Hey, hey, hey.
Heat. Heat.
Heat.
N.
Heat.
Hey.
Heat. Heat.
line.
Steven's ready.
» I didn't get no words.
>> I was just about to gave you about ready
to bang you, baby.
>> I didn't ask yet. I wanted to have the
discussion first.
>> We'll call to order the regular
committee of the whole meeting. Can we
begin with roll call?
>> Council member Lee
>> here.
>> Oren
>> here.
>> Sely
>> here.
>> Dutterman
>> here.
>> Turpin
>> here.
>> Winter
>> here.
>> Karns
>> here.
>> All right. Tammy.
» Good evening, Mayor and Council. Tanny
Johnson, community development director.
I've brought to you guys a proposal for
a program to try to eliminate some of
our vacant lots that we have the
non-buildable.
We tried over the years to sell them to
the neighbors just with letters and
stuff. Um it's cumbersome when we have
them bid on. They don't understand the
bidding process.
You get out. It's just I think it's a
little bit of cumbersome for them. So
our my idea is we don't we need to get
rid of them. We need to stop maintaining
these properties if we look at going
ahead and we can door knock when we're
out there doing the nuisances and send
letters out, talk to these people, sell
them for what it costs the city to do
the quick claim deal. [clears throat]
The areas that are in the urban renewal,
we still have to go out for bid with
those. But the rest of them, we can look
at just getting the neighbors to pay the
quick claim, which is roughly
[clears throat] about $200.
And on top of that, I've also talked to
the county because we want to make sure
they also parcel it together with their
lot. Um, the county has given me the
form that needs to be filled out.
They've said once they get a quick clean
deed recorded, we just go ahead and send
them that form and they'll do it. They
do that once a year. That's the only
time they do it, but they'll file them
away and then they'll get done once a
year. I think this was an easy idea to
get it out to the neighbors to try to
unload some of these non-buildable lots
that we have. Just looking to see what
you guys sent yet. It's not a really in
detailed packet, but it was enough to
get it out into you guys to see what you
guys thoughts are.
>> We still have to give opportunity to
both sides of the property.
>> We would door knock on both neighbors.
Um we we even looked at maybe making
some postings. We could just put on
their door um asking them to reach out
to us if they're interested. We would
still split them. We've done that in the
past. papers want pull the parcel
together. If they want to split it, they
can split the cost to do it themselves
then and split it. They still get a
little bit of everything.
>> So, if they split it, is it $200 for one
neighbor, $200?
>> It probably would be. Um, I think unless
the quick claim deed may not be that
expensive doing two at one time. I mean,
they're pretty easy. A lot of it's we're
doing the filing fee with that and
everything. So, they have to do nothing
but come down and sign it and we'll file
it for them.
So, there's less lab work for that.
>> I may be putting you on the spot, but do
you know how much it costs the city to
maintain some of these lots throughout
as as a total?
>> Um,
public works has them out for mowing if
I remember right. Some of them are 10,
some are $20 a mow.
>> Okay.
>> Um, same with the shoveling.
>> They're still shoveling them. Um, we
have a problem with
>> There's about how many of these lots?
>> Uh, probably [snorts] about 50 or so.
>> Okay.
>> Give or take. Yeah. Um, but we have we
people find them, they know they're
vacant city lots and they dump on them.
So then probably works out cleaning them
up. So we have the keys on top of that
as well.
>> They've also had to go out and take some
trees down on them because limbs have
busted. Um, it's just all around it's
time to really start getting rid of
them.
>> So one thing I didn't see was to ensure
that the neighbors are up to date on
their taxes, but I did see that we can
reject.
>> Yes. So would we leave that during and
to that process or would we let them
know upfront that we want them to be I
mean because we're doing this to get
them back on the tax roll so we want to
make sure that who we sell them to we're
actually paying their taxes.
>> Correct. Um and that to me I would leave
that up to you. Do you want me I can if
they turn that in and they're behind in
their taxes we can just I can just send
them a letter and say you know get your
taxes up to date.
>> Um that I think would be the best way.
see if they can go and make current with
t with the county
>> um
>> and go that way.
>> Want to make sure we're looking at it.
>> Yeah. Oh, yes. We do that on all of
them. So, or we could give you guys the
proposal and you guys make the decision.
But I think if we catch it on our end,
give them the chance to go make it make
it fair and get it paid.
Tammy, I like your idea, but I'd also
like to maybe look at the zoning and
ordinance and maybe turn some of these
uh non-buildable lots into buildable
lots so people can build some tiny homes
on them.
>> And I get and I know we've discussed
that before. I think we need to get
moving. There are some in the areas that
they just really need to go to the
neighbors. Correct.
>> Um and I think if we look at those, that
was kind of my idea is to start with the
ones that we know just really need to go
to the neighbors that they're not
conducive. They're smaller. I mean, we
do have some 20 foot lots out there that
are really small. We have some weird
corner pie-shaped ones and stuff. I
think those are the ones we look at and
really try to start getting them gone.
>> I agree. We've had them for some of
those we've had for many, many years.
And
>> we have. Yes.
>> What if they say, "Nope, we don't want
it."
>> Then I guess we're back to the drawing
board and trying to figure out what we
do.
>> Pretty sure we can just split it and put
it with their parcel.
Not going to charge them for something
they don't want.
>> Well, then we're going to have to pay
it. But the the fact is is we can't keep
maintaining these
um in forever,
>> right? I agree.
>> With no purpose. So, um
>> do the math here. If we're talking 50,
just do the math and we're talking
$200 to
>> prepare the deed. and all that. You
know, we're talking what? 10 grand. Does
that sound right?
>> It's not a It wouldn't be a lot of
money, but 50 times I mean
>> 50 times 200
>> 10 grand. Yeah. [clears throat]
>> Okay.
>> Yeah,
>> that's right.
So, Mr. Bank,
>> I don't know. Maybe it's
>> Oh, you mean not even charge them for
it?
>> Yeah.
just get rivet
budget's going to allow that right now.
>> I know. I know.
>> So,
>> well, we could we could start with this,
>> but I think I think because it's public
property, we have to get some
>> a reasonable cost for it or what
whatever the word is that Pat uses, you
know.
>> Well,
>> yeah, we're supposed to try to ascertain
market value, but when you have a
property that's not marketable except
for two adjoining properties, that
market value is pretty limited, right?
just saying
>> it's a good starting point.
>> It's been common practice that we get
100, 200, maybe 500 for some of these.
So, I think we should still try to
maintain that where we're getting that
something of that sort.
I don't necessarily like the idea of
just putting it into somebody's property
that that I don't know.
