[0:28] Hey, hey, hey.
[1:10] Heat. Heat.
[2:23] Heat.
[3:17] N.
[3:32] Heat.
[3:54] Heat.
[5:10] Hey.
[5:54] Heat. Heat.
[7:55] line.
[8:11] Steven's ready.
[8:16] » I didn't get no words.
[8:18] >> I was just about to gave you about ready
[8:21] to bang you, baby.
[8:22] >> I didn't ask yet. I wanted to have the
[8:24] discussion first.
[8:28] >> We'll call to order the regular
[8:29] committee of the whole meeting. Can we
[8:31] begin with roll call?
[8:32] >> Council member Lee
[8:33] >> here.
[8:34] >> Oren
[8:34] >> here.
[8:35] >> Sely
[8:35] >> here.
[8:35] >> Dutterman
[8:36] >> here.
[8:36] >> Turpin
[8:37] >> here.
[8:37] >> Winter
[8:38] >> here.
[8:38] >> Karns
[8:39] >> here.
[8:40] >> All right. Tammy.
[8:52] » Good evening, Mayor and Council. Tanny
[8:54] Johnson, community development director.
[8:56] I've brought to you guys a proposal for
[8:59] a program to try to eliminate some of
[9:01] our vacant lots that we have the
[9:04] non-buildable.
[9:06] We tried over the years to sell them to
[9:08] the neighbors just with letters and
[9:10] stuff. Um it's cumbersome when we have
[9:13] them bid on. They don't understand the
[9:15] bidding process.
[9:17] You get out. It's just I think it's a
[9:20] little bit of cumbersome for them. So
[9:23] our my idea is we don't we need to get
[9:26] rid of them. We need to stop maintaining
[9:27] these properties if we look at going
[9:30] ahead and we can door knock when we're
[9:32] out there doing the nuisances and send
[9:34] letters out, talk to these people, sell
[9:37] them for what it costs the city to do
[9:38] the quick claim deal. [clears throat]
[9:41] The areas that are in the urban renewal,
[9:43] we still have to go out for bid with
[9:44] those. But the rest of them, we can look
[9:46] at just getting the neighbors to pay the
[9:48] quick claim, which is roughly
[9:49] [clears throat] about $200.
[9:51] And on top of that, I've also talked to
[9:53] the county because we want to make sure
[9:54] they also parcel it together with their
[9:56] lot. Um, the county has given me the
[9:59] form that needs to be filled out.
[10:00] They've said once they get a quick clean
[10:02] deed recorded, we just go ahead and send
[10:04] them that form and they'll do it. They
[10:07] do that once a year. That's the only
[10:09] time they do it, but they'll file them
[10:11] away and then they'll get done once a
[10:12] year. I think this was an easy idea to
[10:15] get it out to the neighbors to try to
[10:17] unload some of these non-buildable lots
[10:19] that we have. Just looking to see what
[10:21] you guys sent yet. It's not a really in
[10:24] detailed packet, but it was enough to
[10:26] get it out into you guys to see what you
[10:28] guys thoughts are.
[10:29] >> We still have to give opportunity to
[10:31] both sides of the property.
[10:33] >> We would door knock on both neighbors.
[10:35] Um we we even looked at maybe making
[10:37] some postings. We could just put on
[10:39] their door um asking them to reach out
[10:41] to us if they're interested. We would
[10:42] still split them. We've done that in the
[10:44] past. papers want pull the parcel
[10:46] together. If they want to split it, they
[10:48] can split the cost to do it themselves
[10:50] then and split it. They still get a
[10:52] little bit of everything.
[10:53] >> So, if they split it, is it $200 for one
[10:58] neighbor, $200?
[10:59] >> It probably would be. Um, I think unless
[11:01] the quick claim deed may not be that
[11:03] expensive doing two at one time. I mean,
[11:05] they're pretty easy. A lot of it's we're
[11:07] doing the filing fee with that and
[11:09] everything. So, they have to do nothing
[11:10] but come down and sign it and we'll file
[11:13] it for them.
[11:14] So, there's less lab work for that.
[11:16] >> I may be putting you on the spot, but do
[11:18] you know how much it costs the city to
[11:20] maintain some of these lots throughout
[11:22] as as a total?
