

[34:54] but not with all that, that scrub and stuff

[34:57] like that there.

[35:00] When we finished that, we did get a call from the homeowners association

[35:03] asking if we could meet and talk about what is the the post effect of this.

[35:10] You know, are we planting trees and that type of stuff?

[35:12] When we've had I've had one, discussion with the homeowners association

[35:17] where they said, maybe there's an opportunity

[35:20] and I know several letters then have been sent to council.

[35:23] Council at the last meeting, referred it back to staff.

[35:27] Electric not being very good at planting things and keeping things alive,

[35:31] engaged,

[35:32] Keith in Parks and Rec to assist us with this.

[35:36] So that information then was, sent to us. Collectively,

[35:41] then we created a council action form, a response to the letters.

[35:45] And that's what, is before you tonight.

[35:47] So that's kind of a background.

[35:49] Did I miss anything?

[35:50] No. You did. You did good.

[35:52] And and they do have, you know, just so people, you know,

[35:55] the, the map up there kind of shows, you know, the area.

[35:59] So again, this is where the the line that Don was talking

[36:03] about is in the Iowa DOT, right of way.

[36:07] There is you can faintly see where the homeowners

[36:11] association, where their property line is.

[36:14] There is an easement that electric has on,

[36:18] the homeowners association ten foot wide, to access this. So,

[36:24] so, as Don said, and we

[36:26] do have a few other pictures, you know, of, of some of the debris.

[36:30] And, and we acknowledge, you know, it needs to be cleaned up.

[36:34] There's no doubt about that.

[36:36] So the question is, is what what should the responsibility.

[36:42] Because there is no city property in the, in this area,

[36:47] where these lines are, it's either, well it's all DOT land

[36:51] is, is where the electric transmission lines are.

[36:54] So, so with this and what Don mentioned is, you know, generally they would go back

[36:59] and they would just plant seed, grass seed, in there.

[37:04] We do have we did cite a couple of situations

[37:07] in the staff report in regards to,

[37:11] up at the Stange substation.

[37:15] There were trees removed and, and there was a homeowner

[37:18] that had, some concerns about looking at the substation.

[37:21] So electric did plant some trees, but it was on city property.

[37:25] It wasn't on, on private property.

[37:28] And generally we do not go on to the private property and do improvements.

[37:33] I can't think of anything that we have done with, with Parks and Recreation.

[37:39] Except for, for maybe if

[37:40] we have an easement, for, for, an area.

[37:44] So the other one that we want to talk about

[37:46] is not electric lines, but it is in Munn Woods where we did

[37:50] the sanitary sewer project for public works at the sanitary sewer project,

[37:54] a few years ago.

[37:56] There we did go in, and we did have to clean out a number of trees to,

[38:00] to create access so we could get to the, to the sanitary sewer.

[38:04] When that project was done again, we did not go back in

[38:08] and plant trees in those, those areas.

[38:12] We kept it open.

[38:14] We put down some crushed rock.

[38:15] We put down some, some, wood chips, things of that sort.

[38:20] And, we occasionally what we'll do is, when needed, will go in with our forestry

[38:24] mower and we'll go across those, trails to keep them open.

[38:28] So if we do need to go back in, we have access.

[38:32] Another area is in East River Valley.

[38:35] We have a transmission line going through through there

[38:39] and those transmission lines, and we keep that again clear of of trees.

[38:44] We just did for the, for the raw water line

[38:48] with, the new, well, stations, you know, up,

[38:54] you know, north of

[38:54] East River Valley, there too, we had to clear out trees.

[38:58] We put in a new, raw water line.

[39:01] And with that one, we did not plant trees back over in that area again for access.

[39:06] So, so just to to give you some, some history of,

[39:10] of how we do things when we're working with, with utilities.

[39:15] So, so there are, you know, some, some other pictures here that,

[39:19] that we have and you can kind of see, you know, with, with it.

[39:23] So what we looked at is you know with the, the grant,

[39:28] the DOT DNR fund grant,

[39:30] could be up to $100,000 if we do that.

[39:33] It's on, for DOT property.

[39:36] If we do something and there's no guarantee that we,

[39:39] we get that money, we'd have to, to apply.

[39:43] And then

[39:43] there's another permit application that we would have to to submit as well.

[39:47] And only municipalities can, can apply for this, for this grant money.

[39:52] So we would have to, to do it.

[39:54] We couldn't say to the homeowners association,

[39:56] you just go ahead and and, and do that.

[40:00] So, so with it, funding would cover the cost of the plants,

[40:03] the installation and so on.

[40:05] And if we did go for this grant money,

[40:08] we would the city would have to, to do the application for the grant.

[40:12] But what we would do is, we would contract the, the work out,

[40:18] if we did something, we have a city forester, Gabby.

[40:22] We would have her put, together,

[40:24] the the plan, it would be submitted with the application.

[40:28] But then when we, if we get the grant funds, then

[40:31] what we would do is we would take that plan, put it out for bid,

[40:35] and and have a contractor come in and, and do that work.

[40:39] So, so that is and as you see the options, options three and four

[40:43] kinda tie in to those grant funds.

[40:47] So the thing with the grant though is once you do it,

[40:51] we're talking probably 90 days before we would get an answer,

[40:54] take us some time

[40:55] to put the application together, probably the earliest that we would be able to,

[40:59] to do any planting if we received funds would be Fall,

[41:03] which would probably be a good time to, to do the planting. So,

[41:08] so with it, we also would

[41:10] need to maintain that area,

[41:13] you know, from this point, moving forward.

[41:16] That's that's part of the, the grant,

[41:18] the grant application and the funds.

[41:21] So we did go through and had some,

[41:24] some conversation in regards to the pros and cons.

[41:28] You know, one thing with, with any of these,

[41:32] options, you know, 3 or 4,

[41:34] you know, there's obviously some staff time associated with,

[41:37] the application, management, reporting, you know, all those types of things.

[41:42] So really what we did is we we came up with, with four options.

[41:46] One, option one would be you know, take no further action.

[41:51] And in with it, we should say, is that no matter what council decides,

[41:56] we will go in and we'll get things cleaned up.

[41:59] We'll we'll get all that, that stuff cleaned up and, and taken care of.

[42:03] So this one would be take no further action.

[42:06] The, the the phrase that Don used is, you know, scrub,

[42:11] scrub stuff, trees and bushes and things of that nature.

[42:16] A lot of times that that happens in this, in the indicative in this area,

[42:20] it was probably all volunteer germination.

[42:22] It wasn't something that somebody went in and planted that stuff.

[42:26] All right. It did provide, you know, the screening.

[42:29] So after a couple of years, if we just, go in there, do nothing,

[42:32] we clean everything up.

[42:34] Just let it go.

[42:36] City Forester, said in a couple of years.

[42:39] So you have the the stuff in the seed bank, you have, you know, other trees

[42:43] and and, material around there,

[42:46] stuff will start coming back up and we'll wind up with about the same thing.

[42:50] Now, we do feel that we should to keep it open.

[42:54] You know, we may

[42:55] have to, to go in there, every couple of years,

[42:59] just to keep the lines open and maybe with a forestry mower, or brush mower

[43:04] or something to keep the, the woodies, the, the young trees out of, out of that area.

[43:10] The space that's here

[43:11] probably take no more than a half a day to go in there with that forestry

[43:14] mower once every two years to, to to take care of that.

[43:18] So another option would be,

[43:22] you know, does the, the homeowners association,

[43:24] you know, plant vegetation on its own property.

[43:28] Now, when you look at it there, there are some areas they may be able to

[43:32] to put some, some planting, further to the, to the west,

[43:37] further to the east.

[43:38] And the property line is pretty close to, a retaining wall along the drive.

[43:42] Probably not going to be able to, to, to do a lot there.

[43:46] And some of that was expressed in the, in the letters.

[43:50] Option three and four is really again working with the grant, either doing

[43:54] native shrubs or, you know, doing some, some, junipers.

[44:00] And with the junipers,

[44:03] the reason the, the city forester selected those,

[44:07] they are bred to, to be a certain height.

[44:10] So about, you know, that, 10 to 15, you know, feet high.

[44:15] They are columnar.

[44:16] So, so if we spaced them correctly

[44:19] when they grow, you know, we'll provide that screening.

[44:23] I know one of the

[44:24] options that, Luke Rand mentioned is, going with,

[44:28] you know, a lot of, you know, like, white pine, jack pine, eastern red cedar.

[44:33] The reason the city forester did not select those one,

[44:37] they can grow as high as they're as tall as 70ft

[44:40] and could wind up, you know, causing some, some problems.

[44:43] The other thing is, is as as they grow, they don't provide as much screening,

[44:48] as well.

[44:48] That's why, she selected, the junipers.

[44:52] So, so with it,

[44:53] so that's, that's really option, you know, three and four if,

[44:57] if council thinks that,

[45:00] there is no responsibility of the, of the city in this case,

[45:03] except for, you know, keeping it open for the electric lines.

[45:08] Then option 1 or 2 would be, you know what, what you would select.

[45:12] If you think there is some, some responsibility, then option 3

[45:16] or 4 and, and staff would suggest that

[45:19] we, do some, some grant,

[45:22] you know, do the application for the grant fund.

[45:26] So we don't

[45:26] have to use city funds for, for, for this project.

[45:29] But again, that comes with some things that, that we, we mentioned.

[45:33] Now with all of these things, whether we do shrubs or whether we do,

[45:37] the column there, junipers,

[45:40] we would really want to do that as far south as we could.

[45:43] So any of that stuff would not interfere with any maintenance

[45:47] that would need to happen in the future to the the electric lines.

[45:51] So any questions that that anybody has? Thank you, questions?

[45:56] So logistically, I, I've been trying to look at this

[46:01] on the map and, and looking at these photos,

[46:05] it appears that we would either

[46:08] have to have the trees

[46:12] in that small strip of land on the,

[46:16] the HOA property,

[46:18] or it has to be a line considerably south

[46:24] so that there is the ability

[46:27] to get in to the power lines if necessary.

[46:30] Correct.

[46:31] That's the way we're looking at this.

[46:33] Yeah. So

[46:36] with the height of the plantings,

[46:39] if we are looking at either of those options, is there a difference

[46:44] in the height that plantings could be and still

[46:49] stay out of the power lines?

[46:53] When you say, say or yeah.

[46:55] So other something other than shrubs or, or the junipers?

[47:00] Well I'm just in the pictures,

[47:02] it's not clear to me it looks to me like the power lines

[47:06] could be more involved, closer to the property than further south.

[47:11] That I think that's I think that's factual.

[47:13] Yeah. Okay.

[47:14] So it's seemed like we would be looking at the lower option

[47:20] if we were trying to figure out a way to be planting on the HOA property

[47:24] than if we were planting further south.

[47:27] Is that?

[47:28] Yeah.

[47:28] I think one of one of the things the further south you go

[47:32] is it's very sloped.

[47:34] If you if you have been down there.

[47:36] So, so you've got the area in and along where the houses are,

[47:41] it's a little flatter where the, the electric line is.

[47:44] Once you get further south you have a little bit and then it starts

[47:47] sloping.

[47:48] So so that creates some, some, some challenges as well.

[47:52] There is also some vegetation that's still there.

[47:56] You know that that wasn't taken out due to the

[47:59] to the electric line or the replacement of those poles.

[48:02] So there are still some, some trees and, and some other vegetation. So,

[48:08] you know, the goal would not be to, to go in

[48:10] and take those out and then plant something in place of them.

[48:14] So, so it would be tried to, to do something again

[48:18] as far south as we could if we could keep it up on the flats off

[48:22] and, and keep it lower so it doesn't interfere with the,

[48:26] with the electric lines.

[48:27] That would that would be our thought

[48:29] and go with something, you know, that that 10 to 15ft high.

[48:33] And does that still allow access to the poles and the lines,

[48:38] if necessary?

[48:39] Or are we putting ourselves in a position where we put in the trees

[48:42] and then we have to take them out again?

[48:44] If there's a problem with those poles and those lines?

[48:47] Yeah.

[48:47] The key is not to put them directly on underneath the line,

[48:51] but to either stay on one side or the other of that right of way.

[48:55] And there is a little bit of flat surface, both near

[48:58] the homes and beyond the pole

[49:01] and in each of the locations to the, to the south. Yep.

[49:05] Other questions?

[49:07] So who owns the land?

[49:10] The DOT.

[49:12] So and I've been working on the presumption that it says it's a

[49:16] right of way

[49:18] and that someone else owns that ground, but maybe that's not correct.

[49:23] The actual right of way.

[49:25] It's not the city right of way.

[49:28] I understand, I just I want to just understand the logistics.

[49:32] Normally we think about a right away.

[49:34] Someone has a right to use someone else's property.

[49:37] And so is this is this land owned

[49:40] by the state of Iowa?

[49:44] It's my understanding. Yes, yes.

[49:45] Okay.

[49:45] It’s DOT land with which we have a an easement,

[49:49] a right of way to be able to use that land for our-

[49:52] Okay, that's I just I appreciate that that clarifies that.

[49:56] And so are there any limitations on what we do based on the easement?

[50:01] I just want to make sure that within the easement itself, we've reviewed that.

[50:05] Are there any kind of limitations that we have? Maybe clarify Don, we-

[50:08] And we really don't have a it's not been an easement.

[50:11] We have we're using the right of way. We have a right of way.

[50:14] It's not an easement.

[50:15] I apologize for that. Yeah.

[50:17] So we have a there's a ten foot easement on the homeowners association property.

[50:22] Right.

[50:22] To, to access to to get to the DOT right of way.

[50:27] We don't have an easement with the right of way.

[50:30] We just have the ability to to put

[50:33] the electric lines in that DOT right of way.

[50:36] Yeah. Is there an agreement that exists?

[50:39] No. We'd have to check with the dot, obviously, to get permission

[50:42] to plant trees,

[50:43] I would think if you're talking about within the right of way.

[50:45] I just want to make sure as we're discussing these things that we've

[50:49] we're we're operating within the allowable parameters of that easement.

[50:53] So I just wanna make sure

[50:54] someone has looked at that because it's not in the staff report.

[50:57] Yeah, yeah.

[50:58] And again, it's not a it's not an easement.

[51:01] It's just we have the ability to put electric lines in the DOT right of way.

[51:07] Okay.

[51:09] And I'm a little nervous that this could somehow be a precedent.

[51:12] I can't think of other situations where it would be.

[51:16] Oftentimes when we put in these kind of power lines,

[51:21] we're we're paying the property owner for the opportunity

[51:25] to put in these lines, and sometimes it's quite substantial.

[51:29] Are we did we pay anything

[51:31] for the opportunity to put these power lines in?

[51:34] It's my understanding that back in the 70s, no, we did not pay anyone to

[51:39] put the lines where they’re at.

[51:40] And so, I mean, so this this is nice in that

[51:44] the, the cost of,

[51:46] this infrastructure was nominal

[51:49] for the city at whatever point.

[51:52] And so I'm just trying to balance out ongoing costs.

[51:55] And so this grant, if I'm reading this correctly, would,

[52:00] could be used for not just the installation of the trees or,

[52:05] or the shrubs, but it would also provide for maintenance

[52:08] on an ongoing basis? Or for one year after installation.

[52:12] Okay. And

[52:15] Keith, you're sort of our expert here.

[52:17] How long do you think that,

[52:20] maintenance of these trees watering

[52:22] and things would be needed in order for them to be established?

[52:25] Yeah, generally, if we're if we're putting trees in the city right of way,

[52:30] you know, throughout the community, we try to water probably for two years.

[52:35] So, so and, but there are some, some differences.

[52:39] What, what type of year it was, was a dry was it wet?

[52:43] All that kind of stuff.

[52:43] But we would really look at,

[52:46] probably 2 to 3 years

[52:48] on the outside, 3 to 5,

[52:52] to to, to get them established.

[52:55] So as I look at this, our,

[52:58] our exposure as a city is really fairly nominal.

[53:02] If we can get this grant, we can put in this vegetation, we,

[53:07] we have a nominal amount of maintenance and then we walk away.

[53:11] So we, we don't have responsibilities ten years from now

[53:14] to go in and prune the trees or do any kind of further maintenance.

[53:19] This is sort of go in, maintained for a couple of years, and then we're done?

[53:22] No, no, with with the grant, if we go in and we do these plantings,

[53:27] we are accepting maintenance for the for the life of that that area.

[53:34] Okay.

[53:35] And so help council understand

[53:38] forever sort of a long time. Yep.

[53:41] And so if we, if we bring this

[53:43] into the scope of Parks and Rec

[53:46] responsibilities, help us understand how big of a deal this is.

[53:50] Yeah, I think, again, it depends on what we have.

[53:54] You know, if we do the the junipers, there may not be a lot of,

[53:58] a lot of maintenance that we have to do if we put,

[54:01] if you're wanting to put in different trees and so on,

[54:04] what we try to do is we try to hit every tree, once

[54:09] every five years, within, the park system, that's for, for,

[54:13] pruning for evaluation, you know,

[54:16] all those types of things. So,

[54:19] well, we have to, well, like I already mentioned,

[54:22] you know, just for the, the area where the the power lines are,

[54:26] we probably once every two years, we'll have to go in with, with,

[54:30] the brush mower and make sure that, any woodies that are coming up,

[54:34] you know, get, get taken out.

[54:35] But we would have, but that would be we'd have to do that anyway?

[54:38] Correct.

[54:39] So I'm just trying to narrow or focus on the council

[54:43] just because we're going to do something that the whole city has to pay for.

[54:47] But it's benefiting primarily just the subdivision.

[54:50] So I'm trying to wrestle with

[54:52] that piece of it. Yeah. So.

[54:56] Right.

[54:57] So what was that, Bronwyn?

[54:59] Well, I was saying if we want for the grants,

[55:03] it's not like the rest of the residents have to pay for it.

[55:05] But they will going forward in the maintenance. Oh on the maintenance.

[55:08] Right.

[55:09] But we would have to go in there anyway every couple of years.

[55:11] So yeah.

[55:12] So there's maintenance that we'd have to do to maintain the easement area.

[55:15] But then there's maintenance on the trees.

[55:18] Yeah.

[55:18] Yeah okay. That's great.

[55:19] Just on the trees for the whole area.

[55:22] For, for whatever we plant

[55:24] that what we that's what we would be responsible for.

[55:27] Okay.

[55:28] Okay. Other questions?

[55:31] All right.

[55:31] We have I'm going to open public comment.

[55:33] We have,

[55:35] at least four individuals who have indicated an interest

[55:38] in addressing council.

[55:40] Call your name and we’ll ask if you can limit your comments to three minutes, if you would.

[55:44] I'll start with Sherry Johnson.

[55:47] You come to the

[55:48] podium and you may start.

[55:54] Hi, I'm

[55:55] Sharry Johnson, I live on Ironwood Lane.

[55:59] My property is actually very visible from highway 30

[56:03] and kind of dead spot where

[56:06] all of this is happening.

[56:09] I would

[56:12] encourage you guys to come out and take a look.

[56:14] This is a very, very unique situation.

[56:20] It's hard to even explain, honestly.

[56:22] But I would encourage you to come out and take a look.

[56:24] Right now, it looks pretty devastated.

[56:27] And I think with the plantings,

[56:30] which wouldn't

[56:33] be excessive, I don't think,

[56:36] I think you would just have to take a look at it.

[56:39] What has happened with the pole replacement,

[56:44] I just don't think it's something that

[56:47] the City of Ames really wants to have be reflected.

[56:51] You can see it from highway 30.

[56:53] You can see it from, the Gateway

[56:58] Hotel area.

[56:59] You can see it from, the hills with the Green Hills.

[57:04] Yeah. You can see it from Green Hills.

[57:07] We have people park there for Iowa State games.

[57:10] We have a lot of Ragbrai people.

[57:12] Of course, Ragbrai doesn't come through all that often.

[57:14] But you know, those Ragbrai guys, they talk a lot.

[57:19] It's a private area, but yet it's very,

[57:22] very social.

[57:28] I guess we're only asking

[57:32] for the same accountability from the city,

[57:35] from the DOT.

[57:36] We're not really sure where the responsibility lies with all of this.

[57:40] We know it's not our property, but we are very proud of our community out there.

[57:48] So we kind of think of it as our property,

[57:53] even though it's not.

[57:53] Anyway, I'm babbling,

[57:54] but I would just encourage you to come up and take a look at it.

[57:58] And I think you would see that investing their time with these trees

[58:01] or shrubs or low growing anything would really improve a lot for the city.

[58:08] Thank you. Mayor, if I could, it'd be nice for the people.

[58:11] Ma'am, if you just for saying if you have a specific proposal,

[58:15] an option that you'll be recommending, that'd be helpful for us to know.

[58:19] Really?

[58:20] Is there one of those that because

[58:21] I'm not going to go out to the property tonight, so.

[58:23] Right.

[58:24] But but is there an option that that you would recommend for council.

[58:27] It's just be good for us to hear.

[58:28] If you don't that's okay. Yeah.

[58:29] We would really like to have the grant.

[58:32] We would really like to have the grant.

[58:33] We would have to have

[58:34] we would like to have some vegetation there to protect us from the noise.

[58:38] Okay.

[58:39] So uoption 3 or 4? For the beauty, yeah.

[58:42] Okay.

[58:43] I just think it would

[58:44] enhance the entire community and with,

[58:48] with what they're doing at Jack Trice right now with Cytown.

[58:51] I mean, it's you're going to have a lot of traffic

[58:53] on 30 there if you drive by there right now.

[58:55] Honestly, it really does look like a tornado came through.

[58:59] I know you say you're going to clean it up, but

[59:02] sometimes one person's cleanup

[59:04] isn't exactly another person's cleanup.

[59:09] I don't, you know, we just would like it to look

[59:11] beautiful and represent Ames

[59:14] the way we all want Ames represented, I guess.

[59:17] And I know it probably sets a precedent, but I do feel like it's in a different

[59:22] location than, you know, where the

[59:25] the sewage thing was or where the where the other power lines were.

[59:29] It just it's just a different situation.

[59:32] We live right there.

[59:34] Thank you. Sharry. Okay. Thank you, thank you.

[59:37] Valerie Bohlen.

[59:44] Well, I just became the

[59:45] president of this association about two months ago.

[59:49] But this committee, we have about eight people here

[59:52] from, Ironwood Estates.