>> Well, I think you might find that that
might not be an option, but we can start
with this.
>> I think it's a good starting point to
see how it goes.
>> Can we leave it up to Tammy's
discretion? So, like if she's finds a
lot that's not very big, then it might
just be easier to
pay the fee and get it over. I mean,
we've been talking about it for a while.
It' be nice to just
move forward on
>> I don't mind there being some
discretion.
» Could you bring us back a list of the
ones that you're thinking of?
>> Yeah.
>> Or send it to us?
>> Yeah, I can send them to you. We uh we
looked at what we sent out for the RFP
and we don't have that much to list
after we pulled out all these lots.
>> No. And I said [laughter] that before as
far as the buildable ones, there are a handful and that's it.
>> Yep.
>> I like the idea of knocking on the doors
and asking the neighbors, seeing where
they stand.
>> We'd also get with Christa um on a
Facebook post, maybe the Clinton area,
get it out there to the residents. We
have these lots. If you live next door
to them and you're interested, just call
us. Let's sit down and get this done.
>> Yep.
>> I think 50 lots wouldn't take a ton of
time to contact the,
you know, we might [snorts] be able to
dwindle that list down by 20 lots, you
know, in the first round and see where
we're at from there before we move on to
another approach.
>> Yep.
>> Do you need a motion, Tammy?
>> Yes, I do.
>> Okay. Is anybody anything else you want
to I mean, I'm fine with proceeding with
this. Okay, I'll make a motion. Second.
>> All right, we have a motion and a second
to uh move forward the Good Neighbor lot
acquisition program. Any other
discussion or comments?
>> Okay, can we have roll call, please?
>> Council member Turpin,
>> yes.
>> Winter,
>> yes.
>> Karns,
>> yes.
>> Lee,
>> yes.
>> Oren, yes.
>> Sely,
>> yes.
>> Dman,
>> yes.
>> Okay. Thanks.
>> Thanks, Sammy.
>> Okay. Uh the 2B item, the um discussing
the meeting for next Tuesday.
Uh
I guess I wanted to start with the
council and what your thoughts are and
how you want the meeting to run. Um
how you want to gather information, what
your I guess what's the what are we
getting out of the meeting on the first?
Are we are you looking to gather
information? Are you looking to stick
specifically to the ordinance? What
what's the because I think that's going
to matter how we frame the meeting. Um
how what you're looking for?
Does that make sense?
>> I think at this point, my opinion is we
stick to the ordinance. I'm going work
on the ordinance and
>> work on the ordinance. Okay.
[clears throat]
And my thought was and I think done with
council member Winter that
there are all these sections and you
know like say if we talk about water we
talk about power whatever um we if we're
going to talk about water let's talk
about water let's not talk about
everything else let's just talk about
that particular section of water or if
we talk about power let's talk about
that particular section
If we're talking about setback, let's
talk about that particular section for
setbacks and and let's not let's go
right through the the draft as it as it
is now and then just say, okay, you
know, here's here's what you know is in
draft right now. What what are all the
issues that concern that particular
section? and then say okay this is this
uh works this doesn't work um this needs
to be here or this needs to be there and
then at the end we'll have a you know a
lot of ideas for each individual section
you know is it 500 ft is it 1,000 ft etc
is it [clears throat] monitoring of the
wells where we as council get a um
you know a monthly or quarterly an
annual ual bianual report of what the
that particular usage is that you know
so that we're looking at each individual
thing because it's going to be you know
there are so many things that are um
built upon the other thing as I've been
reading it and it's just you know we
need to we need to dissect it very
specifically
>> so if I gather just in short what you're
saying is gather information but gather
that information in the framework of
ordinance section by section. Yes,
>> is kind of what you're saying.
>> Okay.
» Anything else from anyone?
>> I like the idea of working through I'm
sorry, Janet. Go ahead.
>> Oh, I was uh going to say I like the
idea of literally because then it gives
the members that'll be speaking from the
public that kind of a schedule of this
is what we're going to do. Go from
section one to section two and work our
way down. It'll I think be a lot more
organized that way.
>> Sure.
>> And keep everybody on task.
>> Okay. Council member Karns,
>> I like the idea of working through the
ordinance, not the roundt sessions
because I think everybody can get the
same information and I think it'll be
more productive for a final outcome.
>> Okay. If you're going to want, you know,
what the city attorney to help you draft
it up, um, I would suggest that
you do it the way council member Oberin
suggested. Try to collect everything
that you might potentially want to
change about each section before you
move to the next one and get the
committee's input on everything that
they think should be included.
Get that done in a bucket. So you any
and then ask a final question. Anybody
else have anything else that they think
should be considered in this section?
Get that collected then move to the
next. And then when you get all those
note I'm going to have I'm going to be
on vacation but Sam is probably going to
be here to help with this so she can
take notes and go through it with you so
that when I get the notes back you know
I will see like okay this is everything
that and then you're probably going to
need a second cow where you actually
debate what you want in and what you
don't want in. But at that first
meeting, I would highly encourage you to
make sure the committee comes prepared
because they're the only ones that are
going to talk at it, not the whole
public because we'll never get through
it. Have the committee ready with a a
long I mean, they already have have a
long written list of things they want
that you that should be pretty
comprehensive, but I would have them
emphasize everything they particularly
want.
And once you're done with that, we'll go
to a second cow. And then that's when
we'll debate like what do you want in,
what do you want not want in. I just as
a scriber, I need to know what you guys
vote to put in and what you don't want
to vote to put in.
>> Before I can actually get down to work.
>> So, I like Greg's idea. I think that
practically speaking, if you want to get
an ordinance drafted, you've got to get
down to brass tax on what it's going to
say, and that's the only way to do it
really. [snorts]
>> Okay. And I think too um I don't there
may be um
>> opportunities within each section that
we can choose AB or C
>> right
>> and that's what we what we will come
back with a next committee the whole to
actually describe or actually discuss
and maybe um determine if we're going to
go with AB or C within that particular
section.
It may be that everybody's in agreement
on section three, so we're not going to
change that one.
>> But, you know, [clears throat] section
four, there might be five different
opportunities to say, you know, well,
this or this or this or this that we're
going to have to have some very deep
discussion on and may need to then say,
wait a minute, we're need to need to go
out to find somebody that's smarter than
we are in this particular section. You
know, like if we're talking about water,
we're talking about power. Those are the
things that are high in my mind, you
know, so that we can then say, okay,
what does this exactly mean? If you
know, we're going to choose A, B, or C
here, what does A mean in power? What
does B mean in power? What does C mean
in power? That kind of discussion.
>> Mayor be the second. Are we able to have
some kind of experts here at that time?