[11:24] >> Um,
[11:25] public works has them out for mowing if
[11:28] I remember right. Some of them are 10,
[11:29] some are $20 a mow.
[11:31] >> Okay.
[11:31] >> Um, same with the shoveling.
[11:33] >> They're still shoveling them. Um, we
[11:35] have a problem with
[11:36] >> There's about how many of these lots?
[11:38] >> Uh, probably [snorts] about 50 or so.
[11:41] >> Okay.
[11:41] >> Give or take. Yeah. Um, but we have we
[11:44] people find them, they know they're
[11:45] vacant city lots and they dump on them.
[11:47] So then probably works out cleaning them
[11:49] up. So we have the keys on top of that
[11:51] as well.
[11:52] >> They've also had to go out and take some
[11:54] trees down on them because limbs have
[11:55] busted. Um, it's just all around it's
[11:58] time to really start getting rid of
[11:59] them.
[12:01] >> So one thing I didn't see was to ensure
[12:04] that the neighbors are up to date on
[12:07] their taxes, but I did see that we can
[12:10] reject.
[12:11] >> Yes. So would we leave that during and
[12:15] to that process or would we let them
[12:16] know upfront that we want them to be I
[12:19] mean because we're doing this to get
[12:21] them back on the tax roll so we want to
[12:23] make sure that who we sell them to we're
[12:25] actually paying their taxes.
[12:26] >> Correct. Um and that to me I would leave
[12:29] that up to you. Do you want me I can if
[12:31] they turn that in and they're behind in
[12:33] their taxes we can just I can just send
[12:35] them a letter and say you know get your
[12:36] taxes up to date.
[12:38] >> Um that I think would be the best way.
[12:40] see if they can go and make current with
[12:42] t with the county
[12:44] >> um
[12:45] >> and go that way.
[12:46] >> Want to make sure we're looking at it.
[12:48] >> Yeah. Oh, yes. We do that on all of
[12:50] them. So, or we could give you guys the
[12:52] proposal and you guys make the decision.
[12:53] But I think if we catch it on our end,
[12:55] give them the chance to go make it make
[12:58] it fair and get it paid.
[13:00] Tammy, I like your idea, but I'd also
[13:02] like to maybe look at the zoning and
[13:05] ordinance and maybe turn some of these
[13:07] uh non-buildable lots into buildable
[13:09] lots so people can build some tiny homes
[13:10] on them.
[13:12] >> And I get and I know we've discussed
[13:14] that before. I think we need to get
[13:15] moving. There are some in the areas that
[13:17] they just really need to go to the
[13:18] neighbors. Correct.
[13:19] >> Um and I think if we look at those, that
[13:21] was kind of my idea is to start with the
[13:22] ones that we know just really need to go
[13:24] to the neighbors that they're not
[13:25] conducive. They're smaller. I mean, we
[13:27] do have some 20 foot lots out there that
[13:29] are really small. We have some weird
[13:31] corner pie-shaped ones and stuff. I
[13:33] think those are the ones we look at and
[13:34] really try to start getting them gone.
[13:37] >> I agree. We've had them for some of
[13:39] those we've had for many, many years.
[13:41] And
[13:41] >> we have. Yes.
[13:43] >> What if they say, "Nope, we don't want
[13:45] it."
[13:46] >> Then I guess we're back to the drawing
[13:48] board and trying to figure out what we
[13:49] do.
[13:50] >> Pretty sure we can just split it and put
[13:52] it with their parcel.
[13:57] Not going to charge them for something
[13:59] they don't want.
[13:59] >> Well, then we're going to have to pay
[14:01] it. But the the fact is is we can't keep
[14:05] maintaining these
[14:07] um in forever,
[14:09] >> right? I agree.
[14:10] >> With no purpose. So, um
[14:14] >> do the math here. If we're talking 50,
[14:17] just do the math and we're talking
[14:20] $200 to
[14:23] >> prepare the deed. and all that. You
[14:25] know, we're talking what? 10 grand. Does
[14:29] that sound right?
[14:32] >> It's not a It wouldn't be a lot of
[14:34] money, but 50 times I mean
[14:37] >> 50 times 200
[14:39] >> 10 grand. Yeah. [clears throat]
[14:39] >> Okay.
[14:40] >> Yeah,
[14:41] >> that's right.