[59:56] And first of all, I want to just thank you

[59:59] because we have been very persistent

[1:00:03] with emails and calls.

[1:00:06] Especially Jerry.

[1:00:08] He's very persistent. Jerry Goldsmith.

[1:00:11] And it kind of reminds me of,

[1:00:16] in the Bible,

[1:00:17] there's a story about the persistent widow.

[1:00:21] And she kept going to her judge time

[1:00:25] after time after time, and the judge just kind of ignored her

[1:00:29] until finally he was so tired of her, he gave her what she wanted.

[1:00:35] And so I was thinking about our committee

[1:00:38] and our community there, about persistence.

[1:00:41] It's the firm continued effort to achieve a goal or maintain

[1:00:45] a course of action despite obstacles, oppositions or discouragement.

[1:00:51] And it represents endurance and determination,

[1:00:54] such as facing challenges without giving up.

[1:00:58] And we haven't been giving up.

[1:01:00] We got that first letter last fall, and we have been persistent

[1:01:04] in coming to, the city to help us with this.

[1:01:10] And, I mean, I just want to thank you all.

[1:01:13] I mean, there was an Allison Smith, the mayor, city council members,

[1:01:18] the City of Ames, Department of Transportation, Donald Kom, Mark Imhoff,

[1:01:23] Parks and Recreation, Luke Grant, Gabby Edwards, Rachel Harris, Keith Abraham.

[1:01:29] I mean, there were so many people involved.

[1:01:33] And so I just

[1:01:34] want to let the Department of Transportation know

[1:01:38] that we have a new road, and we need a new sign called

[1:01:42] Ironwood Swing because it comes off of Ironwood Court

[1:01:47] and it goes right to where those pictures were that they showed.

[1:01:52] And we also have a roundabout

[1:01:54] that you can address getting into.

[1:01:57] Valerie, I'm sorry, we have a a long agenda here. Okay, I’m done.

[1:02:00] I'm just, you know, just get to the point.

[1:02:03] And actually to Mr.

[1:02:04] Gartin’s question, do you have an option three and four

[1:02:08] and you're you're welcome if you'd like any other comments.

[1:02:11] But I just, Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. No. That's okay.

[1:02:14] Thank you for being persistent.

[1:02:18] Celine Begs Shuemacher.

[1:02:22] Celine, you here?

[1:02:25] She signed up to.

[1:02:28] Okay.

[1:02:30] And the aforementioned Jerry Goldsmith.

[1:02:35] I got it on my paper here.

[1:02:41] Very quickly.

[1:02:41] I know you guys are busy, and you got a lot to do,

[1:02:44] so I'm not going to take much time just to go backwards.

[1:02:46] Just a minute.

[1:02:48] Number one, that picture, just look at that little line of trees

[1:02:51] is there, that protects those homeowners that that's here, that's gone.

[1:02:56] So anyway, that that frames the whole thing,

[1:02:59] you know, wonder why all the turmoil on this right now.

[1:03:03] But really, for me, it started, a lot of years ago.

[1:03:06] We moved there in 2012.

[1:03:08] Woodlot was there, much denser than it-

[1:03:11] it was even when you guys took it out. It began to fail.

[1:03:15] The city would come in and do their pruning to get rid of those tall trees.

[1:03:20] Absolutely no cleanup after that.

[1:03:21] Those embers, all the residue just dropped.

[1:03:24] And so it began to deteriorate.

[1:03:26] And so 2017 or 18, that kind of was a red flag for me.

[1:03:31] And I was president Association at the time.

[1:03:33] And I made contact with DOT, and we ended up with, I think, with the,

[1:03:39] doesn't matter the name, the engineer,

[1:03:42] district engineer and some staff out there to take a look at this.

[1:03:46] The proposal that we were presenting at that time was to say,

[1:03:50] take south of the south edge of that woodlot.

[1:03:53] Let's put some conifers out there, get some height to them,

[1:03:56] and when they come up now we have protection.

[1:03:59] You guys come in to clean it up.

[1:04:01] It doesn't bother us because we've already got our protection.

[1:04:04] When when Doug Snyder in his group left that day,

[1:04:06] one of the staff people came up to me, said, well, at least you got funding.

[1:04:11] And then they did.

[1:04:11] They directed that to another staff member and nothing ever happened.

[1:04:15] So here we are.

[1:04:16] If we would have got that accomplished

[1:04:18] at that time, that would have been a good thing.

[1:04:19] So then when this pops up, I'm still trying to thinking back here.

[1:04:24] So I'm thinking we got to get active here.

[1:04:26] So that's what that's kind of where we're at.

[1:04:28] And so that's that's kind of what brings us to the front

[1:04:31] I think talking about the options, I think the do nothing option

[1:04:36] is kind of interesting because it's going to cost the city money upfront.

[1:04:42] You got to clean that mess up.

[1:04:44] That could be part of the grant application to clean that mess up.

[1:04:47] So there's dollars in your pocket.

[1:04:50] You know, farmer.

[1:04:51] So you think about that.

[1:04:53] That thing is full of weed seeds.

[1:04:55] Some good, some bad.

[1:04:57] So you're just going to let those all grow and then

[1:05:01] prune out the bad ones?

[1:05:04] That's not what we would do in a cornfield.

[1:05:07] We would keep it clean.

[1:05:09] And then, you know, we would keep our clean feed.

[1:05:11] And eventually if you cultivate a corner,

[1:05:13] keep the weeds down a long time in a cornfield, you don't have any.

[1:05:16] So I think the same concept applies here.

[1:05:19] So if you approach it from that standpoint and say,

[1:05:22] okay, let's do a controlled planting, put underneath that those

[1:05:27] our lines, what you need to do.

[1:05:28] So you don't so they don't get into the power line.

[1:05:32] But then let's move on out further south.

[1:05:34] And we don't have a lot of room.

[1:05:36] It is tight.

[1:05:37] But let's get some conifers out there that that can protect us.

[1:05:42] And, you know, one of the things I kind of jotted down, I think,

[1:05:47] I think it was commented about, what do you do a benefit

[1:05:50] for a small number of homeowners.

[1:05:52] So what we're really asking for is to restore that benefit.

[1:05:56] That benefit was there.

[1:05:58] It's not there anymore.

[1:05:59] So let's restore that in an orderly manner.

[1:06:02] So that's kind of my pitch there.

[1:06:05] I think, going down here on the, the pros,

[1:06:10] you know, you got a couple of there the grant could provide, not city

[1:06:13] funding source.

[1:06:14] And I think that's the point.

[1:06:16] You save the money up front

[1:06:19] on not

[1:06:20] having letting the grant clean up the area.

[1:06:24] And then you're going to spend some of that money on maintenance afterwards.

[1:06:28] But you should in that process,

[1:06:30] the desirable plants now will crowd out the undesirable plants.

[1:06:34] So I think in the end, you've really accomplished quite a little.

[1:06:39] Jerry, you're at four minutes.

[1:06:41] Could you draw your comments to a close?

[1:06:43] Pardon? You're at four minutes.

[1:06:44] Could you draw your comments to a close please? Oh, very easily.

[1:06:48] I think it's a no brainer.

[1:06:51] You got an opportunity.

[1:06:52] You'll never have that area clean again.

[1:06:54] Never.

[1:06:55] So if you ever want to make a difference, now's the time.

[1:06:59] Thank you. And, appreciate it. Thank you.

[1:07:02] So, anybody else that wants to address council on this topic tonight?

[1:07:11] Hi, I'm Marilyn Devick.

[1:07:12] I live at 2102 Ironwood Lane, which is that far right on the picture there.

[1:07:19] And I

[1:07:21] our jut faces all this area and,

[1:07:24] I guess I my, my concern I, we, I sent you guys an email and everything.

[1:07:30] I guess the thing that I would like to point out to you is that the,

[1:07:35] the option three, is is native plants

[1:07:38] and shrubs and it also.

[1:07:42] Yeah.

[1:07:43] You're I to the the proposal says it's the tree.

[1:07:46] The trees are only 10 to 15ft high.

[1:07:48] Which which to me cover.

[1:07:50] You know that that's below the the electric lines. And,

[1:07:56] I just feel like that that would be the best choice.

[1:07:59] And you've got the funding and,

[1:08:03] for it the,

[1:08:05] the discussions that Jerry has had with with the DOT person and

[1:08:11] about this, the who brought this grant

[1:08:14] to our attention, you know, like, hey, this is perfect for you.

[1:08:18] You know,

[1:08:19] basically it's like they said, it's perfect for us.

[1:08:22] It's a good it's a good choice.

[1:08:23] And I think we're probably a shoo in to get the grant.

[1:08:28] Maybe, I’m being optimistic.

[1:08:30] But I just would like to really encourage you to,

[1:08:33] to take advantage of this opportunity to, to clean up.

[1:08:36] If you clean up, at least it even if it's if you do option one at least please

[1:08:41] get rid of the, the buckthorn and the, and the honeysuckle and all that stuff.

[1:08:46] Make it so that the plant you know so we have don't have

[1:08:50] scrub and and icky stuff to look at.

[1:08:53] And I appreciate you doing that.

[1:08:55] And thank you for listening. Thank you.

[1:08:58] Anybody else

[1:09:03] All right.

[1:09:04] I'll close public comment.

[1:09:05] All right, Council?

[1:09:08] I have one other question.

[1:09:11] We've heard support for 3 or 4 for options,

[1:09:15] and I'm wondering if you have any thoughts, Keith,

[1:09:19] about the difference in maintenance between the two

[1:09:24] and whether one or the other is ultimately going to be better

[1:09:28] for a long term,

[1:09:32] maintenance plan?

[1:09:34] Yeah.

[1:09:34] I think between that and listening to the people who just spoke and, you know,

[1:09:39] the screening and, and everything, I think

[1:09:43] option 4 may be the better choice.

[1:09:46] I think the junipers will will provide a nice look,

[1:09:50] to provide some, some screening.

[1:09:53] Whether you're coming on highway 30 or you're in a neighborhood,

[1:09:56] I think that will will be a better look and,

[1:10:00] most likely be less maintenance for us in the long run.

[1:10:05] I, I guess I

[1:10:06] would have one comment after hearing the input and that is that

[1:10:11] I think if if we're looking to not establish a precedent here,

[1:10:16] we have a location that is arguably

[1:10:19] a gateway location to the city that's highly visible,

[1:10:24] that, has a grant opportunity available

[1:10:29] and that also, has not been,

[1:10:35] maintained as well as it could be by us

[1:10:39] when we've gone in to do things there.

[1:10:42] And so that seems like a unique set of circumstances to me,

[1:10:45] that would not necessarily establish a precedent for elsewhere in the city.

[1:10:50] Thank you.

[1:10:50] Is there any other questions or comments?

[1:10:53] Otherwise I entertain a motion. Yeah.

[1:10:54] I mean, I know I speak for council.

[1:10:56] Thanks everyone, for,

[1:10:58] your persistence and and very positive engagement with the staff and us.

[1:11:02] And so I'll, I'll move option four. Second.

[1:11:05] Okay. Those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye.

[1:11:11] Rachel and Anita, are you? Aye!

[1:11:15] Thank you.

[1:11:16] All right. Any of those anyone opposed?

[1:11:19] Motion carried. Thank you.

[1:11:20] All right, thank you. All right.

[1:11:24] Council, I think that numbers 39,

[1:11:27] 41 and 42.

[1:11:30] Let's just put those off and keep on going.

[1:11:32] We'll do we'll move on to planning and housing right now, and I'll,

[1:11:35] we'll circle back and pick up the city attorney's description,

[1:11:40] precast panel staining and, park boundaries

[1:11:44] to a little later in the meeting.

[1:11:45] So I think there's people here for those topics also.

[1:11:48] So we'll go to item number 43, Dover Development to waive subdivision 43.

[1:11:55] Is my I don't know, I'm just making sure it's 43.

[1:11:58] Yeah. This one's 43 online too.

[1:12:00] And all right I my apologies.

[1:12:03] I do know how to read numbers.

[1:12:18] All right.

[1:12:18] So good night or good evening Council.

[1:12:20] So this item is,

[1:12:23] something you don't normally see.

[1:12:24] We have, property that's in the process of being divided

[1:12:28] into three lots of two commercial lots and then one residential lot.

[1:12:32] Dover is the,

[1:12:35] prospective purchaser of the residential lot to build an assisted living facility.

[1:12:39] You recently approved a master plan and rezoning to allow for them

[1:12:43] to pursue that option of an assisted

[1:12:44] living facility, as they've been applying for and working

[1:12:49] towards their special permit application to develop the property.

[1:12:53] They requested an additional driveway, or I should say a driveway on to GW Carver.

[1:12:59] When the three lots were created, Columbus was meant to be the local street

[1:13:03] as the point of access for all three of the lots.

[1:13:06] At this point, Dover would prefer to have a Columbus Street access point,

[1:13:11] as well as a new access point on GW Carver,

[1:13:14] which is primarily meant to be their front door, direct driveway

[1:13:18] into the, center of their project, where they would

[1:13:22] where they would situate the building.

[1:13:24] So typically the city, limits and restricts access to arterial streets.

[1:13:29] GW carver is is identified as a minor arterial

[1:13:32] for the city due to volume of cars and speed of travel.

[1:13:36] In this case, the subdivision code would restrict

[1:13:40] no new, roadways or driveways.

[1:13:43] Unless they're an actual public street or a frontage road.

[1:13:46] But the request today is for the driveway, based on,

[1:13:51] essentially a waiver of that standard

[1:13:54] based on using spacing standards for access points under SUDAS.

[1:13:59] So in that situation, we have a subdivision code that is a

[1:14:02] little bit more, dated in its approach is trying to manage access for, for safety

[1:14:07] and convenience of of the traveling public. SUDAS is an engineering,

[1:14:11] standards manual that the city uses.

[1:14:14] Our public works department applies and it's, it's used on a statewide basis,

[1:14:18] and it uses, access management based on speed

[1:14:21] and roadway design to space out these intersections.

[1:14:24] So our staff, our public works staff has reviewed the request.

[1:14:28] They believe that if council were to waive the standards,

[1:14:32] the new driveway could meet SUDAS space and requirements,

[1:14:35] which is essentially the distance from the Columbus Street intersection.

[1:14:39] Now, there's one other caveat to that decision.

[1:14:42] One is whether we think it's a suitable and safe access point,

[1:14:45] which is what the waiver is based on, but what is unresolved,

[1:14:49] and we've discussed this in the report, is what are the full improvements of GW

[1:14:53] Carver going to constitute, at the time of final approval of the project?

[1:14:57] So in staff's recommendation, we're suggesting that council

[1:15:01] could waive the limitation.

[1:15:03] Essentially, it's based on the fact that the site is so large,

[1:15:06] that another local street could have been built, but it's not,

[1:15:10] that you could meet spacing requirements for safety.

[1:15:13] But the the need for the actual roadway

[1:15:16] improvements in terms of widening are unknown at this time.

[1:15:19] There's an ongoing traffic study in relation to GW

[1:15:22] Carver and the Cameron School intersection.

[1:15:25] The applicant has been told if we were to do this, depending

[1:15:29] on the outcome of that traffic study, lane widening might need to extend

[1:15:32] further south all the way to the driveway for access to this site.

[1:15:38] The way this is set up is, if you were to motion

[1:15:40] alternative one, you're indicating support for the waiver.

[1:15:44] The final decision on approval would come with the final plat,

[1:15:48] which is predicted to be within, the I'll say, the next two months.

[1:15:51] So probably by May you would have the final plat, which would include

[1:15:56] the conclusions of the traffic study and the roadway improvements

[1:15:59] that are planned for GW Carver.

[1:16:05] Thanks, Kelly.

[1:16:05] Questions?

[1:16:10] Kelly, I'm I'm remembering correctly

[1:16:12] that the bike trails on the going to be on the east side, is that correct?

[1:16:16] Yeah.

[1:16:16] Long term the the shared use path would extend on the Northridge

[1:16:19] Heights side and continue east and connect into the path that's at.

[1:16:22] It's on the east side. Okay. Thanks.

[1:16:24] So it'll be sidewalk on this frontage.

[1:16:26] Shared use path on the other frontage. Okay,

[1:16:28] thanks.

[1:16:30] Other questions?

[1:16:36] Can you talk about just,

[1:16:40] a little bit about potential traffic implications?

[1:16:44] On GW

[1:16:44] Carver I think people are aware that

[1:16:48] just a lot of people are driving, you know, back and forth.

[1:16:51] If we enter,

[1:16:54] or, you know, introduce another curb cut there.

[1:16:57] Can you just talk about that?

[1:16:59] Kelly, I know there's some consideration of trying to see if we're going

[1:17:02] to maybe do a roundabout, maybe not for sure.

[1:17:05] At the, yeah.

[1:17:06] So it's a little unusual in how many things are up in the air at this moment.

[1:17:09] There's a lot kind of converging together on, parallel timelines here.

[1:17:14] So you had this preliminary plat approved,

[1:17:17] and you have a developer

[1:17:18] trying to build on that larger lot to the south.

[1:17:21] But in the meantime, City council has directed staff

[1:17:25] to, evaluate and study an option for a roundabout at Cameron School Road.

[1:17:30] And GW

[1:17:31] Car-, GW Carver, in partnership with Story County.

[1:17:35] If that and that process is underway, and selecting an engineer

[1:17:38] to do a preliminary design,

[1:17:40] if the City council were to move forward with that process.

[1:17:43] The improvements on GW Carver are predicted to be different

[1:17:47] than if we defaulted back to a traffic signal system

[1:17:49] when we originally approved this preliminary plat,

[1:17:52] it was assumed there would be a three lane section with a traffic signal

[1:17:56] at Cameron School Road.

[1:17:57] That three lane section would carry all the way through any access

[1:18:01] point on GW Carver.

[1:18:02] To ensure that you had left protected left turns into the site.

[1:18:06] So what we don't have is that completed traffic study

[1:18:09] to say that if a roundabout was built,

[1:18:13] would the same three lane section requirement exist

[1:18:16] past Columbus all the way down to any additional access point for this driveway?

[1:18:21] It may or may not.

[1:18:23] If it was just a signal, it likely would require

[1:18:25] that lane extension because the speeds would be higher out here.

[1:18:29] If the roundabout is the selected alternative,

[1:18:31] it's likely the speeds would be lowered, which, limits

[1:18:35] the need for certain turning movement protections on these types of roadways.

[1:18:38] And that's why tonight it's if you do move forward, it's it's

[1:18:42] conditional on final approval of that plat to get the final results

[1:18:46] of the traffic study on on how to configure the roadway.

[1:18:50] And can you comment on,

[1:18:54] the who's who, who would be responsible for

[1:18:58] improvements to GW Carver

[1:19:01] if there were a widening or turn lane or.

[1:19:04] I'm not talking about the roundabout, I'm talking,

[1:19:07] right at this particular junction. Right.

[1:19:09] So in the with the plat that created the the lots,

[1:19:12] the developer inherited the obligation, making the frontage improvements necessary

[1:19:16] for access to the site.

[1:19:18] What the roundabout is kind of that intersection improvement

[1:19:21] that's a little bit off site.

[1:19:22] So for staff as we've considered this, if there was any improvement to GW

[1:19:27] Carver necessary to improve that that proposed over driveway,

[1:19:32] it would be on the the developer to make that improvement for the Dover driveway.

[1:19:37] And that would be based on the traffic study

[1:19:40] recommendation or staff or how would that be?

[1:19:42] Yeah.

[1:19:42] So once staff is able to to see the final traffic study, then we would make our

[1:19:47] our final recommendations on what the improvements need to be. GW

[1:19:51] Carver either the council will be approving those with the final plat

[1:19:56] or the Zoning Board of adjustment with the special use permit

[1:19:58] process would have to make those final decisions.

[1:20:00] In all likelihood, it's the city council with the final plat.

[1:20:04] Okay.

[1:20:05] That's extremely helpful, Mayor.

[1:20:07] So I hadn't considered this at all on the roundabout. So,

[1:20:13] it's a little awkward that we're moving forward with this

[1:20:16] without having, definity on the roundabout. So,

[1:20:22] so thank you for for raising this because it's really a different project,

[1:20:27] if it's a roundabout.

[1:20:31] It could be.

[1:20:32] So I think for staff, at first

[1:20:34] we were concerned kind of like, what's the timing of all this?

[1:20:36] But we've concluded that whether it's a a signalized intersection

[1:20:40] or a roundabout controlled intersection, the second driveway can exist.

[1:20:44] It's only a question of whether the developer

[1:20:47] is responsible for additional widening with that driveway.

[1:20:51] And I suppose the developer understands that, that

[1:20:54] that's baked into this outcome tonight.

[1:20:59] I believe they do.

[1:21:00] We've said that as staff in our DRC meetings that

[1:21:03] if this was granted, you're responsible for the cost of improvements.

[1:21:06] We just don't know exactly what that improvement is.

[1:21:09] If they decide they don't want to bear that cost,

[1:21:12] they can still have their access off Columbus and develop the site.

[1:21:15] It would be their choice

[1:21:16] whether they wanted to pursue that driveway with the cost.

[1:21:18] Okay, great. Thanks.

[1:21:20] Kelly does does SUDAS when it's considering the,

[1:21:26] distance between entry or access points,

[1:21:30] take into consideration whether those are controlled

[1:21:34] access points?

[1:21:37] I'm not going to say I have that memorized.

[1:21:40] My understanding is the speed is the controlling factor

[1:21:43] in terms of the turn lane kind of decision making matrix.

[1:21:46] But I'm also not going to say I'm the civil engineer

[1:21:49] or the traffic engineer interpreting those tables.

[1:21:51] It my main concern is that there is a lot of traffic up there,

[1:21:56] and we've learned recently that from complaints about,

[1:22:02] Mortenson Road and access points from private properties,

[1:22:07] that we don't have the ability to enforce a stop sign

[1:22:12] being put on a private property, even though the code says

[1:22:16] people are supposed to stop before entering the street,

[1:22:20] there isn't anything that that requires that property owner to put up a stop sign.

[1:22:26] And I'm somewhat concerned about having an arterial

[1:22:30] that seems to be as busy as George Washington Carver is,

[1:22:33] and which I assume is only going to get busier.

[1:22:37] Adding an access point that is not controlled.