Like maybe some representatives form
water power to kind of help?
>> I know.
>> Yeah. I mean, I I think I would think
that the council would want to hear
comments from the broad range of information,
right, from people for against people
that are experts on this or or that. um
how we facilitate that is going to be
important though because uh you know
obviously we have to get through the
ordinance right so I think you have to
be um like we talked about you know if a
group has a spokesperson and that
spokesperson is the one that talks and
comments um it'll be hard to get through
um I mean it it won't be hard to get
through it'll just take more meetings
obviously which is fine we can do
however many meetings we need to um but
the more people you have comment
individually the more you know you I
guess the more time so and again I'll
take as many meetings as we need to get
through it but that's something to to be
said
ma'am
>> got to come up to the podium please
» so we as a steering committee have like
kind of broken down different sections
of the ordinance and we're all doing
extensive research on those sections so
that we can discuss those sections
specifically
Um,
>> that would be perfect.
>> How many of us would you are you
planning on
talking with?
>> Well, I mean, if you had
I guess I'm just spitballing here, so
I'm just thinking out loud, but if you
had, you know, one or two people that
were each section and that's those were
the people that commented on that
section. I mean, we're obviously going
to go through every section, so I don't
think that's I don't think it's a bad
way to do it.
>> Okay. Um, you know, I I guess ultimately
we want to make sure that we're we're
being efficient with the time as we're
discussing so that when we're discussing
it, we're discussing the topics going
through and we don't necessarily have,
you know, 25 people come up and and say
the same thing, you know.
>> So, you would say one to two people per
topic.
>> Yeah, that that's I think that's that's
fine. I mean, I
>> but we had discussed six people total.
So,
>> that's about
>> Yeah. Yeah. What I'm concerned about is
we'll be here for 17 hours if the entire
public ches in on every single thing
>> on our end that we planned on taking our
recommendations before the meeting and
also putting them in a letter so that
you would have time to review them and
see them and that might help us exp.
>> I think that's a great idea. Do you know
when you'll have that kind of complete?
» Can Kevin address that?
Um,
>> that kind of goes both ways. We we'll
get it to you. Our goal is to get it by
Thursday, I think we said, right?
Thursday or Friday of this week.
>> Okay.
>> And like I I talked to Pat earlier, I
have three sections Friday. Okay. So,
we're going to like put everything
together, send it to Celeste, and
Celeste will then forward it to
>> to the council.
>> Okay.
>> But the reason why I say both ways is
that I kind of like to have an idea as a
committee
>> what you're going to be working off of
because I know we've seen a couple
different things. I mean, we got QTS's
recommendation that came in from July
29th.
>> Then we have what you've been working on
when we had the last planning
commission.
>> We're going to go off the ordinance that
went to the plan commission.
>> Okay. So, the QTS is out of the
equation.
>> Correct. That's that's not the draft
we're working off of.
>> That's what I'm getting at because if
this is because me directed about or
somebody did that or no, I think Greg
you said about three different things.
You know, we're going to bury A, B, and
C. Well, I I don't see that completely
being the true equation because you
might combine A, B, and C. Yes. But
yeah, but but you don't understand my
point. I'm not trying to be
argumentative.
>> I'm just saying that but it would help
us to be prepared too to be able to have
a favorable discussion that goes both
ways.
>> Correct.
>> So if we can make sure that we have a a
final copy that you're working off of, I
think would help us as a committee too
to streamline, as you said, take care of
our time.
>> Christristie, can you
>> can you link that to the agenda?
>> I was planning on having it on the
agenda. I was just waiting for after the
meeting decide what what items the
council wanted. I would say to expect
the letter from us on Friday. We're
having our large group meeting on
Thursday and we want to make sure that
more than just the steering committee's
concerns and research goes into what we
present to the city.
>> That's fine. So when we post the agenda,
>> do you want their letters? Do you want
me to wait to post the agenda to have
their letter there, too? I think you can
post the agenda tomorrow
>> with the draft that we'll be working off
of and then we can amend the agenda on
Friday and add their um letter to it if
we'd like.
>> Okay.
>> And if I mean we can
>> Go ahead. [snorts]
>> I was just going to say if you're going
to do a letter, make sure that you're
very precise about exactly what section
you're talking about. Use the ordinance
as as your skeleton and please indicate
specifically in bullet points or however
you want to do it all the changes you
think go in that section so that when
everybody up here reads it, they can see
right where you're referring.
>> Can I address you real quick and show
you this is kind of what we're putting
together. See if this fits your format.
>> Sure.
>> As long as it's clear to me. I'm just
trying to make sure that as an exercise
I'm not confused on the draft.
>> So this is one that I put together with
like an introduction.
>> Okay. So, skip the introduction,
>> but I'm I'm I know I have we have a
couple folks here today. I'm assuming
the utility partners will be in
attendance on
>> Tuesday as well so that if there are
specific questions to water, power,
anything like that, we'd be able to have
those answered.
>> Shaking our heads back there. Yes. Okay.
All right. So, what I would suggest is I
mean these these suggestions are are are
good, but don't just say uh fire safety
put the section that's in the ordinance
exactly what numbered paragraph it is
and exact use exactly the titles that
are currently in the ordinance.
>> This was strictly for discussion.
>> Yeah.
What what we had talked about, we
talked about the formatting quite a bit.
What we're going to do is take the
original proposed ordinance
>> and we talked about a Google Docs, but
not everyone's down with Google Docs.
>> It's all right. Fire chief, you have
comment.
» Just as Pat was saying, I think it's
important that you have all the key
players in the room because you don't
want anything in the ordinance that goes
against state codes. For example, 2023
NAC covers electrical
>> and the 2024 International Fire Code
covers the fire and a lot of electrical
as well. So, we want to make sure that
there's nothing in the ordinance that
contradicts state law. This is difficult
because we don't normally write
ordinances for particular businesses.
So, kind of write them for industry and
then everything that you want for that
particular business goes into that
development. I think I'm not sitting
this year, but so I just want to make
sure you know that we have our
electrical professionals here, correct?
For the 2023, we have the building
officials here. I'm here. We need to
make sure that none of those contradict
the same.
>> Absolutely. Yep.
>> So, the format I was saying, uh, we're
going to have the original ordinance
that you wrote verbatim and then we will
have like a text box with our
recommendations. It might have excerpts
from what the section above it is that
we like put a cross through or something
like that, but it will be very beat
forbeat what the ordinance has more than
the letter we submitted to planning and
zoning.
>> Because if if they're going to debate
what the language should be,
[clears throat]
the clearer you are on what you want
added and changed, the better and
exactly where you want it so that
they'll have it all in one neat basket.