[14:43] So, Mr. Bank,
[14:45] >> I don't know. Maybe it's
[14:48] >> Oh, you mean not even charge them for
[14:49] it?
[14:50] >> Yeah.
[14:52] just get rivet
[14:54] budget's going to allow that right now.
[14:55] >> I know. I know.
[14:56] >> So,
[14:56] >> well, we could we could start with this,
[14:58] >> but I think I think because it's public
[15:00] property, we have to get some
[15:02] >> a reasonable cost for it or what
[15:04] whatever the word is that Pat uses, you
[15:06] know.
[15:06] >> Well,
[15:07] >> yeah, we're supposed to try to ascertain
[15:09] market value, but when you have a
[15:11] property that's not marketable except
[15:13] for two adjoining properties, that
[15:16] market value is pretty limited, right?
[15:19] just saying
[15:20] >> it's a good starting point.
[15:23] >> It's been common practice that we get
[15:24] 100, 200, maybe 500 for some of these.
[15:27] So, I think we should still try to
[15:28] maintain that where we're getting that
[15:30] something of that sort.
[15:33] I don't necessarily like the idea of
[15:35] just putting it into somebody's property
[15:36] that that I don't know.
[15:38] >> Well, I think you might find that that
[15:40] might not be an option, but we can start
[15:41] with this.
[15:42] >> I think it's a good starting point to
[15:44] see how it goes.
[15:45] >> Can we leave it up to Tammy's
[15:47] discretion? So, like if she's finds a
[15:49] lot that's not very big, then it might
[15:50] just be easier to
[15:53] pay the fee and get it over. I mean,
[15:55] we've been talking about it for a while.
[15:56] It' be nice to just
[15:59] move forward on
[15:59] >> I don't mind there being some
[16:01] discretion.
[16:05] » Could you bring us back a list of the
[16:07] ones that you're thinking of?
[16:09] >> Yeah.
[16:09] >> Or send it to us?
[16:10] >> Yeah, I can send them to you. We uh we
[16:14] looked at what we sent out for the RFP
[16:17] and we don't have that much to list
[16:20] after we pulled out all these lots.
[16:22] >> No. And I said [laughter] that before as
[16:24] far as the buildable ones, there are a handful and that's it.
[16:27] >> Yep.
[16:30] >> I like the idea of knocking on the doors
[16:31] and asking the neighbors, seeing where
[16:33] they stand.
[16:34] >> We'd also get with Christa um on a
[16:36] Facebook post, maybe the Clinton area,
[16:38] get it out there to the residents. We
[16:40] have these lots. If you live next door
[16:42] to them and you're interested, just call
[16:43] us. Let's sit down and get this done.
[16:45] >> Yep.
[16:45] >> I think 50 lots wouldn't take a ton of
[16:47] time to contact the,
[16:50] you know, we might [snorts] be able to
[16:51] dwindle that list down by 20 lots, you
[16:53] know, in the first round and see where
[16:55] we're at from there before we move on to
[16:57] another approach.
[16:58] >> Yep.
[17:01] >> Do you need a motion, Tammy?
[17:02] >> Yes, I do.
[17:03] >> Okay. Is anybody anything else you want
[17:06] to I mean, I'm fine with proceeding with
[17:09] this. Okay, I'll make a motion. Second.
[17:12] >> All right, we have a motion and a second
[17:13] to uh move forward the Good Neighbor lot
[17:17] acquisition program. Any other
[17:19] discussion or comments?
[17:21] >> Okay, can we have roll call, please?
[17:23] >> Council member Turpin,
[17:24] >> yes.
[17:24] >> Winter,
[17:25] >> yes.
[17:25] >> Karns,
[17:26] >> yes.
[17:26] >> Lee,
[17:27] >> yes.
[17:27] >> Oren, yes.
[17:28] >> Sely,
[17:28] >> yes.
[17:29] >> Dman,
[17:29] >> yes.
[17:31] >> Okay. Thanks.
[17:32] >> Thanks, Sammy.
[17:34] >> Okay. Uh the 2B item, the um discussing
[17:39] the meeting for next Tuesday.
[17:42] Uh
[17:45] I guess I wanted to start with the
[17:47] council and what your thoughts are and
[17:49] how you want the meeting to run. Um
[17:53] how you want to gather information, what
[17:55] your I guess what's the what are we
[17:58] getting out of the meeting on the first?