[1:22:42] If it's an intersection, we've got control.

[1:22:44] And we can we can put up

[1:22:46] stop signs or put in a roundabout or a stoplight or whatever.

[1:22:50] But if it's a private entry way and exit, we don't have that kind of control.

[1:22:56] So that's that's my concern about it.

[1:23:00] Okay.

[1:23:04] Open up public comment. Does anyone

[1:23:05] want to address council on this topic tonight?

[1:23:12] Know can you guys hear me okay. Yes.

[1:23:16] Yes we can.

[1:23:20] this is Patrick Anthon with Dover Development.

[1:23:25] I apologize, we can't be there in person, but,

[1:23:28] we wanted to just kind of give some context here

[1:23:32] and address the access,

[1:23:35] this this access point along

[1:23:37] GW Carver is very important to us.

[1:23:41] For a couple reasons.

[1:23:43] The first,

[1:23:44] and I cannot see the board, so I'm not sure if you guys

[1:23:47] have the site plan pulled up.

[1:23:51] But if you do,

[1:23:53] on the west side,

[1:23:56] our site plan, our

[1:23:57] current access is along Columbus,

[1:24:01] to the west of that, you'll see the independent living

[1:24:04] cottage units there, or cottage apartments.

[1:24:07] That is the only other access that we have to the site currently.

[1:24:12] And those will be senior residents

[1:24:15] living in those units kind of blocking,

[1:24:18] you know, using that to walk to

[1:24:21] and from the community building.

[1:24:24] And so our concern with only having that as our only access

[1:24:28] point is that being where all of the traffic flows,

[1:24:33] you know, to and from when those residents are walking back and forth.

[1:24:39] The access point along GW

[1:24:41] Carver is a lot closer to the community building.

[1:24:44] And again, it it allows those residents and those cottages to,

[1:24:50] you know, have a safe environment back there

[1:24:52] where they're not as concerned about any kind of traffic

[1:24:56] or additional traffic,

[1:24:59] coming from that, secondary access points.

[1:25:03] The other item is

[1:25:06] the response times.

[1:25:08] And just having first responders being able

[1:25:10] to get to our site and have quick access, if they were needed.

[1:25:15] So we

[1:25:16] do want them to be able to pull right in and, service

[1:25:19] the residents or address any kind of,

[1:25:23] emergency that's required.

[1:25:27] The only other thing I wanted to point out is,

[1:25:30] the Christ Community Church

[1:25:33] that's just north,

[1:25:35] has two access points along GW

[1:25:38] Carver.

[1:25:40] And again, in this situation,

[1:25:42] we would only be looking for one access point. And,

[1:25:47] we're not a very high traffic use.

[1:25:49] So really it's it's the safety of our residents and making sure

[1:25:53] they can get, you know, first responders to them as quickly as possible.

[1:26:00] Very good.

[1:26:01] Thank you for your feedback.

[1:26:02] And yes, we can see your site plan.

[1:26:04] Kelly brought it up on the,

[1:26:06] on the screen for us.

[1:26:07] Thank you.

[1:26:11] Great.

[1:26:12] Thanks. Happy to answer any other questions. Thank you.

[1:26:17] Anyone else want to address

[1:26:18] council on this topic?

[1:26:24] All right,

[1:26:24] we'll close public input.

[1:26:27] Any additional questions for staff?

[1:26:30] Kelly,

[1:26:32] the developer raised a point that I wanted to, circle back to you quickly.

[1:26:37] Just from a planning perspective, having more than one access point

[1:26:42] seems like a really good idea for all kinds of reasons.

[1:26:46] And so I just wanted to get your feedback on that particular point

[1:26:50] from a a planning perspective, would you agree that having a second

[1:26:54] point of access for this is a it's a good principle.

[1:26:59] I think if if you're starting from scratch,

[1:27:01] we yeah, we want we want a road network density of about every 6 to 800ft

[1:27:07] so that we have local streets

[1:27:08] going into developments, creating access opportunities.

[1:27:11] The way this was platted, you ended up with one

[1:27:14] in a 1200 plus, linear footage of roadway.

[1:27:18] So that's why they're trying to ask

[1:27:20] for the waiver instead of building a second local street

[1:27:23] to get access to the site, because there is no other property here.

[1:27:29] That that's why they're asking for that.

[1:27:30] So it's kind of the density of intersections

[1:27:32] were determined

[1:27:33] by the developer to only have the one, and then this user would prefer to

[1:27:37] have a second.

[1:27:37] And yes, two is generally a good thing for this large of a site.

[1:27:41] It's just the configuration doesn't really fit the way our,

[1:27:44] our subdivision code normally would plan for this.

[1:27:46] Yeah, that's really helpful. Thank you.

[1:27:48] All right.

[1:27:49] So if council's interested in alternative one Kelly

[1:27:52] we should move the approval of the waiver request.

[1:27:55] Would it be also be appropriate to include in there

[1:27:59] just clarifying that

[1:28:01] costs would be borne by the developer if if improvements

[1:28:05] at GW Carver were necessary for due to the traffic study?

[1:28:09] Yeah, I think if that gives more comfort to the council that the city isn't looked

[1:28:12] at as being the resource to implement this option,

[1:28:15] then I think that makes sense to add that to alternative one.

[1:28:18] And could it also be that there would be a road

[1:28:21] that the plat or somehow we show that there is some

[1:28:25] to Gloria's point about,

[1:28:27] a stop sign of some sort or some kind of control?

[1:28:31] So the on site, an on site stop sign would not be part of a plat.

[1:28:35] It would be something that would be discussed with,

[1:28:38] the special use permit, which is what reviews the site planning.

[1:28:40] You don't see that. Okay.

[1:28:42] I think that's that's noted.

[1:28:43] You could put a condition on the waiver that on site stop control is there.

[1:28:47] That's not an issue.

[1:28:48] I don't think for anyone to put that there.

[1:28:50] If if that was an issue citywide, I would say you want to look at that

[1:28:53] as a zoning issue.

[1:28:55] Not on a case by case issue because it will just get lost.

[1:28:59] But if it's a citywide concern, you would add that to the zoning code.

[1:29:02] Okay. All right. Is there a motion

[1:29:06] I would move alternative one,

[1:29:10] contingent on the developer paying for all traffic

[1:29:13] improvements for a driveway off George Washington Carver.

[1:29:17] And would this be where we would widening if necessitated by.

[1:29:22] That's just the traffic improvements.

[1:29:24] Okay. That necessitated by the traffic study.

[1:29:26] Okay.

[1:29:27] But is this the point at which we could put into the motion a request?

[1:29:33] Yeah, I think you could say and and and the waivers conditioned upon

[1:29:37] and on site, stop control

[1:29:40] and the waiver conditioned upon on site stop control.

[1:29:44] Second. Okay.

[1:29:45] All right.

[1:29:47] Any further conversation?

[1:29:48] Otherwise we'll uh-

[1:29:51] All right. Roll call.

[1:29:54] Rollins. Aye.

[1:29:56] Beatty-Hansen? Aye. Gartin? Aye.

[1:29:59] Betcher? Aye. Junck?

[1:30:08] Junck? Aye.

[1:30:10] Corrieri? Aye.

[1:30:12] Very good.

[1:30:16] All right.

[1:30:16] We’ll move onto

[1:30:17] item number 44 development agreement outline for Auburn trail on Hyde avenue.

[1:30:22] All right.

[1:30:22] So tonight we're talking about the Auburn Trail Subdivision and a few items

[1:30:25] later on the agenda,

[1:30:26] you're going to talk about the rezoning for the site

[1:30:28] to fit this development concept that we're talking here.

[1:30:31] We're talking about this one first because there's already

[1:30:34] two development agreements that are in place for this property.

[1:30:37] You have an original annexation agreement that's spelled out

[1:30:40] obligations related to participation in a street assessment,

[1:30:44] water buyout fees, water and sewer connection fees,

[1:30:48] and some other obligations for development of the property.

[1:30:51] And then a few years ago, when you first rezone the property,

[1:30:54] part of the consideration of that rezoning was to add a contract rezoning item

[1:30:59] that the developer is responsible for completing a trail segment

[1:31:03] across the entire frontage of the site along Hyde.

[1:31:07] And as this project was discussed in the incentives conversation back in December,

[1:31:14] we defined a number of things

[1:31:17] that would be financially beneficial to the property owner, to the developer.

[1:31:21] They're they constitute really three main things.

[1:31:24] One, the developer would no longer

[1:31:26] be responsible for the Hyde Trail improvements on the frontage.

[1:31:30] They would only be responsible for their their street improvement

[1:31:33] with the intersection that they would make, not the whole trail.

[1:31:37] Secondly, the annexation agreement had a traffic,

[1:31:40] kind of a share, a traffic impact fee associated with development

[1:31:44] to contribute to a signal that would occur down at Bloomington and Hyde.

[1:31:48] The request is to waive that fee, which would then have the city

[1:31:51] be responsible for picking up that that cost when the signal is done.

[1:31:55] And then the third benefit, was to waive some of the water and sewer

[1:32:00] connection fees, and that was based on the idea of the first 50 homes

[1:32:04] that were were developed with the site.

[1:32:07] So since December, we've we've communicated with the Hunsaker

[1:32:10] companies to, to kind of put

[1:32:12] a little more meat on the bones here about what this really means.

[1:32:14] So in this report, you now

[1:32:16] have a list of developer commitments and city commitments.

[1:32:20] This outline,

[1:32:21] if it's approved tonight, would then lead to an actual development agreement

[1:32:25] that we would approve, essentially concurrent with final plat,

[1:32:28] because that would establish what all the actual obligations are.

[1:32:31] It also ties into the timing of certain payments,

[1:32:34] for connection fees and water buyout fees.

[1:32:37] So I think what you

[1:32:38] see on the board tonight is, is consistent with the discussion in December.

[1:32:42] We have shared this with Hunziker companies.

[1:32:44] I believe they're, an agreement with this as well.

[1:32:47] I'm happy to answer any questions.

[1:32:49] Thanks, Kelly.

[1:32:50] Questions?

[1:32:56] Open up

[1:32:56] public input, anyone want to address council?

[1:33:00] Chuck?

[1:33:06] Good evening,

[1:33:06] Mayor and council.

[1:33:07] Chuck Winkleblack, 105 South 16th Street.

[1:33:10] I just want to thank Kelly and everybody that's worked on this.

[1:33:13] Between the changes to the conservation subdivision.

[1:33:16] And we've been talking about this project for 6 or 7 years.

[1:33:20] So we're, anxious to get started, moving some dirt

[1:33:23] and just appreciate everything that with Steve and Kelly

[1:33:26] and everybody else that's worked on this to get us to tonight.

[1:33:28] So happy to answer any questions.

[1:33:31] Any questions for Chuck?

[1:33:35] Thank you.

[1:33:35] Thanks for investing in the project too, Chuck.

[1:33:37] All right.

[1:33:38] Anyone else wanna address council?

[1:33:42] Close public input.

[1:33:43] Is there a motion?

[1:33:45] Move alternative 1. Second.

[1:33:48] Thank you. Roll call.

[1:33:51] Beatty-Hansen? Aye. Gartin? Aye.

[1:33:53] Betcher? Aye. Junck? Aye.

[1:33:56] Corrieri? Aye. Rollins? Aye. Thank you.

[1:34:01] I move on to item 45, awarded contracts resource recovery and recycling

[1:34:05] campus.

[1:34:26] Just wanna comment,

[1:34:27] Justin,

[1:34:28] and, Mark, Brian and I think

[1:34:31] you guys did a great job on your report and everything too.

[1:34:35] So maybe you guys hit the high points and we can

[1:34:38] keep on moving.

[1:34:38] So we're returning to the city council

[1:34:40] after March 10th, where we reported the bids.

[1:34:43] For this project, we have 11 separate construction contracts

[1:34:46] as a, that will all come together to complete the project.

[1:34:50] The bids came in at $19.6 million.

[1:34:55] By making some other,

[1:34:57] some adjustments in our project budget prior to that time,

[1:35:01] we ultimately had a project shortfall a little over $2.5 million.

[1:35:06] So since two weeks ago, we've gone over 41,

[1:35:10] potential deductions from,

[1:35:14] the project, we accepted, 20 modifications of the project,

[1:35:19] for a cost reduction of a little over $1.5 million.

[1:35:22] We have some other project, modifications that are still pending,

[1:35:26] and would, reduce some additional value.

[1:35:28] What's important to note here is that the modifications to this project,

[1:35:32] we believe, will not meaningfully detract from our ability to operate the facility.

[1:35:38] So a lot of these different components that we're, talking about modifying

[1:35:42] or eliminating, relate to esthetic,

[1:35:45] items or they're duplicated in, in,

[1:35:49] different, bid packages, or we believe we can reconfigure things

[1:35:53] in a way that makes a little bit more sense economically, but still,

[1:35:58] accomplishes what we

[1:35:59] would like to accomplish.

[1:36:04] So in addition to the $1.5 million of reductions,

[1:36:09] we were able to modify internally to the budget

[1:36:12] about $263,000, worth of funding that we can free up

[1:36:17] to apply towards the construction contracts, by modifying,

[1:36:22] the construction inspections, and the construction contingency,

[1:36:26] and then also recalculating the construction manager fee to reflect

[1:36:29] the reduced value of the overall construction contracts.

[1:36:33] And then finally, we added some additional revenues into the project.

[1:36:37] We have long anticipated that, fleet services would finance

[1:36:41] the portion of the project that includes the fueling infrastructure.

[1:36:46] And, some of the,

[1:36:49] gate, hardware, to allow city

[1:36:52] vehicles to utilize the fueling infrastructure in the facility.

[1:36:56] So fleet services contribution would be about $425,000.

[1:37:01] We were able to identify some, stormwater quality funding.

[1:37:05] That's in the CIP,

[1:37:06] that makes sense for this project because it's intended for larger,

[1:37:12] almost regional size,

[1:37:14] projects to improve stormwater quality on city properties.

[1:37:18] So we identified $159,000 there.

[1:37:21] We anticipate some,

[1:37:23] hopefully more than what's identified here for electric rebates.

[1:37:26] And then, we have,

[1:37:29] we believe that we can apply for at least,

[1:37:33] the indicated amount, solid Waste Alternatives program grants

[1:37:37] through the Iowa DNR.

[1:37:38] We understand there's a sizable amount of that grant funding available.

[1:37:42] So by,

[1:37:44] taking advantage of all three of those different modifications,

[1:37:48] we ultimately have a balanced project budget.

[1:37:51] And we are recommending, that the contracts be awarded

[1:37:56] and the change orders that are, that require city

[1:37:59] council approval, also be approved at this time.

[1:38:03] There are several change orders that are not included in the council agenda,

[1:38:07] but they are at a level where city staff can approve them

[1:38:09] and so we would just, anticipate taking that route in order to,

[1:38:14] accomplish those modifications to the project.

[1:38:16] We, do need to have a discussion, perhaps at the end of the council meeting,

[1:38:21] just briefly, to identify a time when we can have a brief,

[1:38:25] electronic city council meeting, perhaps late this week,

[1:38:28] where we could, formally approve contract and bonds.

[1:38:32] This is, what the clerk's office would call a perfunctory step.

[1:38:36] That, has to be,

[1:38:39] accomplished in order to fulfill a state code requirement.

[1:38:41] But it would allow us to kick the project off,

[1:38:44] without waiting three weeks for the next council meeting.

[1:38:47] Any questions?

[1:38:48] Thanks, Brian. Questions?

[1:38:50] So, we're just finishing the Fitch Indoor Aquatic Center,

[1:38:55] and we've used a similar

[1:38:58] approach of having instead of one

[1:39:01] bed, we've broken it out into these projects

[1:39:05] and we've had some change orders that have come along.

[1:39:09] And I've sort of got that,

[1:39:12] in front of me as I think about this project.

[1:39:15] And so could you speak to the

[1:39:19] the way in which the reworking of this has affected the,

[1:39:24] contingency that we're holding,

[1:39:26] on this project?

[1:39:31] Well, in order to make this project go,

[1:39:33] we have had to reduce our project, our our construction contingency.

[1:39:39] We have,

[1:39:42] I believe over is it 400,000?

[1:39:45] We have $400,000 in change in the construction contingency.

[1:39:49] 428,598 in construction contingency,

[1:39:54] we're going to continue to identify,

[1:39:57] ways in which we might,

[1:40:00] adjust the project to address costs.

[1:40:03] And again, identify any opportunities for funding that have been out

[1:40:07] that might be out there that we could also add to the revenue side of the project

[1:40:11] to ensure that we have sufficient cushion to make the project go.

[1:40:15] We know that this project must occur, right?

[1:40:17] We don't have an alternative for solid waste handling.

[1:40:22] Well, and I and I agree with all that.

[1:40:24] I want to just stay focused on my question.

[1:40:25] I know we're really short on time, so,

[1:40:30] is there a rule of thumb that the city has followed with respect to what

[1:40:34] the contingency should be as a percentage of an overall construction project?

[1:40:39] I don't have that number in my head.

[1:40:43] Is it a 1%?

[1:40:44] you would typically see between 5 to 8%, probably.

[1:40:48] So we're on the lower end of that with this.

[1:40:50] When we recognize that,

[1:40:52] but I think what what we've identified through all this work we've done with

[1:40:55] these contractors is really to look at all these places that we can get rid of,

[1:41:00] some of the uncertainty that maybe was there on bid day

[1:41:02] and find ways that we can make sure we have this, project as tight as we can.

[1:41:07] And a lot of it comes into the one of the biggest packages on here is the,

[1:41:11] the, the processing equipment.

[1:41:14] Thank you.

[1:41:15] And we work really closely

[1:41:16] with that project designer there to make sure that what we had there

[1:41:20] was, was appropriate, and that we found a more effective way to,

[1:41:23] to make sure we got done what we needed to get done with the waste

[1:41:26] and still be able to pull out the recyclable metal.

[1:41:28] So I feel really confident with that.

[1:41:30] Yes, we're on the shorter end, but we we believe

[1:41:33] we've got a project that's viable to build and we would recommend moving forward.

[1:41:36] And I understand you're recommending that, but I

[1:41:39] we need to make sure we do our due diligence on our side.

[1:41:42] So 428,000 and the

[1:41:45] the project is it now 16-8?

[1:41:50] 18 something.

[1:41:56] I'm looking at this.

[1:41:57] What is this

[1:41:58] the construction part of the-

[1:42:02] Equipment versus a construction. This one.

[1:42:04] So 18.

[1:42:05] So what is that as a percentage?

[1:42:07] What does that represent?

[1:42:18] I mean we we're always presuming

[1:42:22] that we're going to have a, a project that comes in on schedule.

[1:42:28] But that's why we have contingencies.

[1:42:31] And so,

[1:42:33] if just because of the uniqueness of this project, I'm

[1:42:35] just a little bit nervous about how skinny we are on the contingencies,

[1:42:40] worst case scenario,

[1:42:43] if we were ran a situation where

[1:42:44] there was a need for additional funds that exceeded

[1:42:47] the contingencies, I don't know that we've been in that situation before.

[1:42:51] Then what do we do?

[1:42:55] Well, I think in this project,

[1:42:57] what what

[1:42:57] we're really looking at is trying to limit the amount of debt service that we have,

[1:43:01] that we apply to the tipping fee that's charged to users of the, resource

[1:43:05] recovery system.

[1:43:07] So what we would need to do if we should happen to come up to a,

[1:43:11] a challenge that we have in the project that said we need more contingency

[1:43:15] and we need more funding for it.

[1:43:17] We would have to come back to council and talk through,

[1:43:19] what does that do to our tipping fee?

[1:43:21] And that's the ultimate user fee.

[1:43:22] Now, what we could do is you can probably hold the first year

[1:43:25] where it's at, but then what's going to happen

[1:43:27] is the the fund balance in subsequent years would likely need to change.

[1:43:30] Or we need to look at alternative funding sources.

[1:43:34] Again, some of these grant programs that are out there

[1:43:35] that we are looking into to see if there's additional ways to find that as well.

[1:43:39] But that would be the decision we'd have to make is

[1:43:41] is what we have to look at revenue abated bonds to do this again.

[1:43:44] And something obviously where we're trying to limit what we're doing with that.

[1:43:48] There's also savings we find in other projects.

[1:43:50] They have a lot of other projects where we have it on the agenda,

[1:43:52] like we were $700,000 short and we had to find savings to, to handle that project.

[1:43:58] Right. I can’t remember

[1:44:00] which was on the agenda where we were short.

[1:44:02] We had to, oh, 13th and Grand. Pardon me? 13th and Grand.

[1:44:07] Oh, yeah.

[1:44:10] So we have come in under us,

[1:44:13] some of the projects if remember the flat space project.

[1:44:16] So just to find it from other places.

[1:44:21] Okay. Thank you.

[1:44:21] We look there first before we raise tipping fees. Any other questions?

[1:44:28] Open public comments.

[1:44:29] Anyone wants to address Council on this topic tonight?

[1:44:35] All right.

[1:44:36] I'll close public input.

[1:44:41] If there's no further questions,

[1:44:42] I will entertain a motion.

[1:44:46] If Council

[1:44:47] so approves, awarding item number

[1:44:50] 45 A through

[1:44:56] P. So moved.

[1:44:58] Second. So the council understands the, concrete contract has been replaced then.

[1:45:03] And you notice it's like all bidders have been replaced in this vote.

[1:45:09] Okay.

[1:45:10] And that includes both the award of the contract as well as,

[1:45:13] approving the change orders that require council input.

[1:45:16] All right. Roll call, please.

[1:45:18] Gartin? Aye. Betcher? Aye. Junck? Aye.

[1:45:23] Corrieri? Aye.

[1:45:24] Rollins? Aye.

[1:45:27] Beatty-Hansen? Aye. Thank you, thank you.

[1:45:32] All right.

[1:45:32] we’ll move onto

[1:45:32] number 46 hearing on zoning text amendment, creating a new zoning overlay

[1:45:36] district west University pedestrian enhancement district.

[1:45:39] Density marketing and design requirements

[1:45:42] between Sheldon and Highland and Lincoln way

[1:45:44] and Oakland.

[1:46:03] All right, so almost a year ago,

[1:46:05] you were approached with the idea of creating a new zoning district

[1:46:09] for just west of campus, focused on the area around Highland.