Now, they may have other thoughts of
their own that they want to interject,
which they can do, but at least they'll
know exactly what the public committee
wants.
>> There there was one other thing. There's
some issuance
that I know you had talked about at
planning and zoning like uh air quality
was one of the things that wasn't the
original.
>> Those will be linked on there as well.
The recommendation from the plan
commission will all be linked on there.
But what I'm saying is if we're going
beat forbeat with the proposed
ordinance, there's no section in there
for that.
>> If you're missing Yeah. If you're
missing a section in the current draft
that you believe should be added, just
put new section one, new section two,
new section three, we can number it
later. Give it a title, whatever it is.
Uh compliance with the comprehensive
plan, you know, whatever language you're
suggesting. Then go to the next thing
you think should be added.
That would be sufficient and then we can
rewrite and re number later when the
council gets it all collected in the
basket.
>> Sounds good. Thank you.
>> All right. So,
I guess Karen, go ahead.
>> Are we asking for the planning committee
to attend as well?
>> No. No.
>> Karen Ran, deputy zoning city. I just
want to make sure I sent you guys email.
I didn't know if everybody got it, but
like some of the stuff that's in this
ordinance isn't really a zoning
ordinance. So, as we move forward on
this, we need to pluck some of these
things out that belong in a development
agreement, like roads. That's not a
zoning ordinance issue. Also, noise,
vibration, pollution, those aren't
zoning issues. Those when we talk
zoning, we're talking land use. Okay?
How's the land being used? setbacks,
heights. What's an allowable use? Well,
out there it's allowable use.
[clears throat] If I'm not mistaken,
they could come in tomorrow and build.
Is that right, Pat? We don't have to
have a development agreement. We don't
have an ordinance right now. They could
build right now.
>> Theoretically, yes.
>> Yes. They could come and get their
building permit tomorrow, guys, and
build a plant.
>> Well, they'd have to go through the plan
review process, but we don't have an
ordinance that would stop anything.
>> Okay. So, as we look at this land use,
okay, we need to pluck out the things
that are nuisances because that's
belongs in the nuisance ordinance. We
need to pluck out the development
agreement stuff that belongs in the
development agreement and and focus the
zoning ordinance on the zoning because
when it's all said and done, I got to
enforce this or somebody else after I
win the lottery, I won't be here
anymore. Anyway, somebody else is going
to have to enforce this. And you know, I
don't enforce noise. I'm not a noise
enforcer. I'm a land use enforcer.
That's what the zoning person does.
>> Karen, you've started going through
everything too, right? With your own
>> I think I have the latest and greatest
because there were a couple of them
floating around and I gave my
>> Oh, sense.
>> Yep. Yeah. You need to go through the
probably the plan commission one. just
the one that's linked on the plan
commission from July 5th.
>> I think you have that one.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> They they didn't change that. They just
made another document with their
recommendations. So that draft didn't
get
>> looked at that. It just looked like it
kind of looked like what these guys have
and they just included that and I go,
"Okay, is this what we're looking at?"
So anyway, I could take a hard look at
that and we can pluck those things up.
>> Yeah,
>> they're all valid points. I'm not trying
to take away anything from what
anybody's saying here. They're all very
valid points, but they don't belong in
the zoning ordinance.
» So, all right.
>> Hold on. Hold on.
>> This is this is the this is the thing.
Normally, Karen is right.
>> Normally, [laughter]
» she is she is she is she is stating what
is the traditional way to draft a zoning
code. You don't typically put in noise
limits and all those different types of
things. uh they may be regulated
elsewhere in the code but not
necessarily in zoning because that deals
with land use. But the trend pretty much
all across the United States is that
zoning codes regarding data centers.
They may not have all of the specific
issues that are nonzoning, but they do
have requirements that these plans that
all applicants submit, water studies and
things like that, including noise
studies and all those different things.
So even though it isn't traditionally
what is done,
the council can if they wish include
more or less every anything they want in
a zoning ordinance. So I'm just saying
that I agree with you.
>> I agree with you that that's not the
typical land use plan because
>> we never really ran into a hypers scale
data center animal before in our
country's history.
But that has been the trend. So I'll
just tell the council if you look just
all you got to do is do a Google search
for all the different ordinances and
you'll see that they're doing all of
this. So I'm just saying you aren't
legally permitted or legally prohibited
from including more extensive
requirements up front if somebody wants
to be an applicant to site one of these
things. Well, then the question
>> and it's a pain for Karen
>> because who enforces this then? Because
I don't have a noise or size
metering system or we don't walk around
with those things on our belts. But the
ordinance,
>> who's looking at the studies? Because I
tell you what, when the land use is
done, when I'm done, you know, yep, your setbacks are great, your height is
great, your what you're approved to use
is great.
>> That's usually where I stop. You won't
be able to enforce this ordinance by
yourself. That is for certain. You will
need expertise to come in and assist
you.
>> Yes.
>> Karen, are you able to come to the
meeting September 1st?
>> Absolutely.
>> Okay.
>> I I think what a bet I think you and
Karen need to I would like Karen to go
through it and give her input, but I
think maybe you guys need to talk
outside of this meeting on some things.
>> Yeah. Well, she she did red line and
send me a bunch of comments from Good.
Well, those are things I want to see,
but I would need to make sure you guys
are on the same page as well. Yeah.
>> If you guys want it in this zorning
again, how who's enforcing it and who's
looking at it because I'm not looking at
I don't look at sound waves.
>> We'll just give you a different title.
>> Oh, that'd be great. [laughter]
>> All-encompassing.
>> Thank you. Thank you, everybody.
>> Thank you. Thanks. I guess that's the
issue that I have then is we sp we sit
up here and we spend hours looking at
ordinances and and we put things in it
and then if we don't have anybody to
enforce it,
what's what's the value in it then?
>> Yep.
>> Well, most of these ordinances are
enforced through expert assistance
during the construction phase
and afterward.
It's just the that's just how it is. And
I it's not easy. Council member Wyers's
correct that it's not easy to enforce
these. I gone blind reading about all
the horror stories of how they tried to
determine, you know, if the water usage
was actually what it was really used or
>> whatever or whether the noise levels are
what the ordinance contemplates or
something greater than that. And there
are ways to enforce that. It just isn't
easy for Karen to do that by herself.
And you just need to be aware of that.
>> Okay. Perfect.
>> Okay. So, I guess as far as a plan
>> for this, we're going to start at the
top of that ordinance
>> and we're going to we're going to go
down.
>> Is that the easiest way to do it so that
we stay on track? We're not skipping section to section.