[18:00] Are we are you looking to gather
[18:02] information? Are you looking to stick
[18:04] specifically to the ordinance? What
[18:06] what's the because I think that's going
[18:07] to matter how we frame the meeting. Um
[18:10] how what you're looking for?
[18:13] Does that make sense?
[18:15] >> I think at this point, my opinion is we
[18:17] stick to the ordinance. I'm going work
[18:18] on the ordinance and
[18:19] >> work on the ordinance. Okay.
[18:21] [clears throat]
[18:22] And my thought was and I think done with
[18:25] council member Winter that
[18:28] there are all these sections and you
[18:31] know like say if we talk about water we
[18:33] talk about power whatever um we if we're
[18:38] going to talk about water let's talk
[18:41] about water let's not talk about
[18:42] everything else let's just talk about
[18:45] that particular section of water or if
[18:48] we talk about power let's talk about
[18:50] that particular section
[18:52] If we're talking about setback, let's
[18:54] talk about that particular section for
[18:56] setbacks and and let's not let's go
[19:00] right through the the draft as it as it
[19:04] is now and then just say, okay, you
[19:07] know, here's here's what you know is in
[19:10] draft right now. What what are all the
[19:12] issues that concern that particular
[19:15] section? and then say okay this is this
[19:19] uh works this doesn't work um this needs
[19:22] to be here or this needs to be there and
[19:25] then at the end we'll have a you know a
[19:27] lot of ideas for each individual section
[19:31] you know is it 500 ft is it 1,000 ft etc
[19:36] is it [clears throat] monitoring of the
[19:38] wells where we as council get a um
[19:43] you know a monthly or quarterly an
[19:46] annual ual bianual report of what the
[19:49] that particular usage is that you know
[19:52] so that we're looking at each individual
[19:54] thing because it's going to be you know
[19:57] there are so many things that are um
[20:01] built upon the other thing as I've been
[20:03] reading it and it's just you know we
[20:05] need to we need to dissect it very
[20:08] specifically
[20:09] >> so if I gather just in short what you're
[20:11] saying is gather information but gather
[20:14] that information in the framework of
[20:16] ordinance section by section. Yes,
[20:18] >> is kind of what you're saying.
[20:19] >> Okay.
[20:22] » Anything else from anyone?
[20:24] >> I like the idea of working through I'm
[20:26] sorry, Janet. Go ahead.
[20:28] >> Oh, I was uh going to say I like the
[20:30] idea of literally because then it gives
[20:32] the members that'll be speaking from the
[20:34] public that kind of a schedule of this
[20:38] is what we're going to do. Go from
[20:39] section one to section two and work our
[20:42] way down. It'll I think be a lot more
[20:46] organized that way.
[20:48] >> Sure.
[20:48] >> And keep everybody on task.
[20:50] >> Okay. Council member Karns,
[20:52] >> I like the idea of working through the
[20:53] ordinance, not the roundt sessions
[20:56] because I think everybody can get the
[20:58] same information and I think it'll be
[21:00] more productive for a final outcome.
[21:05] >> Okay. If you're going to want, you know,
[21:09] what the city attorney to help you draft
[21:11] it up, um, I would suggest that
[21:15] you do it the way council member Oberin
[21:18] suggested. Try to collect everything
[21:21] that you might potentially want to
[21:22] change about each section before you
[21:24] move to the next one and get the
[21:27] committee's input on everything that
[21:29] they think should be included.
[21:32] Get that done in a bucket. So you any
[21:35] and then ask a final question. Anybody
[21:38] else have anything else that they think
[21:39] should be considered in this section?
[21:41] Get that collected then move to the
[21:43] next. And then when you get all those
[21:44] note I'm going to have I'm going to be
[21:46] on vacation but Sam is probably going to
[21:48] be here to help with this so she can
[21:50] take notes and go through it with you so
[21:54] that when I get the notes back you know
[21:57] I will see like okay this is everything
[21:59] that and then you're probably going to
[22:01] need a second cow where you actually
[22:03] debate what you want in and what you
[22:05] don't want in. But at that first
[22:07] meeting, I would highly encourage you to
[22:09] make sure the committee comes prepared
[22:11] because they're the only ones that are
[22:12] going to talk at it, not the whole
[22:14] public because we'll never get through
[22:16] it. Have the committee ready with a a
[22:18] long I mean, they already have have a
[22:20] long written list of things they want
[22:22] that you that should be pretty
[22:23] comprehensive, but I would have them
[22:25] emphasize everything they particularly
[22:26] want.