[1:46:13] So. So Chuck Winkleblack, representing the Hunziker companies, owns

[1:46:16] two properties up here at the corner of Oakland

[1:46:20] and Highland that they would like to redevelop with the project.

[1:46:24] That that is not,

[1:46:26] compliant with the current West University impact overlay zoning district.

[1:46:30] So city Council reviewed that request and initiated

[1:46:35] a zoning text amendment for this area just west of campus.

[1:46:38] So it's a small town of of area.

[1:46:40] It's less than two blocks west of campus to look at allowing for intensification.

[1:46:45] In, in the in the effort to implement the comprehensive plan.

[1:46:49] So in plan 2040, we designated this area as an RN4 neighborhood,

[1:46:55] which is supposed to be a pedestrian oriented, walkable urban neighborhood

[1:46:58] and way that is intended to work is to support intensification,

[1:47:04] but also reinforce the public realm, the streets, the streetscapes

[1:47:08] and the mobility options for walking and biking.

[1:47:11] So this is a little bit in contrast to the current zoning that is out there.

[1:47:15] So in 2006, the city had established

[1:47:18] what what I just referred to as the West University Impact Area

[1:47:22] in 2006, that impact overlay was created and it goes further west.

[1:47:27] It goes past Campus Avenue and extends just past Campus Avenue.

[1:47:31] The purpose of that district was to have a little bit of design requirements.

[1:47:35] Some focus on use of high quality of materials, primarily brick.

[1:47:39] And then it had an extra, enhanced parking requirement.

[1:47:43] And the reason for that was even though it's in a walkable area,

[1:47:47] there was concerns about overall occupancy of apartments and,

[1:47:51] potentially infiltration into the neighborhood of,

[1:47:53] of parking issues and just, just a number of issues that can happen.

[1:47:57] Well, since that time, a couple of different projects have been built.

[1:48:01] But as you look at intensifying and you as you recognize

[1:48:04] that the university is a very walkable destination for here,

[1:48:07] and this is a student oriented apartment area, RN4 fits

[1:48:11] that idea that we want to support walkable areas

[1:48:14] and to is support redevelopment that fits that that context and purpose.

[1:48:19] So as we've gone through this process, I think we've had two goals

[1:48:23] as the city, the developer has their own goals

[1:48:25] for redevelopment of the project, but as a text amendment, the city is trying to

[1:48:28] establish a balance here of supporting redevelopment

[1:48:32] without kind of overwhelming the general area, with a lot of change

[1:48:36] and potentially with impacts to the neighborhood, but then reinforcing

[1:48:40] that context sensitive design both architecturally

[1:48:43] and through site design, as well as through the public street

[1:48:46] improvements and sidewalk improvements that are planned for the area.

[1:48:50] So to try to accomplish that, it's important.

[1:48:52] With this overlay, we are not zoning all of the yellow area at one time.

[1:48:58] That's a little bit different.

[1:48:59] What we're creating is a tool tonight that can be applied on a case

[1:49:02] by case basis, that is subject to an actual project approval.

[1:49:07] So every project that wants to take advantage

[1:49:09] of the elements of this text amendment must come before the City council

[1:49:13] for project approval and a rezoning action at that that point in time.

[1:49:17] So that's a good check in the system to make sure there's public awareness

[1:49:21] of what's happening.

[1:49:22] And we'll see

[1:49:22] the evolution of the neighborhood as it occurs rather than rezoning it.

[1:49:26] At one time, walking away and then ten years

[1:49:28] later, go, oh, I didn't know that was going to happen.

[1:49:30] We'll be able to review this as it goes on.

[1:49:33] Now, what's what's important in this overlay

[1:49:36] is a couple of things that really support the developer's goals.

[1:49:39] The intensity of the sites are going to be allowed to increase.

[1:49:44] The provisions of this ordinance are different than other zoning districts

[1:49:47] in the city.

[1:49:48] We're typically measuring intensity on the number of units on a property,

[1:49:53] and that's how RH residential high density works is.

[1:49:55] You have a limit on the number of units per acre.

[1:50:02] Tonight what we're doing is to facilitate

[1:50:04] smaller units, meaning one and two bedroom and studio apartments.

[1:50:10] We're measuring our intensity off of bedrooms

[1:50:13] because everywhere else in the city,

[1:50:14] one unit, whether it's one bedroom or five bedrooms, is considered the same.

[1:50:18] So in this case, we're trying to facilitate a higher number of units,

[1:50:22] but not necessarily a substantial additional amount of bedrooms.

[1:50:25] So the density standard is changing here

[1:50:27] to reflect smaller units rather than larger units.

[1:50:30] And then the second

[1:50:31] probably most important element of this is you are reducing parking.

[1:50:35] So not only does the is the parking reduced

[1:50:39] from the West University impact overlay, which has a 25%,

[1:50:43] kind of penalty or extra requirement, you're reducing it

[1:50:47] below the normal standard that is applied across the city.

[1:50:50] So one and two bedroom units will be able to drop to one space

[1:50:54] per unit rather than one space per bedroom.

[1:50:57] And then again, that is to facilitate the idea that we're in a walkable area,

[1:51:02] fits the notion within the planning, world that

[1:51:05] if you don't build the parking, the car can't really be there.

[1:51:09] So you're limiting your parking problems by not creating places for cars to go

[1:51:13] when you have a very walkable destination

[1:51:15] that doesn't work across the city, probably.

[1:51:17] But in this case, we we believe it does fit the comp plan vision.

[1:51:21] And it practically could work, because of its proximity to campus.

[1:51:25] So then to not lose the positive elements of the West University impact area

[1:51:30] based on site design and architectural requirements,

[1:51:33] the overlay does bring forward certain, brick material requirements.

[1:51:38] It tries to articulate expectations to keep parking away from the street.

[1:51:43] We want to reinforce the street level with residential units.

[1:51:47] I think the worst thing that we could do is to pursue density

[1:51:50] and just build a podium for parking at the ground level and units above

[1:51:54] that doesn't realize our vision for how a street can be activated

[1:51:58] and engaged with, with, with, living units and people.

[1:52:01] So the design requirements do say we do not want essentially

[1:52:05] parking garages at the street.

[1:52:07] They must be behind the structure

[1:52:08] embedded in the structure or something along those lines.

[1:52:10] So we're focusing the residential units outward and at the at the ground

[1:52:14] level of the site.

[1:52:15] So overall we have a pretty comprehensive overlay.

[1:52:19] There is a lot in here.

[1:52:21] We're trying to balance again

[1:52:22] the design elements with the goals of the developer to intensify.

[1:52:26] We are keeping the height limit the same.

[1:52:28] So the four story height limit will continue forward.

[1:52:31] So there's not an option here to go to

[1:52:33] like large towers.

[1:52:35] RH would normally allow for much taller buildings than four stories.

[1:52:38] But the West University impact overlay had capped that at four.

[1:52:42] We think that's an appropriate scale for what we're talking about in this area.

[1:52:47] So overall I think we've, we've we as staff have tried to balance this.

[1:52:51] The Planning and Zoning Commission spent a fair amount of time discussing it.

[1:52:54] I think we spent quite a bit of time talking about parking,

[1:52:57] the issue of parking.

[1:52:59] We did some surveys of the area to try to analyze.

[1:53:02] Was parking really being utilized?

[1:53:04] That's all included in the addendum.

[1:53:06] Staff believed based on usage, you can justify the parking reduction

[1:53:10] from what we've seen.

[1:53:12] The commission ultimately recommended approval of this

[1:53:15] within the within the scope of how we had described it,

[1:53:18] for the parking reductions and the design elements.

[1:53:21] Since that time, staff has refined the design configuration

[1:53:24] requirements, of the ordinance that you're being presented tonight.

[1:53:27] But the parking, the density, the height, all of those basic

[1:53:30] things are still the same as what the Planning Commission saw.

[1:53:33] So technically, we have an applicant for this project, and,

[1:53:36] the city staff is supporting the text amendment, as proposed.

[1:53:40] And I and I believe the applicant also is in support of the, the text amendment.

[1:53:45] Thanks, Kelly.

[1:53:45] Questions?

[1:53:48] Kelly,

[1:53:49] this is not a super huge area of the community, but I am curious,

[1:53:54] have you evaluated the properties in this space

[1:53:59] with an eye to which how many of these how many of these properties,

[1:54:04] might,

[1:54:06] pursue redevelopment if we do this?

[1:54:08] In other words, we've got one project.

[1:54:11] But we're doing a much larger area in probably anticipation of others,

[1:54:16] any any sense of how many other properties might, take advantage of this.

[1:54:21] Yeah.

[1:54:22] So one key aspect of this was that

[1:54:25] you can't take advantage of the benefits of the density allowances

[1:54:29] and the reduced parking unless you're building a new project.

[1:54:32] So I did look at look at that question.

[1:54:34] So I think in the report we talked about,

[1:54:36] a handful of sites that we think are either currently vacant or probably

[1:54:40] aging out, much like the Highland site the developer is looking at.

[1:54:44] They're not vacant, it's

[1:54:45] just the properties of aged out to a point where redevelopment is a

[1:54:48] is a viable economic choice versus continuing with what they have.

[1:54:52] So we thought there was only a handful of properties in this total area

[1:54:55] because a lot of it has been redeveloped in the last 25 years,

[1:54:59] so it's not a ton of units.

[1:55:01] I don't have the number off the top of my head,

[1:55:03] but we did put an estimate into the council action form for that.

[1:55:07] I can find that as as we go through the meeting if you want.

[1:55:09] Okay. Thank you. Other questions?

[1:55:14] All right.

[1:55:15] A public hearing of this

[1:55:15] item to be open if anyone wants to address council on this topic tonight?

[1:55:20] Chuck?

[1:55:28] Good evening again.

[1:55:29] Council.

[1:55:31] Again we've- Kelly and Amelia and I have gone back and forth with this,

[1:55:35] trying to make what we feel like is a good compromise.

[1:55:39] And what we need to make the project be viable.

[1:55:42] And again, it if you see, it's the it's not really shown on here,

[1:55:47] but I mean, we are literally, a stone's throw from the university.

[1:55:51] And so as we've been through other places in our,

[1:55:55] city to city visits and stuff, this is where intensification

[1:55:58] should happen in our belief.

[1:56:00] And we think the eye towards the smaller units,

[1:56:04] also makes sense.

[1:56:05] And here seem to be less problems for, everyone.

[1:56:09] And then also it's consistent, like Kelly said, with the RN4 zoning

[1:56:13] that's proposed in your 2040 plan.

[1:56:15] So again, want to thank staff for their work in getting us

[1:56:19] to this point tonight and happy to answer any questions.

[1:56:22] Last thing comment I would make is when we looked at that, you know,

[1:56:25] the site that we have,

[1:56:27] is like three quarters of an acre.

[1:56:30] And to think that we could get the amount of units that we could on a site

[1:56:34] that is 40ft from the top to the bottom, if you've been out

[1:56:38] there has just been real challenging for all of us.

[1:56:41] But this is the kind of intensification.

[1:56:43] There are no new city utilities will be needed, for this,

[1:56:47] which I think is important when we talk about sprawl versus infill.

[1:56:51] This is a great infill project.

[1:56:53] And I think and as I just recall from Kelly's

[1:56:57] and our discussion about before, there was like 7 or 8, I think

[1:57:00] less than ten other potential sites that,

[1:57:03] I think would possibly fall under this,

[1:57:07] in the future.

[1:57:07] But I think Kelly's approach it by taking them one at a time doesn't

[1:57:11] paint everything with broad brush,

[1:57:13] and we feel like we've been working towards a common goal here.

[1:57:16] Thank you, thank you.

[1:57:18] Anybody else want address? Council.

[1:57:24] All right.

[1:57:24] I'll close public hearing.

[1:57:26] Entertain a motion on first reading of ordinance.

[1:57:28] Just just a just to put a bow on that question.

[1:57:32] There was, 36 properties in that yellow boundary.

[1:57:35] We believe that maybe ten are candidates for taking advantage of this,

[1:57:39] which would be three out of the 16 acres in the neighborhood.

[1:57:43] So roughly 15 to 20% of the land area

[1:57:47] might reasonably take advantage of this within the next ten years.

[1:57:51] Thank you.

[1:57:52] All right.

[1:57:53] So is there a motion? Move on first.

[1:57:55] Second? I'll second.

[1:57:56] Thank you.

[1:57:57] Roll call. Betcher? Aye. Junck? Aye.

[1:58:01] Corrieri? Aye.

[1:58:02] Rollins? Aye.

[1:58:05] Beatty-

[1:58:06] Hansen? Aye. Thank you.

[1:58:09] All right.

[1:58:10] We’ll move onto item 47,

[1:58:11] and after this will take a short break.

[1:58:14] This is the hearing on rezoning and master plan amendment

[1:58:17] for 4605 and 4510

[1:58:20] Hyde and adjacent properties to the north Auburn Trail development.

[1:58:30] All right.

[1:58:30] So so for Auburn Trail, as we mentioned earlier, this this site has been subject

[1:58:34] of a number of meetings in terms of zoning and annexation actions.

[1:58:38] It's been, four plus years since the last time we looked at this for rezoning.

[1:58:43] So the site has been zoned to FSRL,

[1:58:46] which is our single family zoning district for the expansion areas of the city.

[1:58:50] And at that time, we had approved

[1:58:53] a master plan for the layout of the site

[1:58:56] based on the old conservation subdivision ordinance.

[1:59:00] I'm trying to get that to come up.

[1:59:02] So what is asked tonight

[1:59:04] is to really not change the overall development potential

[1:59:08] of the site, but the master plan affects that configuration of the site.

[1:59:12] So with this original master plan,

[1:59:14] you can see there's a lot of green spaces set aside, for different types of flowage

[1:59:18] areas and for conveyance of water and different types of set asides.

[1:59:23] With the rezoning, there's there's two advantages to the developer

[1:59:27] that are the product of the conservation ordinance changes.

[1:59:30] We don't require mandatory green space set asides.

[1:59:34] We're focused on the functional stormwater treatment attributes of the site.

[1:59:39] So that means you don't have to create fingers of green space

[1:59:42] just for the sake of having open space next to houses.

[1:59:46] So in the new master plan.

[1:59:47] So this is the old master plan.

[1:59:49] It's still had a spine road going through

[1:59:52] this direction and connections to the neighborhood on the south.

[1:59:56] But with the new master plan.

[2:00:01] You're getting less internal green space

[2:00:06] because of the changes in the ordinance, but the total development

[2:00:08] potential of houses, will be the same.

[2:00:11] So what you see is here is a more consolidated orange area

[2:00:15] where housing can go.

[2:00:16] You just don't see as many green areas set aside, for conservation purposes.

[2:00:21] The other thing that the developer is able to benefit from was the annexation

[2:00:24] we did last year.

[2:00:25] We had to leave these strips of land on the north side of the property,

[2:00:30] out of the out of the annexation to meet state law for annexation purposes.

[2:00:34] That's been brought in now so that can be developed,

[2:00:37] to finish out some lots that were projected in that area.

[2:00:39] So overall,

[2:00:41] the overall density is is pretty much in line with the last master plan.

[2:00:45] There's no increase in density.

[2:00:46] I think developer is realizing, benefit in the amount of units

[2:00:50] they're actually going to get compared to that range.

[2:00:53] The proposal is for single family dwellings, across

[2:00:55] this, across this orange area of this master plan.

[2:00:59] So if this is approved tonight, the next step,

[2:01:02] because this doesn't really show a lot layouts,

[2:01:03] it doesn't show the grading plan, any of that information.

[2:01:06] The next step in the process will be a preliminary plat.

[2:01:09] And at that point, you'll have a full stormwater

[2:01:11] management plan, you'll have the complete street layouts,

[2:01:14] and you'll have the grading plan and the layouts for everything,

[2:01:17] in on both sides of the street.

[2:01:20] So is there any questions about the rezoning or the master plan changes?

[2:01:23] Yeah.

[2:01:24] Could you just explain exactly what how this is zoned now

[2:01:28] and what's been changed and what's going to be allowed.

[2:01:31] Yeah.

[2:01:32] So it's zoned FSRL which right now it is it already is zoned FSRL

[2:01:36] which is our use- allows what?

[2:01:37] Single family homes so attached or detached single family homes only.

[2:01:42] In this

[2:01:43] proposal the the range of units that are allowed is not changing.

[2:01:48] I think it's a maximum of 190.

[2:01:51] What is changing is internally how those those lots can be configured.

[2:01:54] So that's this orange or brown area that you see on the screen.

[2:01:58] It is it'll it is not cut up by open spaces.

[2:02:03] It allows more uniformity and efficiency

[2:02:05] for the developer to realize those single family home lots.

[2:02:08] Otherwise there is no change to the access points.

[2:02:11] The plan for the spine road to go through the site

[2:02:14] to have a detention facility in the southeast area of the development,

[2:02:19] there's no change or there's there's some alteration of the course of the water

[2:02:22] through the site, but there's still that main,

[2:02:25] stormwater treatment area through the center of the site.

[2:02:28] So it does not change the total units on the site.

[2:02:30] It really just changes how they're internally configured.

[2:02:34] Why is it listed as a rezoning

[2:02:35] if nothing’s changing?

[2:02:37] So by our by our rules, if you alter the master plan,

[2:02:40] which is approved with rezoning, it's a rezoning to change the master planning,

[2:02:45] even though the the letters of the zoning aren't changing.

[2:02:49] And then could you just explain what's going on on the east side

[2:02:53] in that lower right hand corner?

[2:02:57] I'm sorry.

[2:03:00] I mean,

[2:03:02] on the east side is,

[2:03:05] east side of height on there on that there's.

[2:03:08] It was primarily green with a little tan there.

[2:03:10] Sorry, sorry. One,

[2:03:14] one additional flag lot is proposed in that orange area.

[2:03:17] The other area is just stormwater detention and open space.

[2:03:20] So there's no development over there.

[2:03:22] It's just primarily going to be left as green space.

[2:03:25] Is that right? Or for stormwater to enter?

[2:03:27] I wouldn't say it's left as green space.

[2:03:28] It's going to be created into a detention pond.

[2:03:32] Okay.

[2:03:32] To serve this subdivision,

[2:03:34] there's a main detention pond on the west side,

[2:03:35] and then it's going to be conveyed over to the east side,

[2:03:38] go through that facility, then release into the drainage way

[2:03:40] that's on the on the boundary of that property

[2:03:42] on the south side, which then flows into Ada Hayden.

[2:03:46] Bronwyn,

[2:03:46] did you have a question? I interrupted you when you were gonna ask something.

[2:03:49] No, I think you're good.

[2:03:50] I, I think Kelly answered it actually.

[2:03:53] Okay.

[2:03:54] Other questions.

[2:03:57] All right.

[2:03:57] I declare the public hearing on this item to be open.

[2:04:00] Anyone who wants to talk to council about this are welcome to do so.

[2:04:04] If you're interested in talking or make a comment,

[2:04:06] you certainly can now.

[2:04:11] Chuck, anything?

[2:04:13] If you have questions, you've heard me enough.

[2:04:16] Okay.

[2:04:18] All right.

[2:04:18] And declare the public hearing on this item to be closed.

[2:04:23] Is there a motion

[2:04:25] the council wishes to make on this, rezoning and master plan amendment?

[2:04:30] Move alternative one, very exciting. Second.

[2:04:32] Okay.

[2:04:33] Moved and seconded those in favor of the motion?

[2:04:36] Aye.

[2:04:39] Any opposed?

[2:04:41] Motion carried.

[2:04:43] All right.

[2:04:47] Just double checking.

[2:04:48] I, I didn't see this as a resolution.

[2:04:50] Is that correct, Carly?

[2:04:51] It should be a first reading of an ordinance,

[2:04:54] and then we'll eventually have a third reading with a resolution to approve it.

[2:04:59] Okay. Let's just let's just read.

[2:05:01] Just read. Yeah.

[2:05:02] Just do a roll call.

[2:05:02] Just be safe, okay?

[2:05:04] Junck? Aye.

[2:05:07] Corrieri? Aye. Rollins? Aye.

[2:05:11] Beatty-Hansen? Aye. Gartin? Aye.

[2:05:13] Betcher? Aye. All right, let's take a five minute break

[2:05:18] and reconvene at, 20 of nine.

[2:05:34] All right.

[2:05:35] We will proceed now with, next item on the agenda number 48.

[2:05:39] Hearing and notice of intent to issue essential corporate bonds.

[2:05:43] Corey. Yeah.

[2:05:44] Thank you.

[2:05:45] As you may know, we had, some bond issuances included in our

[2:05:49] FY 26-27 budget.

[2:05:51] It was about $16.3 million,

[2:05:54] for the purposes of street improvements and airport improvements,

[2:05:58] in order for us to utilize the debt service levy, in the upcoming year,

[2:06:02] we're required to hold the authorization

[2:06:04] and then also authorize about $1.8 million in debt service.

[2:06:08] And so really that this process facilitates, approval of those,

[2:06:12] that bond issuance and,

[2:06:15] and also the debt service levy that we intend to utilize. So,

[2:06:19] again, all of this information was included in the budget session and

[2:06:22] is included in the, in the proposed budget that we discussed tonight,

[2:06:26] related to property tax.

[2:06:29] Thank you.

[2:06:30] Questions.

[2:06:33] All right.

[2:06:33] Declare the public hearing on the, notice of intent

[2:06:37] to issue $17.375 million and essential corporate purpose

[2:06:41] general obligation bonds and associated tax levy, levy and debt purposes.

[2:06:46] Anyone want to address council on this item.

[2:06:51] Seeing and hearing none we’ll declare a public hearing to be closed

[2:06:54] and entertain a motion on a resolution taking additional action.

[2:06:57] Proposal to enter into essential purpose loan agreement combining one agreements

[2:07:02] and providing for levy of text to pay general obligation

[2:07:06] corporate purpose

[2:07:07] bond series 2026A. So move

[2:07:10] alternative 1. Second.

[2:07:12] Thank you.

[2:07:13] Roll call. Corrieri? Aye. Rollins? Aye.

[2:07:17] Beatty-Hansen? Aye.

[2:07:19] Gartin? Aye. Betcher? Aye. Junck? Aye.

[2:07:23] Thank you thank you.