>> What if there's sections that they don't
have any concern with that portion? I'm
not saying that they do or not. I mean,
we just move on to
>> I think there probably are some things
in there, maybe some definitions, maybe
some things that there's going to be
zero controversy and we can basically
just check them off and move down.
I think that's the easiest way to keep
us on track is just go top to bottom
instead of starting at noise and then
going here and then going there. And
obviously some of these things may uh
mingle together a little bit and we'll
just have to make sure that we're being
cognizant of that as we look through it.
So,
okay,
>> Laney,
>> good.
» Laney last 308 South Boulevard. Thank
you. I'm just trying to envision the
room setup at the lodge. So are you in
talking about council will be like you
are here
>> and then a table where like two people
from our group come at each section or
are you looking at a room set up where
there's an equal number of people
in a round table? Have we moved from the
round table concept?
>> I think we did.
>> I I think we have moved from the round
table concept. Okay.
>> So, I think it would be more of a
setting like this, but I don't know
exactly how that that's going to set up.
We're going to have to figure out what
the most appropriate way to do it is.
[snorts]
>> We're just we're wondering then so then
two people from our group would come up
and talk it
>> whatever section you were on in the
ordinance and then there'll be an area
for the public.
>> Correct. Yes.
>> To see that.
>> Well, I would I would say that you know
the parliamentarian is the mayor. He
will run the meeting. He will say,
"Okay, we're done with that section.
We're moving to the next one." Just like
we do when we go through an agenda. So,
whoever's going to address that section
comes up, talks, then the council
discusses, throws their own two cents in
on each thing. And then when everybody's
done and the mayor thinks he's that's
worn out, we've got everything. We're
moving on. Just like that. So, it'll be
just like in this room, except there'll
be six people sitting across the front
doing all the talking for the public.
And then
>> but I will I will say that um I got an
email and I shared it today with
everybody up here. I shared it with the
mayor yesterday, but there is a for the
data center person that wants to know
when those people are going to be able
to speak because if you're limiting
these guys to two per section, then what
happens when you have somebody that
wants to come up and speak in favor of
I don't know that they're necessarily
going to want to come up and speak in
favor of, you know, telling them that
they don't want the setbacks to be the
same, but um I I don't know what they or
they were, you know, what they would
want to talk about, but they feel like
we are excluding people that are for it
and not including them.
» So, okay, quiet, please. Quiet, please.
Um,
>> okay, that Let's let Laney finish, I
guess. Did you have anything else? I was
just wonder just trying to envision the
room set up and
>> where everybody will be and how many
people
>> you want a table where people come up
and and back and forth because you know
at Lions we talk about a round table and
so then we were talking as a group well
is that small groups at roundts doing
each thing and so you know we we're just
seeing how things are and also we
appreciate your mayor Scott your
interview on KO because you gave us
props for the meeting at Lions and we
appreciate that.
>> Yeah,
>> absolutely.
>> If I may just kind of point out the
obvious here. Um there is a lot of
unknown still happening and it seems
that we really need to get some experts
involved here. I mean, we've got the
fire marshal of chief, I'm sorry, I
don't know the title coming up here.
We've got zoning. We've got all kinds of
people that are coming up and saying,
"Hey, what about this? What about this?
We really need to rethink this
moratorum. We really do. We need experts
involved in this if it's going to go go
through."
>> I I'm sorry. Go ahead.
>> So, we've we've talked to these people
that we've had groups and we've talked
to the fire chief and we've talked to
zoning. So, we do have this information.
Unfortunately, we have not been able to
share everything with you guys because
we haven't had the type of meeting other
than public comment for you guys to come
up and we can't respond to any of that.
>> Well, respectfully Rhonda, I mean, I
just heard our attorney talk about,
well, you can do this. We don't know if
we can do this. There is a lot here that
we're all kind of going different
directions, it seems. Maybe I'm wrong.
And maybe that's just because we're not
getting the information.
I think t
>> we will gladly take more information.
>> T Tuesday is going to be really the
first opportunity where there can be
some back and forth dialogue as far as
how the meeting set up. So um
I think u I'm not saying there I'm not
discounting what you're saying but I
think we should we should go forward on
Tuesday. Let's have the conversation as
we're kind of talking about it. Um
obviously we have not drafted an
ordinance like this in the past, right?
So, let's have that public discussion,
everybody that's in the room, and if we
have to shift course on how we do the
meeting, then then we can do that.
>> I would just appreciate if we keep that
in mind.
>> Yeah. I don't think I don't think
there's a perfect answer right now. Like
I said earlier, I'm kind of thinking on
the top of my head, I've been thinking
about this for two weeks, how to do it.
Um, I think we just sit down. Anybody in
the public that wants to come can come.
Um, I'm not trying to tell people they
can't talk. I don't want to do that. I
if you watch my history over the last
seven years, I I generally I have never
told anybody they can't talk. I give
them their time, right? That's that's
important to me. So there are people
that are for or against or whatever, we
want to give them the opportunity. I
just want to make sure that we're
efficient with the time as we're doing
that so that um when we're talking about
topics, we we dig into it. We get
through all the data that we have. We
share everything and then and then we
kind of move on. The ordinance is not
going to be passed on Tuesday. They're
not going to be voting on anything on
Tuesday. This is really going to be talk
about each section, gather information.
Um, I like more of a setting like this
because I I did have uh um I I got a lot
of information from meeting with with
your group, right? And I want them to
hear all the same information and I
think that's important as well. Um there
could be some people that show up that
are for it and if they have information,
we'd like to hear that as well. So
>> I think that's important.
>> No, we're I mean obviously we want more
information. we're willing to listen as
well, but
>> I just want to make sure that we're not
>> rushing through anything.
>> Right. And on Tuesday, it it we the
council and myself will be able to
respond. So, if you came up with a point
or asked a question or something like
that, we could then respond with, you
know, maybe someone up here has the
information, uh, if it's a power or
water question and we have Alliant and
Iowa American there, we can ask them the
question specifically. They can give us
those answers. We can talk through it as
a group. Um, we just want to make sure
that we're being efficient, we're
staying on task, and, you know, we're allowing everybody the the same
opportunity no matter what side of the
fence they are on any issue that's going
through there. I guess that's my thing.
>> Alliance
is also on our steering committee.
That's why she she's coming up. Um but
to be clear, American water and Alliance
are there in a like uh consultatory
role. They are not being given weight
for advocating for what they would like
to see.
>> Facts. They're there to give facts.
>> Okay. Right.
>> So they're not they can't like come up
and say, "Well, I think it should be
this because our business vested
interest, whatever."
>> Yeah.