[22:28] And once you're done with that, we'll go
[22:31] to a second cow. And then that's when
[22:33] we'll debate like what do you want in,
[22:35] what do you want not want in. I just as
[22:37] a scriber, I need to know what you guys
[22:39] vote to put in and what you don't want
[22:41] to vote to put in.
[22:43] >> Before I can actually get down to work.
[22:46] >> So, I like Greg's idea. I think that
[22:48] practically speaking, if you want to get
[22:50] an ordinance drafted, you've got to get
[22:52] down to brass tax on what it's going to
[22:54] say, and that's the only way to do it
[22:55] really. [snorts]
[22:57] >> Okay. And I think too um I don't there
[23:01] may be um
[23:05] >> opportunities within each section that
[23:09] we can choose AB or C
[23:12] >> right
[23:12] >> and that's what we what we will come
[23:15] back with a next committee the whole to
[23:18] actually describe or actually discuss
[23:20] and maybe um determine if we're going to
[23:24] go with AB or C within that particular
[23:26] section.
[23:28] It may be that everybody's in agreement
[23:30] on section three, so we're not going to
[23:33] change that one.
[23:34] >> But, you know, [clears throat] section
[23:35] four, there might be five different
[23:37] opportunities to say, you know, well,
[23:40] this or this or this or this that we're
[23:42] going to have to have some very deep
[23:43] discussion on and may need to then say,
[23:47] wait a minute, we're need to need to go
[23:49] out to find somebody that's smarter than
[23:52] we are in this particular section. You
[23:54] know, like if we're talking about water,
[23:56] we're talking about power. Those are the
[23:58] things that are high in my mind, you
[24:00] know, so that we can then say, okay,
[24:02] what does this exactly mean? If you
[24:05] know, we're going to choose A, B, or C
[24:07] here, what does A mean in power? What
[24:10] does B mean in power? What does C mean
[24:12] in power? That kind of discussion.
[24:15] >> Mayor be the second. Are we able to have
[24:17] some kind of experts here at that time?
[24:19] Like maybe some representatives form
[24:22] water power to kind of help?
[24:25] >> I know.
[24:26] >> Yeah. I mean, I I think I would think
[24:30] that the council would want to hear
[24:32] comments from the broad range of information,
[24:36] right, from people for against people
[24:38] that are experts on this or or that. um
[24:42] how we facilitate that is going to be
[24:44] important though because uh you know
[24:48] obviously we have to get through the
[24:49] ordinance right so I think you have to
[24:51] be um like we talked about you know if a
[24:53] group has a spokesperson and that
[24:55] spokesperson is the one that talks and
[24:57] comments um it'll be hard to get through
[25:00] um I mean it it won't be hard to get
[25:03] through it'll just take more meetings
[25:05] obviously which is fine we can do
[25:06] however many meetings we need to um but
[25:08] the more people you have comment
[25:09] individually the more you know you I
[25:12] guess the more time so and again I'll
[25:14] take as many meetings as we need to get
[25:16] through it but that's something to to be
[25:18] said
[25:20] ma'am
[25:21] >> got to come up to the podium please
[25:27] » so we as a steering committee have like
[25:29] kind of broken down different sections
[25:31] of the ordinance and we're all doing
[25:33] extensive research on those sections so
[25:35] that we can discuss those sections
[25:38] specifically
[25:39] Um,
[25:40] >> that would be perfect.
[25:41] >> How many of us would you are you
[25:44] planning on
[25:46] talking with?
[25:47] >> Well, I mean, if you had
[25:50] I guess I'm just spitballing here, so
[25:51] I'm just thinking out loud, but if you
[25:53] had, you know, one or two people that
[25:55] were each section and that's those were
[25:57] the people that commented on that
[25:58] section. I mean, we're obviously going
[25:59] to go through every section, so I don't
[26:02] think that's I don't think it's a bad
[26:03] way to do it.