[2:07:24] We'll move on to item number 49 hearing on sanitary sewer manhole

[2:07:27] rehabilitation basin 11 project.

[2:07:31] Any questions for Justin on this project?

[2:07:37] Declare a public hearing on the sanitary

[2:07:39] sewer manhole rehab project based on number 11 to be open.

[2:07:43] Is there anyone wants address council on this topic?

[2:07:49] Declare a public hearing to be closed.

[2:07:51] Entertain motion resolution,

[2:07:52] taking additional action for authorization of a loan

[2:07:55] and district disbursement agreement and the issuance of sewer revenue bonds.

[2:07:59] SRF loan not to exceed $2.1 million.

[2:08:02] So moved.

[2:08:03] Second. Roll call.

[2:08:05] Rollins. Aye.

[2:08:08] Beatty- Hansen? Aye.

[2:08:09] Gartin? Aye. Betcher? Aye. Junck? Aye.

[2:08:12] Corrieri? Aye.

[2:08:14] And entertain a motion and resolution approving final plan

[2:08:17] specifications and awarding a contract to Municipal Pipe Tool Company,

[2:08:21] LLC of Hudson, Iowa, in the amount of $1,616,102.90.

[2:08:29] So moved. Second. Roll call

[2:08:32] Beatty-Hansen? Aye.

[2:08:33] Gartin? Aye. Betcher? Aye. Junck? Aye.

[2:08:37] Corrieri? Aye. Rollins? Aye.

[2:08:41] Move onto item number 50,

[2:08:45] sanitary sewer rehabilitation East

[2:08:47] Lincoln way and Nikkol Trunk Line project.

[2:08:50] Any questions for Justin?

[2:08:55] Declare public hearing on this item to be open

[2:08:56] is there anyone that wants to address council on this project.

[2:09:02] Declare a public hearing to be closed.

[2:09:03] Entertain motion

[2:09:04] a resolution taking additional action for the authorization of a loan

[2:09:07] and disbursement agreement and the issuance of sewer revenue bonds.

[2:09:11] SRF loan not to exceed $5.7 million.

[2:09:14] You said one quick question for Justin.

[2:09:16] I think about this engineer's estimate is so much higher than our our bid.

[2:09:21] Any thoughts on that?

[2:09:22] I don't want to take a long time, but no really big.

[2:09:25] These are very highly specialized contractors.

[2:09:27] And what we found is we had a contractor

[2:09:29] that had availability in their schedule for two very large projects.

[2:09:32] We had very fortunate, bids.

[2:09:34] We've used this contractor before, so I feel comfortable moving forward with him.

[2:09:37] Yeah.

[2:09:38] So keep their phone number I agree I, I need to saving somewhere else.

[2:09:42] Yeah. Move alternative 1. Second.

[2:09:45] Roll call.

[2:09:47] Gartin? Aye. Betcher? Aye. Junck? Aye.

[2:09:50] Corrieri? Aye.

[2:09:52] Rollins? Aye.

[2:09:55] Beatty-Hansen? Aye.

[2:09:57] All right, let's go back and we'll pick up,

[2:10:01] item number 39,41, 42. 39

[2:10:05] Bethany, come up.

[2:10:06] And this is on the,

[2:10:09] job description for

[2:10:12] and process for recruiting city

[2:10:14] administrator.

[2:10:17] Attorney.

[2:10:18] Attorney!

[2:10:20] Yeah, I was about. I'm sorry.

[2:10:22] Not sorry.

[2:10:23] Okay. All right.

[2:10:23] And that's that's making me feel like a nice.

[2:10:26] I don't want to go into a closed session.

[2:10:27] Yeah.

[2:10:29] Thank you for the clarification.

[2:10:31] That was a very, very bad slip of the tongue.

[2:10:33] So a Freudian slip that would make the newspaper that, Yeah.

[2:10:38] Tribune. Keep that.

[2:10:39] It is not.

[2:10:40] And same for the Ames voice.

[2:10:49] So I provided you with some documents, some draft documents, including,

[2:10:54] job description for the city attorney

[2:10:57] and a draft recruitment plan,

[2:11:00] all to help you prepare for the upcoming recruitment for city attorney.

[2:11:05] So, you have those two documents,

[2:11:08] and we're ready to talk through that and make any changes that you'd like

[2:11:13] to get to a final, a final plan and,

[2:11:18] process.

[2:11:21] The job description

[2:11:22] first, see if you want any changes and then do,

[2:11:26] job descriptions attached,

[2:11:27] right? And you're going to pull that up?

[2:11:29] So I think we've already made changes though, right?

[2:11:31] Did we get them all, what everybody wanted?

[2:11:33] Well, I think there were a couple here that.

[2:11:36] Can we confirm the ones that are there.

[2:11:37] Yeah.

[2:11:38] Does it said that it said it like they were gonna be.

[2:11:40] But I just want to make sure. They haven’t been. The question of,

[2:11:46] admission to federal courts or obtaining admission.

[2:11:50] Right.

[2:11:50] We wanted to remove that. Right, right.

[2:11:53] But that's still in there.

[2:11:54] So there's some there's and to vote on those probably.

[2:11:57] And also

[2:12:00] Mark had recommended under preferred experience.

[2:12:03] It said at least one year of experience in real estate or construction law.

[2:12:08] And he had recommended that we amend that

[2:12:10] to real estate law or construction contracts.

[2:12:14] Okay. Because of the way the,

[2:12:18] the profession would understand that.

[2:12:22] And so I would move that.

[2:12:23] We make those amendments second.

[2:12:26] Okay, those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed?

[2:12:31] Okay. Motion carried.

[2:12:33] Anything else on the job description?

[2:12:38] Okay.

[2:12:39] All right, moving on to the recruitment plan.

[2:12:48] Any changes

[2:12:49] people want?

[2:12:51] Might as well go through each category.

[2:12:52] You got the advertising category you got the application or you just going.

[2:12:58] I mean, the advertising is fine, I think.

[2:13:01] Right?

[2:13:03] Yeah.

[2:13:03] Okay.

[2:13:05] Did well under advertising. I,

[2:13:08] I'm trying to think of what Tim proposed,

[2:13:13] an array of changes that are not reflected

[2:13:17] in this current document.

[2:13:21] And, I thought we were going to be going through those individually.

[2:13:25] Right. So this is where that starts, correct?

[2:13:28] Right.

[2:13:32] So, so the first one being,

[2:13:37] application review.

[2:13:38] So we want to start? Oh you know, in March.

[2:13:41] No, in March for March.

[2:13:43] So instead of the mayor meeting with the legal staff, we would have,

[2:13:48] City Manager and HR.

[2:13:49] Yeah. Team.

[2:13:51] Right. That's the only change, right?

[2:13:52] Right. Okay.

[2:13:54] I would move that, second.

[2:13:59] Those in favor of the motion say aye.

[2:13:59] Aye. Opposed? Motion carried.

[2:14:04] Application review.

[2:14:07] So I mean, I'm of the opinion that the subcommittee

[2:14:10] should consist of the mayor and two city council members.

[2:14:17] As it's written,

[2:14:20] if it is, then I can move on it.

[2:14:21] Yes, that that's my opinion.

[2:14:23] I'm certainly people can- appointed by the mayor?

[2:14:25] Is that you want?

[2:14:27] I'm personally saying that. All right.

[2:14:29] But if someone wants someone else has.

[2:14:31] Yeah, I mean I it's time now to voice opinions.

[2:14:39] Okay.

[2:14:40] How about phone interviews?

[2:14:41] So I was I don't have Tim's proposal in front of me here.

[2:14:45] So was that one of the things that was proposed in that document

[2:14:50] that you sent us?

[2:14:51] Tim's email just had two council members

[2:14:55] on the committee.

[2:14:58] I think there's merit in having the mayor,

[2:15:00] considering that the mayor technically

[2:15:03] supervises the city attorney's office- no it was for everybody to do it.

[2:15:07] Tim's was for everybody.

[2:15:08] I'm sure it's just everybody.

[2:15:10] No, no, no, that was just in the the application review

[2:15:14] interview.

[2:15:15] Oh, actually, maybe Tim should speak for Tim.

[2:15:17] Yeah that's fine.

[2:15:17] Yeah.

[2:15:18] So you just clarify where at what point are we in the process?

[2:15:22] We're on application review and the

[2:15:26] so I, I think that we could all be a part of this

[2:15:30] because we can't do this in a together.

[2:15:33] We could go in in groups of two work with a scoring mechanism that HR gives us.

[2:15:41] That would be what I would suggest.

[2:15:44] So flesh out the process.

[2:15:46] Are you talking about that

[2:15:47] two council members would go in and look at them

[2:15:49] and they would give recommendations, and then two more would come in.

[2:15:52] So you wouldn't have an open meeting, basically just be two by two?

[2:15:56] Correct. They don't give recommendations,

[2:15:58] there'll be a scoring sheet scoring sheet.

[2:16:00] So there's an objective matrix evaluation of it.

[2:16:03] That's to get your larger group down to a smaller group to phone interview,

[2:16:07] which will take you on a smaller group to bring in for final interviews.

[2:16:11] Right? Yeah.

[2:16:12] I mean, it's not it's not ideal because I think there's merit

[2:16:15] in the collaborative process and hearing each other's observations,

[2:16:19] but I think it's the best we can do given the constraints we have.

[2:16:22] But yeah.

[2:16:24] So your proposal is all council members

[2:16:28] and the mayor with no meetings of more than two people?

[2:16:32] Correct. Doing the reviewing? Okay. All right.

[2:16:37] That a motion?

[2:16:38] Sure.

[2:16:39] Is there a second? I’ll second.

[2:16:41] Okay.

[2:16:44] Those in favor of the motion say aye.

[2:16:45] Aye.

[2:16:48] Any opposed?

[2:16:52] So, Brian, we'll let you and Bethany

[2:16:55] I mean, so it says the subcommittee and HR director will determine-

[2:16:59] And so it’d just be

[2:17:02] changing it to, HR will review the scoring criteria or whatever.

[2:17:06] Is that right? Is that how that would work?

[2:17:07] Or maybe Bethany would want to speak to that.

[2:17:10] You understand what I'm talking about in terms of right now?

[2:17:12] That would be so I would create

[2:17:17] a scoring mechanism

[2:17:20] that would be provided to all of you.

[2:17:23] I will go through and screen

[2:17:26] for minimum qualifications, and those who passed minimum

[2:17:30] qualifications would move on to review by this group.

[2:17:36] And then we would have, a scoring rubric

[2:17:39] that you would go through and then put your score together and.

[2:17:46] The high scores would move on to the next step.

[2:17:48] Correct. Right.

[2:17:50] Okay. Right.

[2:17:51] Without a meeting, correct?

[2:17:53] You probably meet with each smaller group.

[2:17:55] You would you be part of that.

[2:17:57] You'd have three group three meetings at least.

[2:17:58] Yeah okay.

[2:18:00] Everyone does is that consistent of

[2:18:01] everyone's understanding?

[2:18:04] Okay. All right.

[2:18:05] Phone interviews.

[2:18:09] I don't think that needs to change.

[2:18:10] I would prefer that it just be council members doing that,

[2:18:14] reviewing the phone interviews. The phone interviews? I disagree. I disagree.

[2:18:18] I've been involved in phone interview processes before, and it always feels like

[2:18:23] you get too many people involved, and it's not as effective

[2:18:27] because it becomes somewhat inconsistent in

[2:18:30] how the interviews are done.

[2:18:33] Well, what we're suggesting this one is two council members,

[2:18:37] the HR director and assistant city manager.

[2:18:39] You saying that's too much? And the mayor.

[2:18:45] Go through

[2:18:46] explain what you with the normal phone interview process is.

[2:18:49] So typically when we do phone interviews it's, someone from HR.

[2:18:54] So in this case it would it would be me.

[2:18:58] Typically it would be the hiring manager.

[2:19:00] So right now that's that's all of you, who is the hiring manager.

[2:19:02] And so that's frankly that's too many people

[2:19:06] to have in the room for a phone interview.

[2:19:09] So typically we would have 2 or 3 people in addition to the HR representative.

[2:19:15] And sometimes not everyone in the room speaks.

[2:19:19] Sometimes it's 1 or 2 people kind of go back and forth with the questions.

[2:19:24] We have a small grouping of questions.

[2:19:27] The phone interviews typically last 30 minutes or less,

[2:19:31] because we're just trying to get a high level

[2:19:33] understanding of skills, abilities, interest.

[2:19:37] We typically have a, salary discussion at that point,

[2:19:41] so we can make a determination to see

[2:19:43] if the salary expectations are in line with what we'll be able to offer.

[2:19:47] And so we can take all of that into consideration, that’s a scored process

[2:19:51] as well.

[2:19:52] And then we make some decisions as a group, about who will invite

[2:19:57] for the on site interview experience so we can have

[2:20:02] people in the room that

[2:20:03] aren't speaking that we don't acknowledge as being in the room necessarily.

[2:20:08] We can have people in the room have everybody participate.

[2:20:12] It's less confusing for the person on the other end of the phone for the candidate.

[2:20:17] If it's a couple of people that are speaking

[2:20:19] and that's sort of where my mind was at when we did the interviews

[2:20:23] for the city assessor, we had a larger group of people,

[2:20:26] but not everyone spoke, and we took turns and we said,

[2:20:29] you know, for this one, you 2 or 3, you're going to ask the questions.

[2:20:32] Everybody else listens in and then we rotate in.

[2:20:35] And that way at least we all heard the same information.

[2:20:37] Right.

[2:20:38] And it's the same group of people.

[2:20:40] Yes. Yeah.

[2:20:41] Present for every interview?

[2:20:42] So it's not a it's not a rotating group of people.

[2:20:45] It's the same group hearing

[2:20:46] every every candidate meeting with every candidate. I’m just gonna throw in,

[2:20:50] I mean by ordinance, the mayor, whoever the mayor is,

[2:20:55] they are the essentially the supervisor overseeing the city attorney.

[2:21:00] That's how it's laid out in the ordinance.

[2:21:02] And so I just seemed like that

[2:21:04] if you had a supervisor hiring somebody, that would be part

[2:21:06] and they'd be part of this process, is that correct? What ordinance is that?

[2:21:11] It's 2.11. Yeah.

[2:21:12] Sub-paragraph one.

[2:21:14] Because I was looking for that earlier and I couldn't find it.

[2:21:17] It says that essentially the

[2:21:19] mayor supervises everybody

[2:21:22] except for those who are delegated to the city manager.

[2:21:26] Right.

[2:21:27] And the city manager is responsible for everybody except for the city attorney.

[2:21:32] And so that's excluded.

[2:21:33] So that then it falls back to the mayor's responsibility.

[2:21:36] That's that's it's been that way for ages and ages.

[2:21:41] Thousands of years, hundreds of years.

[2:21:50] So we're leaving it as is?

[2:21:53] Well, that's that's the question for council.

[2:21:56] That's what I'm asking.

[2:21:57] Yeah I honestly I would like to have the mayor have as few touch points

[2:22:02] in this as possible because I think it can get intimidating

[2:22:06] for people if they're assuming

[2:22:09] that the mayor is running the process

[2:22:12] when we are a weak mayor system.

[2:22:16] So that's that's my stance on it.

[2:22:19] And if we can reduce those touch points,

[2:22:23] I would feel more comfortable with that.

[2:22:29] And I know

[2:22:31] when Tim and I were the appointed committee,

[2:22:34] for hiring Mark, the mayor wasn't involved at all.

[2:22:38] So, I mean, this is this is a radical departure from that.

[2:22:42] And I'm kind of looking for a middle ground.

[2:22:47] I mean, I think it's weird that the mayor wasn't involved in the hiring of Mark.

[2:22:50] Quite honestly, that seems odd to me.

[2:22:56] All right, let's let's get a motion on the table.

[2:22:59] But you, you know, stay the way it is or modify it.

[2:23:03] So we keep on moving.

[2:23:06] I think maybe there's a point of compromise.

[2:23:11] Because this is a weak mayor system,

[2:23:13] I think that that also communicates just sort of the,

[2:23:16] the level of, of the way in which the the mayor's role would drive this.

[2:23:21] So I guess I would like to see this try this out

[2:23:25] where the mayor is involved in these interviews.

[2:23:30] But knowing that the council sentiment is, is that,

[2:23:35] just, I

[2:23:36] think this is an encouragement to make this a collaborative process

[2:23:39] rather than a mayor, a mayor driven process.

[2:23:42] Maybe if I say it that way, I think I think there's a way of doing this.

[2:23:47] So we'll leave it as I would.

[2:23:49] I would move that, we leave it as is. I'll second that. Okay.

[2:23:51] I mean, maybe we won't need a new motion if we're leaving it as is.

[2:23:54] Perhaps not.

[2:23:56] The two members appointed by the mayor then.

[2:23:58] Right. Okay. I'm good.

[2:24:01] I think that's fine.

[2:24:02] Alright, motion's made and a second. Those in favor of the motion say aye.

[2:24:04] Aye.

[2:24:06] Opposed?

[2:24:09] Okay.

[2:24:09] Carried.

[2:24:12] All right, Bethany, wanna take us through the- Sure.

[2:24:14] The uh-

[2:24:16] process, you know, they go through or what

[2:24:18] you’re proposing?

[2:24:19] So we call this the on-site interview experience.

[2:24:22] This is modeled after the experience that we have

[2:24:25] for department heads, assistant city managers.

[2:24:29] We did a sort of similar process when we hired the city assessor.

[2:24:35] So essentially it's a two day process.

[2:24:38] And, each day has a pretty well lined out schedule.

[2:24:44] So day one, I typically meet with candidates

[2:24:47] at the beginning of the day just to talk about our benefits.

[2:24:50] Talk about this is the schedule and walk them through their day.

[2:24:55] Then after I meet with candidates, the candidate goes and meets with

[2:25:00] usually the hiring manager

[2:25:03] in the draft document I put the mayor in.

[2:25:05] That could be anyone.

[2:25:07] But, it's just a short introduction.

[2:25:10] It's a 15 minute conversation to say welcome to your experience,

[2:25:14] because we're again, we're trying to create

[2:25:16] a positive experience for the candidate and for the participants in the process.

[2:25:20] And so it's a welcome.

[2:25:22] There's not a lot of substance to the conversation.

[2:25:24] It's just it's a short welcome conversation.

[2:25:28] Following that, we would move into a panel interview.

[2:25:31] Those are typical for, most of our positions at the city.

[2:25:36] And this would be with the entire city council body.

[2:25:41] And then I would also participate.

[2:25:42] We always have an HR representative in our panel interviews.

[2:25:47] So this is the formal interview part of this.

[2:25:50] It's a it's a scored process, formal interview.

[2:25:55] This could be held in closed session per candidate request.

[2:26:00] And so there's a form that they would need to, indicate to me

[2:26:03] that they would like their interview held in closed session

[2:26:06] and then the full city council could meet in that way.

[2:26:10] So that typically lasts about 90 minutes.

[2:26:12] And then, following that, we'd like to provide opportunities

[2:26:16] for candidates to meet with the team they're going to be a part of.

[2:26:20] And so in this case, we would have a meet

[2:26:23] and greet with the legal department,

[2:26:26] meet with the existing legal department employees.

[2:26:29] It's about 45 minutes for that experience.

[2:26:31] We do have some conversation starter questions,

[2:26:34] some moderated discussion with some guidelines.

[2:26:38] So they just have some some discussion to try to get to know the work style

[2:26:43] and characteristics of the candidates.

[2:26:45] And then, we do take a break for lunch.

[2:26:48] We allow the candidates to eat while they're here with us

[2:26:51] so they can take a break.

[2:26:53] They eat by themselves.

[2:26:55] And then after they've taken a short break,

[2:26:58] we have our executive leadership team interview, and so this is some time

[2:27:03] to spend with the department heads from the organization.

[2:27:06] We spend about an hour together.

[2:27:10] And then, we do have formal questions.

[2:27:12] It's not a scored process, though.

[2:27:14] We do have formal questions.

[2:27:16] We provide feedback to the decision makers.

[2:27:20] Following that, we'll take a short break and then we'd like to do a city tour.

[2:27:24] We have some really great tour guides on our executive leadership team.

[2:27:28] I named a couple of them in this in this document.

[2:27:31] They do a really great job. So,

[2:27:34] in this case, a couple of options.

[2:27:37] Keith Abraham or John Dunn, they do a really great job of showing up

[2:27:41] John just told us he’s going to be in a conference.

[2:27:42] So okay.

[2:27:43] So maybe it's Keith that would provide that.

[2:27:45] So we show off our city facilities, parks,

[2:27:50] talk about relevant, projects

[2:27:53] that are happening that the candidate might get to work with.

[2:27:57] It's a good experience to have an informal conversation

[2:28:00] and then just kind of say, here are the the places and things to see in Ames.

[2:28:06] We assume that we will have some out

[2:28:09] of town candidates for all of these types of positions.

[2:28:12] And so they might not be familiar with Ames.

[2:28:15] And so we show them around.

[2:28:16] And that usually takes about two hours to do that to go around and see facilities.

[2:28:22] Then we do build in time to prepare for a public presentation.

[2:28:26] We do have a public presentation built into this itinerary.

[2:28:31] We'd like to have that at council chambers in this room.

[2:28:34] Sometimes we use other spaces just depending on unavailability.

[2:28:38] We invite the public and then if there are specific people

[2:28:41] that we need to invite, we send out specific invitations. But,

[2:28:46] if we don't have

[2:28:46] that, then we will just, send out a press

[2:28:50] release inviting everyone in the community to come and participate.

[2:28:53] We get a lot of participation from city staff.

[2:28:57] They like to come to the public presentations, we ask for

[2:29:00] feedback from attendees, and so we provide feedback forms

[2:29:04] and then take in the information and give that the candidates

[2:29:08] an opportunity

[2:29:09] to explain who they are and why they'd be a good fit for the position.

[2:29:13] So that's day one.

[2:29:15] We conclude day one with dinner, and that's just an opportunity

[2:29:20] to have another, touch point from key members of the hiring committee.

[2:29:25] It could be all of council.

[2:29:27] Part of council.

[2:29:29] Not all. You're right.

[2:29:31] But a subcommittee again, we're having an informal discussion

[2:29:35] talking about expectations for the position.