>> Well, they could. and then they're free
to express anything they want. We're
getting really sidetracked. This is an
ordinance for data centers, not an
ordinance for QTS. So, we need to stay
focused on that and we need to put out a
product that applies across the board to
anything that meets the definition of a
data center and that's what we need to
focus on.
>> So, they can advocate for what they
want.
>> They could just like you can advocate
for your interests, they can advocate
for theirs. Everybody has the right to
do that.
Linda Chapman, 3711 Second Avenue South,
aka Mean [snorts] Girl, sixth grade
girl. Um, so you're
Pat was talking about
dwindling it down, not having too many
people. So, steering committee, but now
you have these other entities that are
here tonight even all in cahoots
together.
You got SWAT,
you got Alliant, American Water. You're
going to QTS, you're going to allow them
to come to the meeting. That's fine
because it's a public meeting. But are
you you're going to sit there and let
them speak? I know Rhonda just said
they'll give factual like if someone had
a question, they'd give a factual
answer. Are they going to be putting
input in? because QTS already tried that
by trying to sneak in their own little
ordinance. So where are we going with
that?
>> It is a public meeting and you said
you're trying to get so not very many
people talk. I was also going to suggest
to Rhonda how about the people like six
people that are for the data center come
and also discuss the ordinance that
night. allow them to be part of, you
know, like two people per section, I
think Greg said, or someone said. So,
allow,
you know, a couple people from that are
for it to come and sit and talk as well.
But you're not, are you letting every
public person there show up and speak?
Pat said no, because that would
>> I'm going to try to be as fair as
possible,
>> right?
>> Yeah. And we have the right to control
the meeting at some point where we can
say we've elected these six
spokespeople. And I think we should do
that. There's going to be public
hearings later also where anybody in the
public can come express whatever they
want. But at this drafting stage, we're
trying to be efficient. Also, it might
be advisable for the council to set a
separate work session where every
anybody can come and watch, but where
people that have a differing point of
view, the experts for example,
can come and address the council about
the draft, once we get the public input
in and get their input, get if QTS wants
to provide its red line and have have
that discussion or the water company
wants to say, "Hey, this is what we
think or this is what the power company
wishes it thinks. The council needs all
of the input. So you can the mayor can
do it any way he wants. And so what
we're doing at this first meeting I
think is to get the whole citizen input
first and get that going and then we'll
get the technical experts maybe at his
separate meeting. And I'm going to leave
that to Scott to figure out. I I don't
think you need to the council does not
need to be afraid that just because
somebody might have some sort of vested
interest that they can't speak or they
can't give advice because they can and
they should. They might be right about
some of the stuff they say. You know, if
they have experience with something, it
it'd be good for for us to hear it. So,
and I think you I think the council's
free to do that. It's perfectly
[clears throat] legal. There's nothing
underhanded about it.
So, and as long as the public gets to
watch it and you [clears throat] know
they get to see it, too. We're not doing
anything in secret. We, you know, that's
okay.
>> Okay.
So, what's council's privy on that then?
Do you want to keep those meetings, I
guess, separate, so to speak, or do you
want to allow public comment from from I
guess we'll call it both sides at the
meeting on Tuesday?
>> I'd like to see it from both sides.
>> Okay. I think we just have to limit that
portion of the meeting so we can get
some work done.
>> Can we eliminate sections to
five minutes?
>> Well, I think there's some sections that
are going to require a lot more
discussion than five minutes probably.
So, I don't I don't know about limiting
a section to a time limit. I think you
have to you got to get through it until
you get through it, you know? I I don't
think you can [clears throat] I don't
think you can put a time limit on a
section. So, yeah,
>> I I think there will eventually be a
time Tuesday night that all of us are
going to be getting tired that we're
going to have to continue
>> probably. Yep.
>> And and continue as you know, as many
times as we need to continue, you know.
So I I think we just like you say start
section one and just work through it and
when we get to a point where you know
I'm getting tired I'm getting hungry
[clears throat] let's let's call it an
evening and set it another day
>> so that we continue with
>> Kevin
>> just a couple things would it be
beneficial for us to give you the names
of the steering committee before so you
know who the people are going to be
speaking
>> the other is um I the time limit you
know just you know if you have the the
steering committee individuals coming up
there putting a time limit on it's going
to be difficult and I think we all know
that and and I want everybody to
understand this. I know this meeting is
not going to be a one and done. This is
just a a start of something that could
be beneficial I see for the the city.
And Karen, I'm absolutely agreeing with
you. I've been saying all along that any
of these things that we try to put in
place, we have to have a way to be able
to enforce it. And I know Karen can't do
that. So, we have to put something in
place. And that's some of the things we
have to be looking at to address in the
ordinance. And and again, I again I
agree with Karen. I've done these
before. The de development plan as well.
>> Those are some things we have to really
put in force. And I know Pat could
probably give us some direction on that
as well or give us some direction where
we could go to for that third party that
we need to be able to do those
enforcements.
>> Okay.
>> And that's what I suggest we might be
looking at doing to put into the
ordinance and or the development plan.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you. Most most of the ordinances
will have language in them that say um
that the that the applicant will pay for
whatever that engineer is that has to
look at certain enforcement issues. And
so that's something the council has to
consider.
>> Well, that's as I was writing my
presentation, I was putting in in some
of my I think you might have seen I
wrote in there to be determined by a
third party, you know, neutral or
something like that. I wrote I forget
now, but a neutral third party that
would be an expert in that field. The
question is though, yeah, the person
enforce it, but what's the enforcement?
That's the other part that we have to
define. Is it going to be a fine? Is it
going to be what? Do they have a certain
time frame in which to to take care of
these issues? These are things that need
to be addressed that we have to discuss
and figure out what's in the best
interest for the city.
>> Yep.
>> So, that's why I'm saying some of these
meetings are going to be continuing, I
think, further down the road. This open
dialogue is going to help us get there.
>> Yep. Corey,
>> yes, your honor. Council Porter Robinson
3801 second south neighbors with Linda
probably the most unpopular person in
here as I am in favor of it. Um one of
the things that we continue to talk
about is environmental impact and
environmental concern. What I don't see
is expertise having that conversation.
I'm fearful that a lot of input and a
lot of influence being undue brought to
the council to make decisions regarding
how we're going to draft this ordinance
and how we're going to include things
that are already heavily regulated. I
would caution council from doing that
and to bring in the experts in these
fields. Talk about noise and talk about
water and talk about energy. There's
people in the community that know these
things, understand these things. I
already understand how to regulate. So,
I would just make sure that we're we're
getting both sides of it. I know you
guys have done your due diligence, but
in these conversations and debates, uh I
think it's easy to be influenced one
direction or the other. The second part
of this is is like being in favor and
coming forward is not a popular thing in
our community. Um, as an educated
expert, right, I have a master's degree
in environmental management. I've been
doing this for a really long time. I
understand the environmental impact a
center like this has on the community,
on the water, on our resources, but to
speak out uh is a challenge because
those that are not in favor.