[26:04] >> Okay. Um, you know, I I guess ultimately
[26:07] we want to make sure that we're we're
[26:09] being efficient with the time as we're
[26:11] discussing so that when we're discussing
[26:12] it, we're discussing the topics going
[26:14] through and we don't necessarily have,
[26:16] you know, 25 people come up and and say
[26:18] the same thing, you know.
[26:19] >> So, you would say one to two people per
[26:21] topic.
[26:22] >> Yeah, that that's I think that's that's
[26:24] fine. I mean, I
[26:25] >> but we had discussed six people total.
[26:28] So,
[26:30] >> that's about
[26:30] >> Yeah. Yeah. What I'm concerned about is
[26:33] we'll be here for 17 hours if the entire
[26:35] public ches in on every single thing
[26:37] >> on our end that we planned on taking our
[26:41] recommendations before the meeting and
[26:43] also putting them in a letter so that
[26:46] you would have time to review them and
[26:48] see them and that might help us exp.
[26:50] >> I think that's a great idea. Do you know
[26:52] when you'll have that kind of complete?
[26:57] » Can Kevin address that?
[27:00] Um,
[27:02] >> that kind of goes both ways. We we'll
[27:04] get it to you. Our goal is to get it by
[27:06] Thursday, I think we said, right?
[27:07] Thursday or Friday of this week.
[27:08] >> Okay.
[27:09] >> And like I I talked to Pat earlier, I
[27:11] have three sections Friday. Okay. So,
[27:13] we're going to like put everything
[27:14] together, send it to Celeste, and
[27:15] Celeste will then forward it to
[27:17] >> to the council.
[27:18] >> Okay.
[27:19] >> But the reason why I say both ways is
[27:20] that I kind of like to have an idea as a
[27:22] committee
[27:23] >> what you're going to be working off of
[27:24] because I know we've seen a couple
[27:26] different things. I mean, we got QTS's
[27:28] recommendation that came in from July
[27:29] 29th.
[27:30] >> Then we have what you've been working on
[27:31] when we had the last planning
[27:32] commission.
[27:33] >> We're going to go off the ordinance that
[27:35] went to the plan commission.
[27:36] >> Okay. So, the QTS is out of the
[27:37] equation.
[27:38] >> Correct. That's that's not the draft
[27:40] we're working off of.
[27:41] >> That's what I'm getting at because if
[27:42] this is because me directed about or
[27:44] somebody did that or no, I think Greg
[27:46] you said about three different things.
[27:47] You know, we're going to bury A, B, and
[27:49] C. Well, I I don't see that completely
[27:51] being the true equation because you
[27:52] might combine A, B, and C. Yes. But
[27:54] yeah, but but you don't understand my
[27:55] point. I'm not trying to be
[27:56] argumentative.
[27:57] >> I'm just saying that but it would help
[27:58] us to be prepared too to be able to have
[28:00] a favorable discussion that goes both
[28:02] ways.
[28:02] >> Correct.
[28:03] >> So if we can make sure that we have a a
[28:05] final copy that you're working off of, I
[28:07] think would help us as a committee too
[28:09] to streamline, as you said, take care of
[28:10] our time.
[28:11] >> Christristie, can you
[28:12] >> can you link that to the agenda?
[28:14] >> I was planning on having it on the
[28:15] agenda. I was just waiting for after the
[28:17] meeting decide what what items the
[28:19] council wanted. I would say to expect
[28:21] the letter from us on Friday. We're
[28:24] having our large group meeting on
[28:25] Thursday and we want to make sure that
[28:27] more than just the steering committee's
[28:29] concerns and research goes into what we
[28:32] present to the city.
[28:33] >> That's fine. So when we post the agenda,
[28:36] >> do you want their letters? Do you want
[28:38] me to wait to post the agenda to have
[28:39] their letter there, too? I think you can
[28:42] post the agenda tomorrow
[28:44] >> with the draft that we'll be working off
[28:47] of and then we can amend the agenda on
[28:49] Friday and add their um letter to it if
[28:52] we'd like.
[28:53] >> Okay.