[2:29:39] Just in a different setting.

[2:29:40] And it's an opportunity to debrief on the day.

[2:29:42] How did today go?

[2:29:44] What are you looking forward to tomorrow?

[2:29:46] Things like that. Then day two.

[2:29:51] Sure.

[2:29:52] Do you want to have any conversation about day one?

[2:29:54] Who you want to attend that dinner?

[2:30:00] I have a question, not about that.

[2:30:03] Just about day one.

[2:30:06] If they don't request a closed session,

[2:30:11] then it's just an open session?

[2:30:13] Correct. Okay.

[2:30:15] That was my main question.

[2:30:16] And then how many candidates have we winnowed it down to at this point?

[2:30:20] Is that up in the air still?

[2:30:22] It's up in the air.

[2:30:23] Okay. So it could be a handful.

[2:30:26] It could be it is likely to be more like 2 or 3.

[2:30:29] Okay.

[2:30:31] Thank you.

[2:30:36] Any other questions on day one or comments.

[2:30:38] So again we need some direction on there.

[2:30:40] Yeah I still have concerns

[2:30:43] about the number of times the mayor's involved in everything here.

[2:30:47] And this is another point where we could have a city council member in that slot.

[2:30:52] And three city council members instead of the mayor and two city council members.

[2:30:58] Okay.

[2:31:00] I mean, if I were looking at this,

[2:31:02] I'd be seeing the mayor showing up throughout the entire process.

[2:31:07] And but the mayor is right.

[2:31:08] I mean, it does say that

[2:31:12] he's kind of is supervising that that role.

[2:31:16] I mean, I guess that was and I was unaware of that

[2:31:20] until you pointed it out.

[2:31:24] So, you know, I don't know that

[2:31:28] I don't know that three council members is a good idea.

[2:31:30] Then you get into

[2:31:32] kind of problematic gray area legally.

[2:31:35] I mean, like that we can't

[2:31:37] I mean, I can't debate anybody, I mean its already a little, like, overwhelming when you have

[2:31:41] the mayor, two council members, ISU council representative and like

[2:31:46] just going out to an informal dinner that seems already a little

[2:31:49] like I don't even remember that we went out to dinner.

[2:31:53] I think we just like, sat in a conference room

[2:31:56] and and had a box dinner or something, you know, it wasn't.

[2:32:00] Yeah, well, might be that, but.

[2:32:06] So we need direction on this one.

[2:32:08] Probably some some.

[2:32:11] Well, I don't know where everyone else stands.

[2:32:13] I'm just going to move that the mayor not be involved in the dinner.

[2:32:17] Is there a second?

[2:32:22] I think you you've hit on a fair point.

[2:32:25] I think there's a difference between the mayor's role,

[2:32:29] once the mayor or once the city attorney is hired.

[2:32:33] But then the role of ultimately making a decision.

[2:32:36] The mayor doesn't have a vote on this.

[2:32:38] And so,

[2:32:41] this needs to be a council decision on selection.

[2:32:45] And so my my question just in response,

[2:32:48] and maybe you could help me think through this.

[2:32:52] Are we compromising, our independence

[2:32:57] in making the decision by having John,

[2:33:01] the mayor present at the dinner is that?.

[2:33:04] Well, there's anything I, I will be honest.

[2:33:07] When the mayor is present, I tend to defer to the mayor in in my mind.

[2:33:15] And I don't know that that's a way

[2:33:17] to have a free conversation with whoever the candidate is.

[2:33:22] Maybe that's just me or what I think it’s fair to surface that,

[2:33:27] but then that just means that we need to be intentional, that

[2:33:30] all the council members are invited to participate and meaningfully engage.

[2:33:33] I mean, I, I think that I think I want to capture that concern,

[2:33:38] but I think we could do that and still respect

[2:33:41] the goal of this being a council decision.

[2:33:49] I think that dinner is fine.

[2:33:52] Motion died from a lack of a second.

[2:33:55] Okay.

[2:33:58] So we need two council members to serve the way it's written out.

[2:34:01] Now, mayor to council members.

[2:34:04] The ISU of,

[2:34:07] excuse me, ISU representative, an HR director.

[2:34:10] It's always good

[2:34:10] the HR directors present at all times to make sure appropriate questions

[2:34:14] are asking both the candidate and the interviewees.

[2:34:17] 100%.

[2:34:18] That's their business. To keep us out of trouble.

[2:34:20] Will the ISU representatives even be around? What we’ve been doing?

[2:34:26] What do you,

[2:34:28] Well, I'm hoping we have a new one, but I'm

[2:34:32] by then. But it wouldn't be good to have the new one on.

[2:34:34] Yeah, right.

[2:34:35] But isn't this happening?

[2:34:36] But, I mean, it's summer months.

[2:34:38] Yeah.

[2:34:39] If it's during the summer months, I told Brody and Nolan

[2:34:42] if they can't find someone before the summer,

[2:34:45] then they need to go be in the audience for city council meetings.

[2:34:49] Oh, so maybe we shouldn’t have that.

[2:34:50] So it could be ISU student

[2:34:53] government representative instead of.

[2:34:56] Or not at all. Or not or not at all.

[2:34:58] I'm not sure.

[2:34:59] It wouldn't be knowledgeable.

[2:35:00] It's probably not necessary.

[2:35:02] Yeah, I'm not sure what that would add to the conversation there.

[2:35:06] Okay.

[2:35:06] You want to cut that out, then I would move that.

[2:35:08] we cut out the-

[2:35:12] representative from that element. Second.

[2:35:15] All right.

[2:35:15] So you want, the mayor on then. Yep.

[2:35:18] Okay.

[2:35:19] Mayor's on then how do you decide who the other two are going to be?

[2:35:21] Well, that's the two people that have already been.

[2:35:25] I assumed it would be the same two. Right, but maybe not.

[2:35:28] It doesn't have to be. There’s six of you, so all six,

[2:35:30] you have a chance to.

[2:35:32] I mean, you can do two others, is what I'm saying,

[2:35:34] if you wanted to.

[2:35:36] But the

[2:35:38] you have two doing the, interview, the phone interviews.

[2:35:41] Do you want those same two

[2:35:42] or do you want to have the different two to get the exposure?

[2:35:47] I guess I don't, I don't I would move that it'd be a different two. Second.

[2:35:51] Oh sorry. Which two?

[2:35:53] Oh last motion, which is what?

[2:35:57] Motioned by Beatty-Hansen, seconded by Corrieri.

[2:36:00] Three to remove the I. Yes. Thank you. That was a second.

[2:36:03] All right.

[2:36:03] Those in favor of that motion say aye.

[2:36:04] Aye. Okay.

[2:36:07] Any opposed?

[2:36:08] Okay. So we remove the ISU

[2:36:10] city council representative.

[2:36:12] Thank you.

[2:36:13] Go ahead I would move that

[2:36:15] the dinner be two other city council members

[2:36:21] other than the to the did the phone did the phone interviews okay.

[2:36:25] Second.

[2:36:27] Appointed by the mayor?

[2:36:29] Yeah that's fine. Okay appointed by the mayor.

[2:36:31] He's going to run out of choices here. Yeah.

[2:36:33] You know yeah I don't know people's time.

[2:36:34] Well, the whole idea is to try and get everyone the opportunity to be exposed to

[2:36:38] in a variety of settings.

[2:36:39] Yeah. Maybe a that's appropriate.

[2:36:41] So yeah, I think it would just be new people if possible

[2:36:44] because our schedules to allow us to be available

[2:36:48] and it may still be the same two if we're available at the other time.

[2:36:52] Totally true. That's fair. Yeah.

[2:36:57] Okay.

[2:36:57] We got the. So read the motion.

[2:37:00] So I have that it was moved by Beatty-Hansen that the dinner, be

[2:37:03] two other city council members if possible, appointed by the mayor.

[2:37:08] Was there a second on that? That was seconded by Gartin.

[2:37:10] Okay. Thank you.

[2:37:11] It's two others

[2:37:12] being the two other than the ones that were at the phone interview.

[2:37:15] This was the phone interview changed to everyone in sets of two.

[2:37:21] No, no, that was a different thing.

[2:37:22] That was a different.

[2:37:23] It was the mayor and two appointed by the mayor, right?

[2:37:26] Yes. That's what that was for the phone interview.

[2:37:29] Other different two in the phone got it.

[2:37:32] All right. Those in favor of motion say aye. Aye.

[2:37:35] Any opposed?

[2:37:35] Any opposed? Carried.

[2:37:40] Any other questions

[2:37:42] on day one?

[2:37:44] I'd say on day one for the public presentation,

[2:37:49] I think that would be an appropriate time for the,

[2:37:52] ISU student government person to try and be there.

[2:37:57] I think it should be highly encouraged that they attend that meeting.

[2:38:00] It should be when? I’m sorry.

[2:38:02] For the public presentation to have HR specifically invite

[2:38:06] ISU Iowa State University student government executives.

[2:38:10] Day one.

[2:38:12] Could be the executives or, and

[2:38:15] or someone the representative representative. To the public

[2:38:19] session time? Okay. Yeah. We could representative. Yeah.

[2:38:21] I think that we can them we could the public.

[2:38:23] Yeah.

[2:38:23] Yeah, I think that's a more appropriate time than the dinner.

[2:38:27] We can't stop them from coming anyway.

[2:38:28] Yeah, I think it's a courtesy.

[2:38:31] We can encourage extensive. Exactly.

[2:38:33] Yeah. It's happening here. Yep.

[2:38:35] Okay.

[2:38:36] It's perfect.

[2:38:37] That's good.

[2:38:37] I think that could just be added with that as well.

[2:38:41] And and I'll, I'll see you and I'll raise you one.

[2:38:43] I think given the relationship that we have with the, university,

[2:38:49] law, the attorneys there, as well as the Story County attorney,

[2:38:52] I think this would also be a place to invite-invite them.

[2:38:55] It's a very close working relationship.

[2:38:57] You should make a motion so we have it.

[2:38:59] Sure, I’ll move that

[2:39:00] we invite, Iowa State Legal and Story

[2:39:03] county attorney, to the public presentation. In addition?

[2:39:06] And they'd like to wrap in her, and ISU student government, and.

[2:39:10] Yes. Can I raise you one? Yes.

[2:39:13] Is there a, Story county attorneys, something

[2:39:17] association, Bar association we contact?

[2:39:20] Can we email members? Oh, sure.

[2:39:23] Yeah, that would be attorneys do business.

[2:39:25] And you saw and raised me one.

[2:39:27] That is a good suggestion because in in, actually,

[2:39:31] when we did this before for Mark, we there was an invitation to the Story

[2:39:34] County Bar Association.

[2:39:35] I forgotten that.

[2:39:36] Oh yeah. I'll just call and second.

[2:39:39] All right.

[2:39:41] So you are you clear in the motion?

[2:39:43] I have Gartin moved to invite the ISU

[2:39:47] legal department, the Story County attorney's office to the public

[2:39:51] presentation, in addition to the ISU

[2:39:53] student government representative, as well as the Story County bar Association.

[2:39:57] Yes. Good job.

[2:39:58] Well done. Was there a second? Seconded by Beatty-Hansen.

[2:40:01] Okay. All right.

[2:40:01] Those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed?

[2:40:06] All right.

[2:40:07] Anything else on day one?

[2:40:09] Otherwise I go onto day two.

[2:40:15] Okay.

[2:40:15] So day two, we have the day starting out with a written exercise.

[2:40:21] I know we've had some, some feedback about the written exercise.

[2:40:25] It is a typical part of the process, but, we certainly don't have to include

[2:40:30] that for this position.

[2:40:34] We like to include a city hall

[2:40:37] tour as a way to engage a staff member

[2:40:41] from the department to walk around again, informal conversation, talk

[2:40:45] about different places within City Hall and have some different conversation.

[2:40:50] And then we like to provide an opportunity

[2:40:53] for the candidate to interact the city manager's office.

[2:40:57] So that would be with the city manager, assistant city managers and HR director.

[2:41:03] And so that would just be a lunch opportunity,

[2:41:05] just, again, informal, just to talk about the relationship

[2:41:08] between the city attorney's office and the city manager's office.

[2:41:13] We know that the city manager's not the decision maker in this,

[2:41:17] recruitment, but is still a really, really important

[2:41:19] relationship that we want to provide that opportunity if we can.

[2:41:23] And then to close out the day,

[2:41:26] I put in this

[2:41:27] draft document, just a short conversation for a closing discussion.

[2:41:31] Again, it's with the mayor, but it could be with it, with anyone,

[2:41:35] any part of the city council.

[2:41:38] Just to close out the experience.

[2:41:40] What if so, the remaining two and the mayor.

[2:41:44] There we go.

[2:41:45] Like that every.

[2:41:47] All council members have the opportunity to do that.

[2:41:49] Perfect.

[2:41:49] I would I'd move that that closing discussion, if possible

[2:41:54] include the remaining two council members if they haven't been involved yet,

[2:42:00] and are able and the mayor and the human resources director,

[2:42:05] Is there a second? Second.

[2:42:07] Okay.

[2:42:10] Those in favor of the motion say aye.

[2:42:12] Aye. Any opposed?

[2:42:15] Okay.

[2:42:15] Now let's go back to the written exercise.

[2:42:18] There was would you describe that a little more?

[2:42:19] And then I think that's something that we got feedback from Mark on that.

[2:42:22] And also I think, Tim, you had some quite also let's talk about that for a second.

[2:42:27] That was and I was curious on that same topic to describe what it is-

[2:42:32] you-you mentioned

[2:42:33] it's part of the standard procedure for department heads.

[2:42:36] Is that and so yeah, maybe talk about what that looks like. Sure.

[2:42:39] And so it depends on what the position is.

[2:42:42] We typically add some sort of writing exercise, written exercise.

[2:42:47] It's not a test.

[2:42:48] It's not an exam, but it's a scenario that we ask

[2:42:51] candidates to reflect on, respond to,

[2:42:56] and we keep

[2:42:57] it related to the work that they will likely be doing.

[2:43:00] And so, for example, when I went through the process myself,

[2:43:03] I review or I was, given a scenario regarding union contracts,

[2:43:08] and I was asked to provide an opinion to review and write something about it.

[2:43:13] So, it gauges, writing style, communication style

[2:43:19] and kind of interpretation of different things.

[2:43:23] So we do that typically

[2:43:24] for these types of positions, but it's always related to that position.

[2:43:29] So this is a suggestion.

[2:43:31] It could be something different

[2:43:34] or eliminate altogether. Yeah. Correct.

[2:43:38] How often in the past have you

[2:43:42] found that tool to, to just, you know, to.

[2:43:47] Yeah.

[2:43:47] I mean, is it an impactful measuring metric at this level of a position?

[2:43:52] Yeah.

[2:43:53] So I have not seen this

[2:43:56] exercise disqualify someone,

[2:43:59] but it does provide insight into their communication style.

[2:44:04] And so if there's something that really resonates we can talk about that further.

[2:44:08] Or if there's something

[2:44:09] where we have some questions, we can just have some further discussion.

[2:44:12] So it's a tool. It's not a decision maker.

[2:44:15] It's that's that's not the purpose.

[2:44:17] It's just we're gathering some information.

[2:44:19] We have lots of different touch points, lots of different involvement

[2:44:23] and pieces in a big recruitment like this.

[2:44:27] And so the decision makers

[2:44:28] get to consider all of the information and decide together.

[2:44:32] Do we want some follow up based on what we've learned in this particular element.

[2:44:38] So I don't have it.

[2:44:39] You don't have to. I move, we remove it.

[2:44:43] There a second? Second.

[2:44:45] Okay.

[2:44:47] Any further discussion?

[2:44:48] So I, I, I think that the sentiment behind this is spot on.

[2:44:54] Just given the nature of what we ask our city attorney to do.

[2:44:57] But I think we can achieve that information in other ways.

[2:45:02] Both through direct conversation with the candidate,

[2:45:06] but also so I would recommend that as you think about the questions,

[2:45:11] maybe you have some model questions that you have some consistency

[2:45:14] that we're using in the phone conversations.

[2:45:16] Just so we're asking

[2:45:18] a base number of questions, and we want to create some freedom

[2:45:21] for the people that are there.

[2:45:23] But having a base set of questions that every candidate's going to be asked.

[2:45:26] And one of those could be to describe a situation where you were asked to review

[2:45:31] or to draft an agreement and that presented some unique challenges.

[2:45:35] How did you address that? That's right.

[2:45:37] And then we could also approach that from discussions with, letters

[2:45:42] of recommendation or the references that the person is going to be bringing.

[2:45:47] That could be a specific question, and I think it's a fair question to ask.

[2:45:52] I in fact, I think would be,

[2:45:54] irresponsible of us if we didn't ask that question.

[2:45:58] So I think we can achieve that goal other ways.

[2:46:00] So you’re suggestion to replace about 90 minutes

[2:46:04] having some general questions that would be asked for each candidate,

[2:46:07] they would write something up to?

[2:46:08] No. And all together eight questions. Right.

[2:46:11] So I think we can achieve the goal of understanding

[2:46:15] how the applicant approaches contract review and drafting

[2:46:20] through dialog and, and and in some ways,

[2:46:23] more importantly, from the people who've worked with this applicant

[2:46:26] I have, I want to know, you know, what the city manager thinks,

[2:46:30] or the other people who worked with that person who will be serving as references.

[2:46:33] What they say that. Yeah.

[2:46:35] I mean, I understand clearly what if someone's from

[2:46:38] from private practice into this role?

[2:46:42] Would there be a message you could like-?

[2:46:45] Oh, of course. Would that

[2:46:48] would that be?

[2:46:48] And I'm not arguing for an extra.

[2:46:50] I'm just curious.

[2:46:51] It would be the same.

[2:46:52] So understand most, cities in Iowa don't have staff attorney, so they're relying on

[2:46:59] private attorneys who may represent 3 or 4 different communities.

[2:47:02] And they're doing exactly the same work.

[2:47:04] We just have the luxury of having three staff attorneys.

[2:47:07] It's awesome.

[2:47:09] Okay, so I'm going to ask something which I don't even know whether anybody up here

[2:47:16] is paying attention to what's going on with AI,

[2:47:20] but there have been a number of situations

[2:47:23] where attorneys have used AI to write

[2:47:28] their,

[2:47:30] their briefs, their,

[2:47:33] what?

[2:47:33] I don't even know what the what the documents

[2:47:35] are called, all kinds of things.

[2:47:37] Sure. But they're using AI. Right.

[2:47:39] And it seems like this could be a concern for us

[2:47:45] because there are people being sued because their lawyers are using AI

[2:47:52] and a written exercise which requires somebody to not use AI,

[2:47:57] may actually show us something different than what

[2:48:00] we would normally be expecting from a written exercise.

[2:48:05] Yeah, this is a

[2:48:07] great question.

[2:48:08] That doesn’t necessarily mean that you would never get it in the future though. No.

[2:48:12] But if somebody's not sure what that can do this exercise without it,

[2:48:18] then they're less likely to use it in the future.

[2:48:22] Yeah, that's just my experience with, anything with AI in the workplace.

[2:48:27] I think that's a great question.

[2:48:29] And I think it could be a question that you would pose in the phone

[2:48:32] interviews or at some point,

[2:48:35] the AI is

[2:48:38] it would be crazy if our lawyers were not using AI.

[2:48:41] Right.

[2:48:42] And but it doesn't.

[2:48:43] It's not serving as a replacement.

[2:48:45] And there have been some the early versions of

[2:48:48] AI had a lot more problems in terms of creating phantom authorities.

[2:48:52] Still do it.

[2:48:54] Yeah, but in terms so from an efficiency perspective,

[2:49:00] you want your city attorney

[2:49:02] to maybe draft a motion using AI to frame the issues,

[2:49:06] but then going back over

[2:49:07] to ultimately it's going to be the city attorney's signature at the bottom.

[2:49:11] So they're responsible for that work product

[2:49:13] either way.

[2:49:14] But, we're entering into a new world where something that might take City

[2:49:19] Attorney two days to do, the AI

[2:49:23] under Lexis can do this in two minutes.

[2:49:26] And so from an efficiency perspective, we need our attorneys

[2:49:29] to be fluent and using it appropriately. I’m not saying we shouldn't have them using it.

[2:49:34] What I'm saying is a lot of people aren't as careful as they should be,

[2:49:38] and we need to have a city attorney that will be careful.

[2:49:42] I agree with you 100%.

[2:49:43] I think it's a good question.

[2:49:45] Okay. Yeah, I agree with 100%. It

[2:49:48] the motion that there's a motion made.

[2:49:50] And second that the exercise was eliminated.

[2:49:53] Correct? Correct.

[2:49:54] So is there anything else that needs to be added in to that day,

[2:49:59] or are we satisfied with what it that day is right now?

[2:50:05] That's the question.

[2:50:06] So we can move on.

[2:50:10] I don't hear anything else.

[2:50:11] I think we'll assume that

[2:50:14] day two we'll start with the City Hall tour

[2:50:17] break lunch, city manager, and then the closing discussion.

[2:50:20] Correct.

[2:50:22] Unless something else comes up, I guess I'll speak to the board exactly.

[2:50:26] Yeah, they'll be here.

[2:50:28] Can we have a talent show? No, just.

[2:50:30] Okay.

[2:50:31] What else do you need to talk about?

[2:50:33] I mean, you understood about it.

[2:50:35] We need to vote on the most late at night lock in a little late.

[2:50:38] Sorry.

[2:50:38] Motion to strike the

[2:50:40] writing exercise.

[2:50:41] We didn't vote on it. Carly. Sorry. Oh.

[2:50:44] Keeping us on track.

[2:50:45] Those in favor of the motion to strike the written

[2:50:48] exercise of day two, please say aye. Aye.

[2:50:53] Any opposed?

[2:50:54] Any opposed?

[2:50:57] Motion carried.

[2:50:58] All right, bring us on home

[2:51:00] Bethany, here we go.

[2:51:00] Okay, so after that

[2:51:04] glorious two day

[2:51:06] interview experience for these candidates,

[2:51:10] you will want to discuss the candidates.

[2:51:13] And so, we typically do that in a debrief.

[2:51:19] So this could be done.

[2:51:21] A couple of options here, but it's it would be,

[2:51:25] all of the people involved, plus city manager

[2:51:28] plus the HR director to debrief and discuss all the candidates

[2:51:32] with the goal of selecting a finalist and then beginning reference checks.