So, I would actually encourage you guys
to get both sides, not in the same room,
report both sides, share both sides, but
I don't know that the conversation will
be as um transparent maybe as it should
be uh in the current environment that
we're operating in. That's all. Thanks.
>> Thank you, Corey.
>> Can he be part of the conversation? He
doesn't want to
>> I'll happily be. I mean,
>> okay.
» All right.
>> Okay. So, council, is there any other
discussion? Laney? Yep.
» Laney, last 308 South Boulevard. I'd
like to suggest some other key
stakeholders that you may be
communicating with like you are in the
agenda tonight like someone from the
EPA, someone from Iowa DNR, someone from
the state geologist or archaeologist
department because if we don't answer
have those answers early on, you may be
dealing with them years later. And so I
just like
>> to put that suggestion forward. Thank
you.
>> Thank you.
>> Any other discussion or points from
council
>> on how we operate Tuesday?
[clears throat]
» Do you want to schedule two separate
meetings
and do citizen input and then we'll call
them expert or other stakeholder input?
Is that how you want to do it or do you
want to do it in one meeting?
You're not going to get even halfway
through that ordinance.
>> Yeah, you won't. No,
>> I I think what I would suggest is that
you run it like a congressional
committee when you get the experts. Just
get all the public input, then hold a
cow with the experts and run it like a
committee hearing where there's no
public comment. But we're going to ask
you all these questions we have of you,
figure out who we need here, and then
you may need to do more than one of
those if people aren't available. If you need DNR, EPA, somebody region 7
to come here, you could do that, too.
I'm sure they would do it. They have
field people they'll send to answer your
questions. But you can hold as many
committee meetings as you want in that
fashion where there is no public
comment, but you can question them all
you want. So, you can get all the input
you need and have it open to the public
to watch, but they won't they won't have
any public comment, but you'll get
everything you need in an efficient way
from all of them. I would suggest we do
a wide openen discussion with the six
member panel. Get all the public input.
You can always go back to the public
again later if you want more public
input, but then hold succession meeting
successive meetings. This is the way
I've seen it done. That's how PO did it.
They brought people in and that's how
they did it and it was an efficient way
for the council to ask its technical
questions to the to the people that you
want to call in.
>> Sounds good. comments on that
>> and and I would just want to caution the
public if that happens and you're not
invited to public comment do not panic
>> because there will be numerous other
additional opportunities for you to
write take notes and address the council
again. So it's just that they're trying
to get as much as they can in there to
get this thing drafted and and
understand what they're doing.
So
» sounds good.
>> So citizen input Tuesday. Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Congressional hearing style uh expert
input at a future meeting.
>> That would be my suggestion.
» Yes.
>> Yeah. Yes.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> Are we figuring out when
» um
>> Yeah. I mean, we can figure it out now
if you want. I
>> think we should.
>> Okay.
So, Tuesday the 1st is the the citizen
meeting.
>> How much time does council need to
digest the information that we'll get
that night? We might not get through the
whole ordinance either.
>> Right.
>> So, most likely need to get through the
ordinance first.
>> Y
uh how about we do this? Why don't we
get why don't we go to the meeting on
the first with the plan that we have
now? Uh let's get um
a few dates on the calendar to continue
working on this so that we have we have
they could be to be determined dates I
guess if we don't get through the entire
ordinance that that evening. Um do we
want to look at the next day on
Wednesday? Do we want to look at
Thursday? What is I don't know
everybody's schedules and when they can
make it. Wednesday.
>> Can we do Wednesday?
>> The second.
>> The lodge is booked the rest of the
week.
>> The lodge is booked the rest of the
week. Wonderful.
>> Um
» the next available date on the lodge is
well that's Labor Day. Uh so the 8th,
but then we have our council meeting
that evening,
>> but then the 9th's available would be
the next time.
I mean,
we can do the meeting here on the second
if we have to.
>> Yeah. I mean, they can
>> Do you want to start it?
>> It's not It's not perfect, obviously,
because it's not as big a space, but it
can still be recorded. It can still be
broadcast. It can still be all of those
things.
>> I'd say let's keep it moving.
>> I agree. Okay.
>> So, if we have to have it here, have it
here.
>> All right. So, we'll we'll plan on the
first at five o'clock at Eagle Point
Lodge. We'll go uh through that and then
if we need to we'll spill over to
Wednesday at five o'clock on the 2nd
here
» and then from that point we'll have to
determine [laughter]
from there
um where we're at with everything.
>> I would set I would say experts public
on one and experts on two. That way it
keeps
>> public on the first and experts on the
second. That's why that way it keeps us
moving.
>> I don't know if you'll get through the
ordinance on the first though. That's
the thing.
» The first, second, isn't doesn't expert
opinion
part of the ordinance drafting process.
>> Yeah, they're saying that
>> I mean, why would you want to get the
ordinance entirely done and then seek
expert opinions and then change it
again?
>> Yeah,
>> it's it's getting public comment on the
entire ordinance on the first or second.
Well, you don't think we can?
>> We've got 3 hours if it'll keep us on.
>> I think that should be enough. I mean,
>> we're going to have their letter ahead
of time.
>> I mean, getting all the ordinance
actually finished, I understand,
probably won't occur, but I don't know
why we can't get through the discussion
>> on the sections.
>> I don't expect to get through the
discussion on the entire ordinance on
the
>> Why are we limited to only three hours?
Why can't we just go later if we have
to?
If it goes any more than three hours, we
lose focus.
» Okay.
» Go ahead.
>> This is a big thing. And why do we want
to keep pushing, pushing, pushing? Um,
you just found out about it supposedly
in May and all of a sudden you just, we
got to get this done. We got to get it
done. We wanted a moratorum. You had all
kinds of time to do it. Now all of a
sudden, what are we gonna do the
following day after the public
discussion? What's the big push?
>> Well, I'd like I'd like it to stay
relevant. I'd like to remember what I
talked about the day before and it'd be
nice to keep moving so I don't forget
the things that we had already
discussed.
» Wouldn't wouldn't you agree? Like,
>> well, as far as how are you going to
line up these people? And if we're not
done with the uh discussion on the uh
ordinance, how you going to discuss the
following day with the other people? Why
don't you wait and see what's done with
the ordinance with the public?