[28:53] >> And if I mean we can
[28:55] >> Go ahead. [snorts]
[28:56] >> I was just going to say if you're going
[28:57] to do a letter, make sure that you're
[29:00] very precise about exactly what section
[29:02] you're talking about. Use the ordinance
[29:05] as as your skeleton and please indicate
[29:08] specifically in bullet points or however
[29:11] you want to do it all the changes you
[29:13] think go in that section so that when
[29:16] everybody up here reads it, they can see
[29:17] right where you're referring.
[29:19] >> Can I address you real quick and show
[29:20] you this is kind of what we're putting
[29:21] together. See if this fits your format.
[29:23] >> Sure.
[29:24] >> As long as it's clear to me. I'm just
[29:26] trying to make sure that as an exercise
[29:27] I'm not confused on the draft.
[29:29] >> So this is one that I put together with
[29:31] like an introduction.
[29:32] >> Okay. So, skip the introduction,
[29:34] >> but I'm I'm I know I have we have a
[29:36] couple folks here today. I'm assuming
[29:38] the utility partners will be in
[29:40] attendance on
[29:42] >> Tuesday as well so that if there are
[29:44] specific questions to water, power,
[29:47] anything like that, we'd be able to have
[29:48] those answered.
[29:50] >> Shaking our heads back there. Yes. Okay.
[29:52] All right. So, what I would suggest is I
[29:54] mean these these suggestions are are are
[29:57] good, but don't just say uh fire safety
[30:03] put the section that's in the ordinance
[30:05] exactly what numbered paragraph it is
[30:07] and exact use exactly the titles that
[30:09] are currently in the ordinance.
[30:10] >> This was strictly for discussion.
[30:12] >> Yeah.
[30:13] What what we had talked about, we
[30:15] talked about the formatting quite a bit.
[30:18] What we're going to do is take the
[30:19] original proposed ordinance
[30:21] >> and we talked about a Google Docs, but
[30:23] not everyone's down with Google Docs.
[30:25] >> It's all right. Fire chief, you have
[30:27] comment.
[30:32] » Just as Pat was saying, I think it's
[30:34] important that you have all the key
[30:35] players in the room because you don't
[30:37] want anything in the ordinance that goes
[30:39] against state codes. For example, 2023
[30:42] NAC covers electrical
[30:45] >> and the 2024 International Fire Code
[30:48] covers the fire and a lot of electrical
[30:50] as well. So, we want to make sure that
[30:52] there's nothing in the ordinance that
[30:53] contradicts state law. This is difficult
[30:55] because we don't normally write
[30:57] ordinances for particular businesses.
[31:00] So, kind of write them for industry and
[31:04] then everything that you want for that
[31:05] particular business goes into that
[31:07] development. I think I'm not sitting
[31:10] this year, but so I just want to make
[31:12] sure you know that we have our
[31:13] electrical professionals here, correct?
[31:15] For the 2023, we have the building
[31:17] officials here. I'm here. We need to
[31:19] make sure that none of those contradict
[31:20] the same.
[31:21] >> Absolutely. Yep.
[31:23] >> So, the format I was saying, uh, we're
[31:26] going to have the original ordinance
[31:28] that you wrote verbatim and then we will
[31:30] have like a text box with our
[31:33] recommendations. It might have excerpts
[31:36] from what the section above it is that
[31:39] we like put a cross through or something
[31:41] like that, but it will be very beat
[31:43] forbeat what the ordinance has more than
[31:46] the letter we submitted to planning and
[31:48] zoning.
[31:50] >> Because if if they're going to debate
[31:52] what the language should be,
[31:53] [clears throat]
[31:54] the clearer you are on what you want
[31:56] added and changed, the better and
[31:58] exactly where you want it so that
[32:00] they'll have it all in one neat basket.
[32:02] Now, they may have other thoughts of
[32:04] their own that they want to interject,
[32:05] which they can do, but at least they'll
[32:07] know exactly what the public committee
[32:09] wants.
[32:10] >> There there was one other thing. There's
[32:13] some issuance
[32:16] that I know you had talked about at
[32:18] planning and zoning like uh air quality
[32:20] was one of the things that wasn't the
[32:23] original.
[32:23] >> Those will be linked on there as well.
[32:24] The recommendation from the plan
[32:26] commission will all be linked on there.
[32:28] But what I'm saying is if we're going
[32:29] beat forbeat with the proposed
[32:32] ordinance, there's no section in there
[32:33] for that.