[2:51:38] All the feedback will be shared from the groups to participate in DLT. The,

[2:51:42] legal staff employees,

[2:51:43] the public presentations. And is that an open meeting of council?

[2:51:48] That I believe that would be in closed session.

[2:51:51] Okay.

[2:51:51] To discuss because you're discussing the candidates.

[2:51:55] Okay. Yeah, that makes sense. Okay.

[2:51:56] So that's a closed session that said that said city council.

[2:51:59] But it should be the mayor and council in there, correct?

[2:52:02] Yeah.

[2:52:06] Okay.

[2:52:09] So the people who vote on it right.

[2:52:11] Right.

[2:52:12] Council.

[2:52:16] All right.

[2:52:16] Anything else you would like from us tonight?

[2:52:20] We voted on all the motions independently.

[2:52:23] So you don't need to have a one big fell swoop motion.

[2:52:27] Is there anything else council wants to add?

[2:52:30] Well, I, I was curious,

[2:52:34] so you're not getting,

[2:52:39] you're doing the final background check.

[2:52:41] You're looking at,

[2:52:44] resources at the end of the process.

[2:52:47] And I'm curious.

[2:52:49] I mean, this is another way.

[2:52:50] If you wanted to get writings, writing issues, you could ask for writing samples.

[2:52:54] That's not going to ruffle a lawyer's feathers.

[2:52:56] They would have things.

[2:52:58] Yeah, but we we don't do it because we don't like it to

[2:53:00] be pre-prepared by. Could be somebody else is doing it.

[2:53:03] We like to see the the actual product being developed here.

[2:53:06] Okay.

[2:53:08] I'm assume they have good writing samples. But in terms of checking

[2:53:12] references,

[2:53:13] Bethany, you typically do that at the end of the process?

[2:53:16] We do, we typically check references

[2:53:19] once a finalist has been named

[2:53:22] simply because the reference check process is fairly extensive.

[2:53:26] We ask we try to talk with at least three people,

[2:53:30] including current supervisor.

[2:53:33] Could be more for a city attorney candidate,

[2:53:36] depending on where they've worked and how many positions they've had.

[2:53:40] And the the conversations are fairly extensive.

[2:53:42] We ask for a lot of information,

[2:53:44] and sometimes it takes a while to hear back from the references.

[2:53:49] So it could take a week or two to get through one candidate's references.

[2:53:54] So if we were to do that with a larger pool, it could be,

[2:53:58] so right, time consuming.

[2:53:59] Or if we did it earlier in the process with more people.

[2:54:02] So we typically do it once a finalist has been identified,

[2:54:06] and then once the references come back and they're good,

[2:54:10] then we issue a conditional offer and then begin the background check process.

[2:54:14] So very rarely get three files.

[2:54:16] You do you check the background or references in all three.

[2:54:19] You usually go for the one year.

[2:54:21] It could affect the employment,

[2:54:23] status of the individual if they're found to be looking for a job.

[2:54:26] But let's say we're down to two that are tied or

[2:54:28] we just don't know how to break the tie.

[2:54:30] You might do a second reference check, right?

[2:54:32] If that’ll pull them into the lead.

[2:54:34] Normally we stay with the first person,

[2:54:35] if they stand out, focus on that person only.

[2:54:39] Okay, that's helpful. Thank you.

[2:54:42] Okay.

[2:54:43] Anything else?

[2:54:45] Thank you for your efforts.

[2:54:48] And so you're gonna

[2:54:51] anticipate, issuing this

[2:54:53] here pretty soon.

[2:54:54] That right?

[2:54:55] Or you're thinking or waiting a little bit here.

[2:54:58] The plan is to begin

[2:55:00] advertising the position May 1st.

[2:55:03] And so we'll create a recruitment brochure in April

[2:55:09] and then post the position May 1st, run that for 30 days

[2:55:13] and then start working through the applicants

[2:55:17] so we can stick to the schedule as much as possible.

[2:55:21] I tried to leave as much room in the schedule as possible to account

[2:55:26] for, you know, if people are on vacation

[2:55:29] and we can't get people in, or if you

[2:55:33] find that you want to bring five people in for onsite interviews,

[2:55:36] we just need to spread things out a little bit.

[2:55:38] So this is a tentative schedule depending on how many candidates we have.

[2:55:42] And Bethany where do you post this?

[2:55:45] So this will be posted on the city's website.

[2:55:48] And then there are a number of,

[2:55:51] other websites that scrape the city's website.

[2:55:53] So Indeed we can do a sponsored posting on

[2:55:56] Indeed, most of our applications come from those places.

[2:56:00] But then we've also identified a number of alumni association.

[2:56:04] So with Iowa State University of Iowa, Drake Law Schools,

[2:56:09] there's the International Municipal Lawyers Association,

[2:56:12] Iowa League of Cities, and if there are any other places

[2:56:16] that we can identify to push the posting will absolutely do that as well.

[2:56:20] Yeah.

[2:56:21] So the Iowa Bar Association and, Mark can help.

[2:56:24] I, I'm

[2:56:25] not connected with the Municipal Attorneys Association, but Mark could help with,

[2:56:31] finding a way to post there.

[2:56:32] I do like the fact that you're posting on the Iowa League of Cities as well, but,

[2:56:36] definitely the bar and the Municipal Attorneys Association.

[2:56:40] Yeah.

[2:56:41] Great.

[2:56:44] Well, exciting.

[2:56:45] Oh, and I think be helpful too, as you're working through this if there a way to kind of

[2:56:48] block out what you think might be some potential council meeting.

[2:56:53] Or when you might like.

[2:56:55] One is is there I know that us in the summer

[2:56:57] people have got vacation as well.

[2:56:59] And so we're just trying to make sure

[2:57:00] we can hopefully get all six council members involved with,

[2:57:04] you know, all seven of us being involved and avoid some potential,

[2:57:09] you know, hiccups or pitfalls, essentially.

[2:57:13] Okay.

[2:57:13] All right.

[2:57:16] Thank you very much.

[2:57:17] Thank you,

[2:57:17] Brian. Move on to, item number

[2:57:23] 41 expanding

[2:57:27] or establishing park boundaries.

[2:57:34] Well, I'm honored that you saved the best for last.

[2:57:36] Absolutely.

[2:57:37] I mean, well, we actually still have ordinances.

[2:57:43] So, with this, I'm not going to spend a lot of time

[2:57:46] going through through anything.

[2:57:48] All the information was there.

[2:57:50] I do have slides.

[2:57:51] If you have a specific question about something.

[2:57:54] Otherwise, you know, we are taking care of these, properties already.

[2:57:58] They're adjacent to existing parks, except for, for Delaware.

[2:58:04] And, you know, we're mowing.

[2:58:06] We're we're snow- plowing snow.

[2:58:09] We're managing the areas, we're cleaning up the areas and so on.

[2:58:13] And really with this is by expanding

[2:58:17] the park boundaries or establishing greenways.

[2:58:21] All of these areas will now have a set of standards,

[2:58:24] our park rules or park ordinances

[2:58:27] and, clear expectations for, the users.

[2:58:30] So with that said, I would entertain any questions if anybody has any.

[2:58:36] So this all makes sense.

[2:58:37] I, I was curious, do we have inventories

[2:58:41] of other properties that we might logically consider this for.

[2:58:46] Or is this sort of taking care of, of that group?

[2:58:50] This is when we went through

[2:58:52] and we looked at all of this, this is what we came up with.

[2:58:56] We we don’t- that there wasn't any other areas that we could think of

[2:59:00] that we might want to entertain, to, to do this. So.

[2:59:04] So these are the areas that we're, we're suggesting.

[2:59:06] Okay, thanks. Yeah.

[2:59:08] I’d ask the same question to actually about if we

[2:59:11] if we should consider some other sort of catchall

[2:59:15] phrasing to catch any we're not thinking of either now

[2:59:18] or future areas, but it sounds like that's not a concern.

[2:59:23] Or you think that we'd be able to go back and catch them at the time

[2:59:26] and future areas.

[2:59:28] We will define more clearly when they come into this-

[2:59:31] the city. Is that our idea there?

[2:59:34] If we have additional parks or additional green space, you know, like.

[2:59:39] Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

[2:59:41] No, I think, you know, there's always opportunity that if,

[2:59:44] you know, as the community grows, you know, maybe there's, hey,

[2:59:49] this greenway, would make sense to, to to do something or we're going to add,

[2:59:55] well, just for example,

[2:59:58] when we get the connection from Lincoln way to South 16th.

[3:00:02] Sure. All right.

[3:00:04] That area would say, hey, that now becomes part of the the Greenway.

[3:00:09] So, so there will be there will be places

[3:00:12] or there will be areas that, will come up in the future.

[3:00:15] And I think we addressed those when they, when they happen.

[3:00:19] Okay.

[3:00:20] Any questions?

[3:00:23] Open up public comment.

[3:00:24] Does anyone want address council on this topic tonight?

[3:00:29] I guess our recommendation

[3:00:30] is number alternative one. Close public input.

[3:00:34] Is there a motion? Move alternative one. I’ll second.

[3:00:37] Thank you. Roll call.

[3:00:40] Betcher? Aye. Junck? Aye.

[3:00:44] Corrieri? Aye. Rollins? Aye.

[3:00:47] Beatty- Hansen? Aye. Gartin? Aye.

[3:00:51] Very good, all right that he that one question do do we have a date

[3:00:55] I haven't seen a date yet for ribbon cutting for the Fitch aquatic center.

[3:00:59] Do you have anything to announce tonight on that.

[3:01:02] We do not because there's a few items that we are working through that,

[3:01:06] that have come up, which was, some of them were highlighted in, the monthly update.

[3:01:11] So, so there is,

[3:01:14] the heated

[3:01:15] sidewalk out front that we need to take care of.

[3:01:18] There’s still the

[3:01:20] replacing the glass to the sidewalk in the southwest corner

[3:01:23] and, and, through the discussions, what we'd really like to, to do

[3:01:27] is, is get all of those items done

[3:01:31] and then open, because if we open too soon and we can't get those items done,

[3:01:35] then we're going to have to either close or affect operation.

[3:01:39] So so through conversations with the city manager,

[3:01:42] we have decided let's get these things done and then open.

[3:01:46] So we're still thinking maybe the end of April,

[3:01:49] but but I have another meeting tomorrow afternoon.

[3:01:52] For an update.

[3:01:53] And as soon as we know we will get that information out.

[3:01:56] Thank you so much. Yep.

[3:01:58] And again, I would just remind that we are doing that,

[3:02:01] you know, donor preview next week, Tuesday. So,

[3:02:05] hopefully everybody can can make it 4 to 6.

[3:02:09] 5:00 is, a short program, but again, that is just for the donors.

[3:02:14] It's not a public event.

[3:02:17] Right.

[3:02:18] So move on to this next one. Yep.

[3:02:20] All right. With this,

[3:02:22] I'm not going to go through all the history.

[3:02:24] You see, the council understands that.

[3:02:27] But I just do want to, you know, mention.

[3:02:29] So, we did, like we've talked before,

[3:02:33] this is the mock up panel that, they have, the right side of

[3:02:38] it is not detergent washed or anything along those lines on the left side.

[3:02:43] The top, panel, was detergent washed and then three colors

[3:02:48] that we picked out is Rushing River, which was again, the color

[3:02:53] that was to be the integral color for the this, these panels.

[3:02:58] So that's, that one.

[3:02:59] And then silver lining was another one, and the bottom one was cement.

[3:03:03] So this kind of gives you,

[3:03:05] the three colors together.

[3:03:07] And then also against, the,

[3:03:12] the, the non natatorium area, which is on the left side.

[3:03:15] So, so again, just with this picture, you know, this is what it,

[3:03:20] looks like this picture was just taken to, to today.

[3:03:23] Just to give you an idea, we've talked about the, the mottling,

[3:03:28] the the blotchy look, all those kinds of things.

[3:03:32] From our perspective, staff's perspective,

[3:03:34] on sunny days, it's even worse.

[3:03:38] It's more prominent.

[3:03:39] And then one thing that, we did is,

[3:03:43] we did have RTG do a rendering, and this is showing,

[3:03:48] the Rushing River,

[3:03:51] color.

[3:03:51] So, so it does, darken up a little bit from what it is.

[3:03:55] The, the stain itself is it's,

[3:03:58] it's a penetrating, stain that's UV resistant.

[3:04:02] It's water resistant.

[3:04:03] There's other characteristics.

[3:04:05] Those kind of give kind of an opaque look.

[3:04:08] It will cover, the, the, the blemishes that are, that are on there.

[3:04:14] We did, check with NawKaw,

[3:04:16] who is the stain provider,

[3:04:19] and we did have questions about, the warranty.

[3:04:24] Because,

[3:04:25] looking in into deeper, there was a question about,

[3:04:29] does your project qualify?

[3:04:31] So we did have conversation with the manufacturer, and they did

[3:04:35] give us a written warranty for this project, saying that this,

[3:04:39] will qualify for a 25 year warranty.

[3:04:43] Now, there are, you know, other things.

[3:04:46] If there's an earthquake or there's something

[3:04:49] or if the the response that were painted and then things,

[3:04:52] all of that kind of stuff.

[3:04:53] There are some, some disqualifiers, but

[3:04:57] so, so with it. Keith

[3:04:59] on a warranty, what what does a warranty cover specifically?

[3:05:04] Is it fading, peeling, chalking?

[3:05:07] I mean, is it I say standard-

[3:05:10] I mean, not not going into the weeds.

[3:05:12] I understand that, you know, it's going to eliminate earthquakes or

[3:05:15] vandalism or stuff like that, but, I mean, what are the highlights are in what?

[3:05:19] So, so so in a nutshell, it talks.

[3:05:22] It warrants the owner there for a period of 25 years.

[3:05:25] The NawKaw product indicated above will conform to published specifications.

[3:05:30] And in fact, as of the date of purchase and apply.

[3:05:33] That's okay.

[3:05:33] I'm sorry it's getting late. Yeah.

[3:05:35] Yeah. So if staff’s satisfied that-

[3:05:38] Does it cover fading?

[3:05:40] Just fading, crack cracking, those kind of things?

[3:05:45] And I don't know, Russ’ here from from,

[3:05:49] from story construction.

[3:05:50] I don't know if you know that, Russ?

[3:05:53] You have to have this in writing.

[3:05:57] Russ, come up and talk to here at the microphone. Or.

[3:06:04] Yeah, it just, it just has limitations.

[3:06:08] You know, but it doesn't.

[3:06:09] The point is, is that 25 year warranty is great,

[3:06:13] but if it's a cover fading

[3:06:17] chalking and our word, you know, cracking, peeling,

[3:06:20] the lamination, that's all covered and that's great.

[3:06:24] There's probably going to be a little bit of fade and any, any color, but

[3:06:29] and this has missed applications.

[3:06:31] Well, then you got to go through like a specifications.

[3:06:33] I'm just trying to make sure that we're being protected

[3:06:36] on the basis that Council wants to go with this thing.

[3:06:39] Yeah, yeah.

[3:06:40] And I guess I don't I don't know, maybe it's okay just to kind of make sure

[3:06:45] that it goes into it, that it'd be subject to final staff review and satisfaction.

[3:06:50] I don't know, it's just right.

[3:06:52] Go ahead.

[3:06:54] Yeah.

[3:06:54] So I'm Russ Luten and, with Story construction, our director of operations.

[3:06:58] So I'm looking at the data I have here.

[3:07:00] It doesn't get the level of detail.

[3:07:02] I think it what your question is heading toward.

[3:07:04] We have that detail.

[3:07:06] I can't tell you specifically exactly everything and how it's covered.

[3:07:10] So I think we can provide that to Keith and make sure that

[3:07:13] it's meeting the expectations that you have.

[3:07:17] So so it does it does say on here when applied according to printed

[3:07:20] instructions, will be free from defects in materials

[3:07:23] which result in fading, flaking or peeling.

[3:07:26] So I don't know if

[3:07:27] that helps you and from, from that that's the right.

[3:07:31] But so, so so with, with this,

[3:07:35] you know, the staff recommendation,

[3:07:39] is the alternative one, which would be to, to go with stain,

[3:07:44] which is the, the Russian River.

[3:07:47] That is the color that, was originally,

[3:07:50] selected, you know, for this and the integral color,

[3:07:55] but, you know, if Council wanted to, to do something else, you know, one of the

[3:07:59] I think option three is, getting the credit.

[3:08:03] That's, we're talking about $52,000 in the for the cost of the services.

[3:08:09] Take the money and run.

[3:08:12] All right.

[3:08:13] Discussion questions.

[3:08:17] I, I,

[3:08:19] I like the option where we just take the money personally.

[3:08:23] That's my my preference.

[3:08:24] I don't think it looks that bad, and I'm not.

[3:08:26] I've not heard one citizen complain about the look of the building thing. So,

[3:08:32] that that's kind of my

[3:08:33] preference to save, say, that money something, but.

[3:08:37] Okay, so you said you haven't had anybody, right?

[3:08:40] Okay. Yep.

[3:08:41] Not one person. And people ask about it.

[3:08:43] I mean

[3:08:45] it. Yeah.

[3:08:46] They've been

[3:08:47] they don't know unless you tell them.

[3:08:49] Yeah, exactly.

[3:08:50] They're like oh yeah okay I guess maybe.

[3:08:52] But I mean if did I didn't know till it was discussed here.

[3:08:55] I didn't know it is as we have had people come to us and say,

[3:08:59] are you going to do anything else with, you know, there's a lot of people.

[3:09:02] No, but but we have had

[3:09:04] people come to us and say, are you going to do anything else with,

[3:09:08] with the, the building if you told them how much we.

[3:09:12] Well, I don't know if he told them the funding

[3:09:15] that was involved or that we got back, I don't know.

[3:09:17] Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, it's it again.

[3:09:21] I could be talked out of that, but,

[3:09:24] so why don't.

[3:09:24] So technical question.

[3:09:27] Would we want to also

[3:09:29] make sure that we acquire enough of this paint?

[3:09:32] I mean, you wouldn't want this paint to go out of production or something.

[3:09:35] So would that be part of our plan here is if we go with alternative one,

[3:09:41] then we would also secure a certain

[3:09:44] amount of supply of this

[3:09:47] typically is

[3:09:49] typically that wouldn't be something we we'd probably have some if there was a,

[3:09:53] touch up or something that we, we needed to do.

[3:09:57] But but typically we wouldn't, we wouldn't secure enough product.

[3:10:01] So when we need to do it in 25 years from, from now that we would do that.

[3:10:06] Okay. But you may just be a different slightly different color.

[3:10:09] And, and Russ might be able to speak to this as well.

[3:10:12] But I'm going to guess the way it is right now if,

[3:10:16] if you have the the the specifications for a color,

[3:10:20] you can you can just about get any, any color made whenever you want.

[3:10:25] Okay.

[3:10:25] All right.

[3:10:25] So gray tone colors.

[3:10:29] And the last grading color.

[3:10:31] Right I think I'm imagining it.

[3:10:33] You okay? Great. Thanks.

[3:10:35] So if if we don't do anything, are we sure that

[3:10:43] the concrete hasn't been sealed yet?

[3:10:47] And if we aren’t going to do anything,

[3:10:49] should we be sealing it?

[3:10:53] Yeah.

[3:10:54] So so the, the there is.

[3:10:57] No, I don't believe there's a sealer on this concrete.

[3:11:00] No, I don't believe it was, detergent washed after it was formed

[3:11:05] and installed was detergent washed, but

[3:11:08] there has been no sealer on of this.

[3:11:12] Were we expecting that the stain,

[3:11:16] if it were integrated into the concrete,

[3:11:19] would have been acting as a sealant

[3:11:23] to the concrete?

[3:11:25] Or is this just a non-issue?

[3:11:27] Yeah, I don't think it's an issue with the performance of the concrete itself.

[3:11:31] Issues.

[3:11:32] Stripping didn't have the right color in the color mix, and

[3:11:36] but the performance of the concrete should be fine too.

[3:11:38] There's.

[3:11:42] Keith, from the

[3:11:43] esthetic standpoint, is RDG

[3:11:46] recommending it be stained

[3:11:49] because they believe it's going to

[3:11:52] be better in terms of appearance.

[3:11:54] I meet the design, vision or is it?

[3:11:58] They just said that they were just assigning responsibility in their letter,

[3:12:02] just saying that it's it's blotchy and,

[3:12:07] you know,

[3:12:09] they're just saying that should be stained at the cost of the contractor.

[3:12:12] Yeah. You know, you know which way that is.

[3:12:14] Yeah.

[3:12:15] No, I think they're they're recommendation was to was to the stain.

[3:12:20] You know, from the aesthetic standpoint.

[3:12:23] Right.

[3:12:25] All right.

[3:12:28] I'm going to go ahead and move alternative one.

[3:12:31] I have some reasons.

[3:12:32] But let's see if anyone is there a second.

[3:12:38] Motion died by lack of a second.

[3:12:39] Is there a motion I mean this. Well, yeah.

[3:12:43] Well I mean this is a very prominent building in our community.

[3:12:46] It's a it's a gateway building and I want it to look nice.

[3:12:49] I mean, if you don't paint your shed in the back of your house, who cares?

[3:12:52] But this is a front door,

[3:12:55] building a prominent thoroughfare.

[3:12:57] How come?

[3:12:58] How can we not make it the way it's supposed to look?

[3:13:00] This is, and the $52,000 in the big scheme of this project

[3:13:05] is we shouldn't be arguing about $52,000.

[3:13:08] Let's get the project we want. The way and way.

[3:13:10] It's design, the way it should look.

[3:13:12] Good aesthetics are important.

[3:13:14] All right, move second in.

[3:13:16] I do think it would really

[3:13:19] finish off a very beautiful project.

[3:13:21] Essentially. Okay.

[3:13:22] So my concern

[3:13:25] is that if we do stain it, it's still not going to look like

[3:13:30] it was supposed to look, because we will get

[3:13:34] the modeling coming through the stain.

[3:13:37] And at that point we sealed the concrete.

[3:13:39] And I don't know what we can do about it after that.

[3:13:42] Whereas, you know, taking

[3:13:45] the breather, leaving it as it is and seeing

[3:13:49] if it improves at all at least gives us that opportunity.