>> I was going to make that comment. It
would take time to coordinate who you
want there.
>> If you want the DNR, if you want those
folks, it it will take some time.
>> So,
well, we we'd have you have to determine
who you want to hear from and then we
have to reach out and try to get them. I
mean, if you want the the you know, I
talked to uh the state geologist. If you
want him, he's not necessarily gonna be
available at at our call. You know,
we're going to have to coordinate that.
So,
>> mayor, didn't they have public comment
during the plan commission when they
went through this?
>> Yes.
>> So, didn't they get a lot of their
concerns out then?
>> I mean, there was there was public
comment at the plan commission. Yes.
>> Yep. There wasn't at the last public
comment at the last
>> at at the first one there was. Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Oh yeah.
>> Yeah. So
>> can I ask a question real quick? Chris
Dean Boss and Clinton. Um have any of
you looked at any other ordinances from
other cities other than QTS's like
Debukes?
>> Yes. Yes.
>> You did? Okay.
>> Yes.
>> All right. Yep. I just asked that maybe
>> Brad Brad from Debuke sent me their
packet with they had I don't know was
there three or four of them in there and
then our ordinance is based off um two
or three different cities correct Pat as
well or our draft that we have.
>> It's based off
18 different ordinances
>> including six I got from Cody and then I
had one from PO that our firm worked on
and then I had the Deuke one I believe
was another one we looked at. So there's
a lot of
>> a lot of ordinance review by everybody
up here.
>> If [snorts] we would have had a
moratorum,
this we wouldn't be so rushed and then
this is something that we could have
thought out and not feel like it's being
rushed. But I feel right like right now
and I I get it like we need to decide
something but
>> should have had that moratorum.
>> I don't I don't think in my perspective
I don't think we're rushing. I think
we're trying to set up work sessions to
work through it, right? I think that's
what my focus is and and I'm sitting
here saying that I don't know if we'll
have enough time on Tuesday to finish
all the way through it.
>> Um but you know, we council is we're in
the process to get an ordinance in place
and we need to work on it and and the
only way we can do it is in a public
meeting. So, uh I think that's really
what my focus is is to get everybody
together so we can have the conversation
and we can work on it and the time that
it takes is the time that it takes is
the way I the way I see it. So,
>> okay. I just hope that everybody is
open-minded
>> and I can stay up later
>> both on our side and on the other side
that everybody is open-minded.
>> Correct.
>> Thank you.
>> Yes. Yes.
>> All right. So,
um I think we'll go with this plan.
>> Y
>> Tuesday 5:00 we'll start right away. Um
we'll start working through it and we'll
see how far we get and then we'll
[clears throat] determine what we have
to do
>> from there. Um,
why don't we put a placeholder for
Wednesday at five o'clock for this room
for another work session because we have
to have 24 hours notice. So, if we make
the notice now, if we get through if we
don't get through everything and we want
to operate the next day, we can. If we
want to cancel it, we can cancel it as
well.
>> Same agenda attachments.
>> Yes. Yes. I think that at least gives us
a schedule a week out so we know the
schedule and then we can we can deviate
from that if we want. we can meet on
Wednesday and go through more or we
could not do it and then, you know, we
obviously have that 24-hour notice again
and we could pick a different day.
>> So, at least at least we're prepared to
have the the conversation the next
evening if we need to.
>> Is that is that fair? I'm guessing
that's kind of what council is looking
for. Yes.
>> Yes.
>> All right. Okay.
I
>> it's important everybody reads the
ordinance again and again and again and
comes prepared to discuss things and
look at just like Christine said look at
other ordinances there are lots out
there they're all a little different
some are very strict some are not some
have operated without them but you need
to come prepared so we can have a
meaningful discussion
» agreed Okay. All right.
>> Yes, ma'am.
» Uh, [clears throat] Linda Chapman. Um,
I think we are not that hostile of a
group that we could not sit in a room
with people that are for it. Um, we are
neighbors. I I didn't really know he
wasn't for it. I don't care. But
>> yeah, we've gotten a little snarky with
you guys, but we could sit in a room and
be
>> I agree.
>> And work together.
>> I agree.
>> And on top of um the people that are for
it, I've also talked to many people that
are against it, but they're also afraid
to come out because they work for the
city, they work for Alliant, they work
for American Water. So that kind of goes
both ways. Rhonda, they're afraid to
speak out as well because of their job.
They've been told not to or they're just
fearful,
you know, to do so. So, I think that's
unfair to say that they're afraid to
come out because of us cuz what we're
>> Fair enough.
>> Oh, okay. Sorry, you misspoke.
>> But I just wanted to get that out there
that that goes both ways.
>> I agree. Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> Good.
All right. Uh any updates from council
on anything?
>> Nothing.
coming up.
>> No,
>> just the only thing that I've been
working on is um September 11th is we
are doing the 25th remembrance. Um Clint
Trees Forever is hosting that with
police and fire and sheriff and band and
choir and you know there's going to be
amates [clears throat] Legion are all
part of that. So we're going to be doing
that. Um it's going to start 9:00 on
Friday, September 11th. Um we have um
MTA is going to provide shuttle service
for us. Um so we're expecting a big
crowd for sure,
>> right? It'll be a good event. So, just
put that on your calendar. Yep.
>> Couple weeks yet.
>> Okay.
Um, does anyone in here watch PBS?
>> Yes.
>> PBS. [laughter]
>> Yep. So last night I watched a couple on
well I downloaded the app and on PBS
they have some really good interviews
um on data centers with and they don't
take a position on it but they've got
professionals they kind of do a
discussion
um I actually found it pretty useful.
Um, if you if you have a smart TV and
you go to the PBS thing, you just type
in data, there's a whole lineup and they
were I I watched two hours worth and it it was actually pretty entertaining.
The one I watched was
um, Deal or Dilemma is what it's called.
And it it was a pretty good one. Um, and
then I watched another one. I can't
remember the name. So, um, but I mean,
if you're interested in continuing to
learn more, um, I think a lot of what we
see, um, it may not be real. So, um, I
think it's good to get honest
perspectives from people that have, uh,
you know, dealt with these, have put
them in their communities. you'll see uh
it might give you goosebumps because the
exact same situation
um we've been handling here is exactly
how it's gone in a lot of communities.
Um and uh but there's good information
on there. So I'd encourage you as you're
learning to go out and check that out.
So I'll probably go home and watch
another one tonight. So,
>> all right.
>> On on Monday night, uh, on Riverfront,
there's the overdose and addiction
awareness vigil. It'll be from 4 to
7:30, the band shell.
>> Okay.
All right. Anything else from council?
All right. We are adjourned.
Heat. Heat.