[3:13:54] And maybe it will look better.

[3:13:57] But I hate to close off that option

[3:14:02] and then end up with something that looks worse than it does now,

[3:14:06] because it's not going to be what we requested.

[3:14:09] It's not integrated.

[3:14:10] Can you comment on that

[3:14:11] in terms of the type of stain that's being put on there?

[3:14:13] And will it be, will it be basically be concealing

[3:14:17] all the blemishes and making it completely homogenous and uniform and color?

[3:14:21] Yeah.

[3:14:22] Looking you can do with the yeah.

[3:14:25] Looking at the mock up, it's done a pretty fair job of that,

[3:14:28] giving it that consistent like consistent look without the modeling is

[3:14:32] is no longer visible.

[3:14:34] And the mockups out to be seen.

[3:14:35] If you wanted to inspect it, I stopped by, I stopped today

[3:14:40] and I was trying to determine if there was as much market

[3:14:43] to Gloria's Point Park or, you know, camouflage appearance.

[3:14:48] Essentially.

[3:14:49] And I couldn't tell if it was or wasn't.

[3:14:52] And the I guess the question is good, a small test panel and,

[3:14:56] like below the slide where you're not going to see it

[3:14:59] when there is a lot of modeling and if it doesn't,

[3:15:02] I mean, if it if it doesn't cover it.

[3:15:05] Right.

[3:15:06] I'm just I would agree that I've been apprehensive.

[3:15:10] I went out there, looked at it,

[3:15:11] and I understand that it's actually a solid opaque stain.

[3:15:15] It's not your standard wood stain.

[3:15:17] It's actually designed with a high solid content,

[3:15:20] which is designed to give a homogenous appearance. But

[3:15:25] just we don't

[3:15:26] put this on and find out you got, oh, we got dark gray and light gray pockmarks

[3:15:31] instead of light gray and light gray or little darker pockmarks.

[3:15:35] I mean,

[3:15:36] I yeah, I understand what you're saying.

[3:15:38] Yeah. We we had a conversation this morning.

[3:15:42] We had the OEC meeting and, and RDG,

[3:15:46] because we, we did talk about this a little bit

[3:15:49] and RDG did indicate that,

[3:15:53] their, their impression is that because for all those reasons

[3:15:57] that you just said kind of a penetrating, opaque stain that it will cover

[3:16:02] and will have that consistent look, that's what RDG said.

[3:16:06] Now to your second point, mayor.

[3:16:08] One of the things that we have talked about at times,

[3:16:11] not necessarily under the slide or under there,

[3:16:15] but up on the on the north side,

[3:16:19] you know, we do have the, the screen,

[3:16:22] the screening that winds up covering all of the mechanical equipment.

[3:16:27] So we could easily do a pretty large section

[3:16:30] where there's modeling, like what's on the south side.

[3:16:33] Right.

[3:16:35] Yeah.

[3:16:35] And we could do,

[3:16:37] we could do a section up there and say, all right, let's take a look at this,

[3:16:41] do a much bigger area and then say, hey, does that does it cover.

[3:16:46] And if it and then at that point if, if Council says,

[3:16:51] hey, we like it, let's move ahead or no, we don't like it.

[3:16:55] Let's, let's not do it.

[3:16:57] People aren't going to see that because,

[3:16:59] it's green and you're finding a secure area.

[3:17:01] So that's a problem.

[3:17:02] So if you wanted to to take one more step and say it, let's,

[3:17:08] let's do a test spot on the back of the building.

[3:17:11] We can easily do that.

[3:17:15] Okay.

[3:17:16] One other argument I'd make in favor of the standing is that,

[3:17:20] I think we have a duty to the taxpayers, citizens of the community,

[3:17:25] and also the donors who contributed money with anticipation.

[3:17:29] This is going to be a building.

[3:17:30] The Fitch family, they want a building

[3:17:32] that's got their name on it that they feel proud of.

[3:17:34] And I, I think this is a minor thing that we can do to help honor that.

[3:17:38] That donation.

[3:17:40] All right.

[3:17:41] Moved and seconded.

[3:17:42] Okay.

[3:17:43] All those in favor of the motion, please say,

[3:17:45] that immediately staining the whole building or is.

[3:17:49] Yeah, that's a good thing.

[3:17:50] And what Keith has suggested testing it somewhere to see

[3:17:56] whether it actually covers.

[3:17:58] Well, what's what if I do this?

[3:18:02] I will, withdraw my motion and do a little variation on this.

[3:18:07] I would move that.

[3:18:09] We authorize, alternative one

[3:18:13] and that if in the process,

[3:18:16] we would, empower staff to do a test,

[3:18:21] run of this and, and if they feel that

[3:18:24] it is unsatisfactory, then they would come back and report that.

[3:18:28] And with the Council, you get that every second

[3:18:31] here. Second.

[3:18:33] All right.

[3:18:35] Those in favor of the motion say aye, Aye,

[3:18:40] any opposed or abstaining,

[3:18:43] motion carried.

[3:18:44] I think this is a good solution to, try up there on top

[3:18:47] and get a bigger area and find some modeling and go from there.

[3:18:52] All right.

[3:18:53] Thank you, thank you, thank you.

[3:18:57] All right

[3:19:00] up, for that last one.

[3:19:03] Are you.

[3:19:04] It's authorizing the resolution to stage.

[3:19:08] Oh, okay.

[3:19:11] To authorize the resolution to stage

[3:19:13] That's correct.

[3:19:14] We got a roll call.

[3:19:15] I'll read.

[3:19:15] Roll quick. Sorry. She is good.

[3:19:17] She is good. And she. I know.

[3:19:20] Junck. Aye.

[3:19:23] Corrieri. Aye.

[3:19:26] Rollins. Aye.

[3:19:28] Beatty-Hansen. Aye. Gartin. Aye.

[3:19:31] Betcher. Aye.

[3:19:33] I just think of the voice vote as being the practice

[3:19:35] run the session.

[3:19:38] Thank you for keeping me on the straight and narrow.

[3:19:40] Okay, I know you do that. Yes. All right.

[3:19:43] We got everything done up to item 51.

[3:19:45] Correct? That's what I think

[3:19:48] for this reason, northwestern is that way.

[3:19:52] Yeah. Second.

[3:19:54] Move on second.

[3:19:55] All right.

[3:19:56] I get all right.

[3:19:58] ITem 51 to move and second in roll call.

[3:20:03] Correiri. Aye.

[3:20:04] Rollins. Aye.

[3:20:06] Beatty-Hansen. Aye. Gartin. Aye.

[3:20:08] Betcher. Aye. Junck. Aye.

[3:20:12] Thank you Item 52 second reading ordinance

[3:20:14] to amend municipal code city by Ames, Iowa by enacting new section 24.21 thereof

[3:20:19] for the purpose of recreating of creating tax increment financing district

[3:20:23] in a downtown reinvestment district urban renewal area.

[3:20:26] Move on. Second.

[3:20:28] Second.

[3:20:28] Role call.

[3:20:30] Rollins. Aye.

[3:20:32] Beatty-Hansen. Aye. Gartin. Aye.

[3:20:35] Betcher. Aye. Junck. Aye.

[3:20:39] Corrieri. Aye.

[3:20:40] I entertain a motion on second reading of ordinance revising

[3:20:42] municipal code chapters 1017, 21, 22, 27 relating to licenses

[3:20:47] and permits issued by the office of the City Clerk.

[3:20:53] Move on second. Second.

[3:20:55] Thank you. Roll call

[3:20:57] Betty-Hansen. Aye.

[3:20:59] Gartin. Aye. Betcher. Aye.

[3:21:01] Junck. Aye.

[3:21:03] Corrieri. Aye. Rollins. Aye.

[3:21:07] And I entertain a motion on third reading and adoption

[3:21:09] of ordinance number 45 4890 revised code chapter 28 for water

[3:21:14] selling requirements. Move on third. Second. Role call.

[3:21:18] Gartin. Aye. Betcher. Aye.

[3:21:21] Junck. Aye.

[3:21:23] Corrieri. Aye. Rollins. Aye.

[3:21:27] Beatty-Hansen. Aye.

[3:21:29] Thank you.

[3:21:31] All right.

[3:21:31] We have six items of business disposition communication

[3:21:37] First is from Tam Lorenz request for pedestrian safety improvement.

[3:21:41] Crossing Lincoln Way from the Oak to Riverside neighborhood.

[3:21:44] What's.

[3:21:45] Yeah, we already asked for a memo on.

[3:21:48] That's correct. This one.

[3:21:49] And so it's in the works, right? Oh, in the works

[3:21:51] I would move that we communicate to Tam that this is in the works.

[3:21:55] So I got a memo about this topic is in the works I should say.

[3:21:58] Second

[3:22:00] Those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed. Motion carried.

[3:22:05] And then there's, an email from Merlin Pfannkuch,

[3:22:09] regarding opposition, the creation of new TIF districts for developer incentives.

[3:22:13] And also from Sue Ravenscroft regarding this similar topic,

[3:22:18] opposition of creation of new TIF District LINC project.

[3:22:23] You just did that.

[3:22:24] We need to yeah I would move.

[3:22:26] We take no action next second.

[3:22:30] Those in favor say aye.

[3:22:32] any opposed motion carried.

[3:22:36] Ludmila Scott concerned about municipal water fluoridation.

[3:22:40] Move

[3:22:41] We take no action. Second. Well,

[3:22:44] we've done some work on this in several occasions.

[3:22:50] We could take

[3:22:51] no action, but, it would it be a big deal

[3:22:55] to have staff pull up what they've sent in the past to these people?

[3:22:58] Oh, I don't mind that. Yeah.

[3:23:00] Yeah, sure.

[3:23:01] I'll withdraw my motion and move that.

[3:23:03] We forward. Forward. The,

[3:23:08] Ludmila Scott

[3:23:09] the information that we've been provided by staff about water fluoride.

[3:23:13] Because John's done this before.

[3:23:14] Yeah, yeah, it does a great job.

[3:23:16] Yeah, yeah,

[3:23:18] Those in favor of the motion.

[3:23:19] Say, aye, Aye. Any opposed,

[3:23:22] carried, you know, after the motion was.

[3:23:26] Yeah. There.

[3:23:26] Yeah I seconded Amber did.

[3:23:29] Yeah.

[3:23:32] Number five

[3:23:34] email from Patty Yoder regarding,

[3:23:36] parking and safety concerns for Food at First clients.

[3:23:40] Yeah.

[3:23:40] I think it's primarily about for us for time.

[3:23:43] I would move from memo from traffic and we'll see

[3:23:46] will come up for ideas or alternatives.

[3:23:48] Okay.

[3:23:48] Second, those in favor say aye. Aye.

[3:23:51] Any opposed.

[3:23:54] Motion carried.

[3:23:54] Last is, memo from Mark regarding Senate file 579.

[3:24:04] Is there motion?

[3:24:04] Move. We take it.

[3:24:06] I mean, not yet and well it's there a is

[3:24:09] asked Mark asked to adopt a motion that prepared an ordinance to address

[3:24:14] changing terms of the Ames Human Relations Commission.

[3:24:17] Human Rights Commission. Yeah.

[3:24:18] The legislature change the terms for local,

[3:24:22] you know, civil rights, which we call our Human Relations Commission.

[3:24:26] But in terms of office for three years now, the legislature just said they

[3:24:31] they must be two years.

[3:24:32] Oh, I see, so we, you know, have to give some thought to,

[3:24:36] you know, making sure there's terms are staggered and that sort of thing.

[3:24:38] So but but we have to we have to change our needs 2 to 2 years instead of three.

[3:24:44] So you don't even necessarily need a motion

[3:24:46] to put it on a future agenda or that's what I don't think we need that.

[3:24:50] We have to do it.

[3:24:51] Okay. No, I mean it.

[3:24:52] You'll just proceed as required. Okay.

[3:24:55] So I think just a motion to, you know, have me drafted an amendment

[3:24:59] or an ordinance, bring it back.

[3:25:02] And then I'd also, you know, want to keep it open for I mean, I've read through it.

[3:25:06] I don't think any of the other there's some minor changes and then procedure.

[3:25:10] I don't think any of those we really need to put into our municipal code,

[3:25:14] but I want to sort of reserve the right to do that.

[3:25:16] So I may bring bring back an ordinance

[3:25:18] that not only includes the term changes, but my maybe 1 or 2 other things.

[3:25:23] But, you know, well, we'll say that,

[3:25:26] okay, okay.

[3:25:29] I'd move that.

[3:25:29] We direct the city attorney to draft

[3:25:33] such an ordinance

[3:25:36] second. Second.

[3:25:38] Okay.

[3:25:39] What kind of order to send. Those in favor of the motion

[3:25:41] say aye. Aye. Any opposed.

[3:25:45] So but but Mark so just one further question.

[3:25:50] The last in our last meeting on this,

[3:25:54] we had directed City City attorney to come back and give us further

[3:25:57] direction on what to do with respect to our current ordinance.

[3:26:01] Right. So,

[3:26:04] do oh,

[3:26:06] is that should we what do we do with that?

[3:26:09] Well, in my memo, I, I addressed that and I said that

[3:26:14] my recommendation is to not repeal

[3:26:17] the ordinance yet, to take a wait and see attitude because there are some,

[3:26:22] you know, interpretation issues that are being discussed there.

[3:26:26] They're you know, I've heard rumors of litigation

[3:26:29] that one city might, might sue over it.

[3:26:33] I don't know what the legal theory is behind that, but,

[3:26:36] so, you know, just given the uncertainty there that we that

[3:26:40] we wait and not just repeal it now, but leave it on the books.

[3:26:43] And so if if someone came today and made a claim under this ordinance

[3:26:49] is, is it something that is,

[3:26:51] viable as a, as a,

[3:26:54] as a law today and or, or books?

[3:26:57] My advice and what I've, I've said to staff is to not enforce the ordinance.

[3:27:02] And until we have more certainty.

[3:27:05] Okay.

[3:27:06] All right.

[3:27:06] Thanks. Yeah. No.

[3:27:10] Okay.

[3:27:11] Participation agencies, boards, commissions, Discover Ames any reports.

[3:27:16] And I have not had a meeting yet.

[3:27:19] AREA?

[3:27:22] I don't think there's been one since last time.

[3:27:25] The egg breakfast is this Friday.

[3:27:29] I'm going to go to that. Okay.

[3:27:31] Story County Emergency Management

[3:27:32] There's been no, meetings since last time.

[3:27:35] Transit.

[3:27:37] We had a change order for a diesel bus purchase,

[3:27:41] and then also, award of contract for a bus purchase.

[3:27:45] That was it.

[3:27:47] Okay,

[3:27:48] Council comments.

[3:27:49] And I'm going to Trump. I'm going to.

[3:27:51] So I'm going to take the first one.

[3:27:53] And Emily,

[3:27:55] thank you for two years of service.

[3:27:57] It's hard to say goodbye to you, but, you've done a commendable job.

[3:28:03] And, we're glad that you decided to to not resign.

[3:28:09] And you're going to stay for another year. As great.

[3:28:10] We appreciate that. You didn't get that memo, did you?

[3:28:13] Not yet.

[3:28:14] Okay, well, here's that memo telling you you're not.

[3:28:17] You're resigning is not.

[3:28:18] You're not, you know, resigned.

[3:28:19] But anyway, you'll be missed.

[3:28:22] And we wish you, success as you move forward.

[3:28:26] And, thanks for your service.

[3:28:28] And you'll be hard to replace, but I'm sure you'll find someone that will

[3:28:33] looks like under your wing. So anyway,

[3:28:36] in. And

[3:28:41] 2002 years and years, you have someone for one year.

[3:28:44] But you, you

[3:28:46] embraced it and spent two years. So.

[3:28:49] So I'll give you the opportunity to.

[3:28:53] Okay, I,

[3:28:55] I wrote something down because I didn't want to be too sad

[3:28:58] to forget what I wanted to say, so here goes.

[3:29:04] I didn't know it when I first sat in that chair two years ago, that taking

[3:29:08] this role would be one of the best decisions I ever made in college.

[3:29:14] It transformed my college experience in ways that I never expected.

[3:29:19] What I expected was to apply the concepts

[3:29:21] and lessons that I learned from my classes to real life,

[3:29:25] but participating in this role gave me so much more.

[3:29:29] To the Council and the Mayor.

[3:29:31] Thank you for welcoming me into your work, and for taking my perspective seriously,

[3:29:36] and for showing me what dedication and leadership looks like every day

[3:29:41] To City staff.

[3:29:43] Thank you for your patience and willingness to answer my many,

[3:29:47] many questions and for modeling what genuine

[3:29:50] public service looks like each day

[3:29:54] to the broader Ames community and the Iowa State University students.

[3:29:59] Thank you for reminding me of why my participation matters.

[3:30:03] Serving a community as great as this one

[3:30:06] has been an honor I will never forget.

[3:30:11] Sorry.

[3:30:15] My journey through ISU wouldn't

[3:30:17] have been so full of learning, growth, and joy without all of you.

[3:30:22] Your willingness to take a student seriously meant a great deal to me.

[3:30:27] I could not have grown into the person that I am today without all of you

[3:30:31] and without this experience in the future.

[3:30:34] When I reflect on my college years, I will remember this experience most fondly.

[3:30:42] The meetings, even though

[3:30:44] they were long, sometimes,

[3:30:47] were some of my favorite times in college.

[3:30:50] I am a different person and a better person

[3:30:53] because of this experience, and because of all of you.

[3:30:57] I also want to thank Martin Hirsch and Quinn Margret

[3:31:00] for placing their trust in me almost two years ago to,

[3:31:05] do this role.

[3:31:06] And I want to also thank Colby Brant and Will Vlasheck and will for giving me the opportunity

[3:31:11] to continue representing the student body in this chamber for a second term.

[3:31:17] That trust is something that I'm not taking lightly,

[3:31:20] and I'm so grateful for the opportunity that this position gave me

[3:31:25] to everyone in this room and beyond, from the very bottom of my heart.

[3:31:29] Thank you so much.

[3:31:31] Oh yeah, another round of applause. That was great. Wow.

[3:31:39] Thank you.

[3:31:40] So good to top that way.

[3:31:42] And then technically I am on council until like, you know, probably like 3 p.m.

[3:31:47] on on April 6th.

[3:31:50] So I'll just be closing out some of the things that need to be done.

[3:31:54] So you can't really get rid of me until then,

[3:31:57] and I'll be around for graduation and whatnot.

[3:32:00] So you'll see me probably.

[3:32:04] I'll be back here a few times before I graduate.

[3:32:07] So thank you again. Great. Thank you.

[3:32:11] I hope you stay in touch.

[3:32:12] Yeah, I will 100%.

[3:32:14] Yeah, yeah.

[3:32:15] Exciting. So, two things tonight.

[3:32:18] One happy, one not so happy.

[3:32:21] Congratulations to Iowa State.

[3:32:23] Making it sweet 16, making us all incredibly proud.

[3:32:26] And they're great ambassadors for our community.

[3:32:28] And so just so proud of them.

[3:32:30] Excited to see what how far they'll go.

[3:32:32] I have picked them to win the entire tournament,

[3:32:34] but I always picked them to win the entire time.

[3:32:37] This year, I think I have a shot at it.

[3:32:39] The second is a more serious matter.

[3:32:43] We recently had a

[3:32:44] very tragic killing in our community, and,

[3:32:48] certainly before I got on Council, I never really considered the work

[3:32:52] that our City staff does in incredibly difficult situations, whether it's,

[3:32:57] our City workers going out at 2:00 in the morning

[3:33:01] to take care of a water main water line, break.

[3:33:05] But we had our police officers

[3:33:07] who attended a scene that we're not used to seeing in Ames.

[3:33:13] And you can't unsee the things that they saw

[3:33:16] with this mother and child. And,

[3:33:19] also the EMT workers, everyone involved in this.

[3:33:22] And so,

[3:33:24] we, we take these people's work for granted, and I know I speak for Council,

[3:33:28] our deepest appreciation for those who attended a very difficult situation.

[3:33:33] That's all I have tonight.

[3:33:35] Well said.

[3:33:36] Nothing else for me.

[3:33:39] Nothing else for me. Okay,

[3:33:42] a few things.

[3:33:43] Number one, there's no crying in municipal government.

[3:33:47] Oh, yes there is. I've done it before.

[3:33:49] Yeah.

[3:33:50] Second thing, I will be present at graduation on the stage.

[3:33:55] So I will watch for you and be happy to,

[3:33:59] cheer you on to your next endeavors.

[3:34:02] And the third thing is that we are also losing

[3:34:06] Jeremy Neefus before our next Council meeting.

[3:34:11] And I just want to thank Jeremy for all his work with the manager's office

[3:34:16] and sitting through long meetings with us and taking notes.

[3:34:21] And, wish him well.

[3:34:25] Good catch.

[3:34:26] Rachel, how about you?

[3:34:28] Anything?

[3:34:31] Nothing except.

[3:34:32] Yeah. Congrats, Emily. We'll miss you a lot.

[3:34:35] Had to send you out on a long meeting, of course, but,

[3:34:39] glad to have you here for the past two years.

[3:34:42] Thank you.

[3:34:43] Anita,

[3:34:45] for the,

[3:34:46] just to thank Emily as well.

[3:34:48] You've been

[3:34:50] very engaged, and you are a very engaging person.

[3:34:54] And it has been a pleasure to have an opportunity to work with you.

[3:34:58] And thank you for the things you've done to ensure that going forward,

[3:35:03] we have an even better relationship with Iowa State student government.

[3:35:10] Yeah, we'll be watching to see

[3:35:12] where you go next and if we can get you back.

[3:35:15] So thanks.

[3:35:17] Thank you.

[3:35:19] Will also be watching for you on YouTube as one of our viewers.

[3:35:23] Oh yeah, we'll probably be on the next one.

[3:35:26] You'll be number ten.

[3:35:27] Yeah. Okay.

[3:35:30] I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

[3:35:32] Move we adjourn second.

[3:35:33] All right.

[3:35:33] Those in favor say aye. Aye. All right.

[3:35:37] I think that's a roll call.

[3:35:38] Just kidding, just kidding, just kidding.

[3:35:42] We are adjourned.

Ames City Council

Agenda

Transcript