[32:34] >> If you're missing Yeah. If you're
[32:36] missing a section in the current draft
[32:38] that you believe should be added, just
[32:40] put new section one, new section two,
[32:43] new section three, we can number it
[32:45] later. Give it a title, whatever it is.
[32:49] Uh compliance with the comprehensive
[32:52] plan, you know, whatever language you're
[32:54] suggesting. Then go to the next thing
[32:55] you think should be added.
[32:57] That would be sufficient and then we can
[32:59] rewrite and re number later when the
[33:01] council gets it all collected in the
[33:03] basket.
[33:04] >> Sounds good. Thank you.
[33:05] >> All right. So,
[33:07] I guess Karen, go ahead.
[33:12] >> Are we asking for the planning committee
[33:14] to attend as well?
[33:15] >> No. No.
[33:18] >> Karen Ran, deputy zoning city. I just
[33:24] want to make sure I sent you guys email.
[33:26] I didn't know if everybody got it, but
[33:27] like some of the stuff that's in this
[33:29] ordinance isn't really a zoning
[33:31] ordinance. So, as we move forward on
[33:34] this, we need to pluck some of these
[33:36] things out that belong in a development
[33:37] agreement, like roads. That's not a
[33:40] zoning ordinance issue. Also, noise,
[33:43] vibration, pollution, those aren't
[33:45] zoning issues. Those when we talk
[33:47] zoning, we're talking land use. Okay?
[33:50] How's the land being used? setbacks,
[33:53] heights. What's an allowable use? Well,
[33:55] out there it's allowable use.
[33:57] [clears throat] If I'm not mistaken,
[33:58] they could come in tomorrow and build.
[34:00] Is that right, Pat? We don't have to
[34:01] have a development agreement. We don't
[34:03] have an ordinance right now. They could
[34:04] build right now.
[34:05] >> Theoretically, yes.
[34:06] >> Yes. They could come and get their
[34:08] building permit tomorrow, guys, and
[34:10] build a plant.
[34:11] >> Well, they'd have to go through the plan
[34:12] review process, but we don't have an
[34:14] ordinance that would stop anything.
[34:16] >> Okay. So, as we look at this land use,
[34:19] okay, we need to pluck out the things
[34:22] that are nuisances because that's
[34:24] belongs in the nuisance ordinance. We
[34:26] need to pluck out the development
[34:27] agreement stuff that belongs in the
[34:29] development agreement and and focus the
[34:32] zoning ordinance on the zoning because
[34:35] when it's all said and done, I got to
[34:36] enforce this or somebody else after I
[34:39] win the lottery, I won't be here
[34:40] anymore. Anyway, somebody else is going
[34:43] to have to enforce this. And you know, I
[34:45] don't enforce noise. I'm not a noise
[34:48] enforcer. I'm a land use enforcer.
[34:50] That's what the zoning person does.
[34:54] >> Karen, you've started going through
[34:56] everything too, right? With your own
[34:58] >> I think I have the latest and greatest
[35:00] because there were a couple of them
[35:01] floating around and I gave my
[35:04] >> Oh, sense.
[35:05] >> Yep. Yeah. You need to go through the
[35:08] probably the plan commission one. just
[35:09] the one that's linked on the plan
[35:10] commission from July 5th.
[35:12] >> I think you have that one.
[35:13] >> Yeah.
[35:14] >> Okay.
[35:15] >> They they didn't change that. They just
[35:16] made another document with their
[35:17] recommendations. So that draft didn't
[35:20] get
[35:21] >> looked at that. It just looked like it
[35:23] kind of looked like what these guys have
[35:25] and they just included that and I go,
[35:26] "Okay, is this what we're looking at?"
[35:29] So anyway, I could take a hard look at
[35:32] that and we can pluck those things up.
[35:34] >> Yeah,
[35:34] >> they're all valid points. I'm not trying
[35:35] to take away anything from what
[35:37] anybody's saying here. They're all very
[35:38] valid points, but they don't belong in
[35:40] the zoning ordinance.
[35:47] » So, all right.
[35:48] >> Hold on. Hold on.
[35:50] >> This is this is the this is the thing.
[35:52] Normally, Karen is right.
[35:54] >> Normally, [laughter]
[35:58] » she is she is she is she is stating what
[36:00] is the traditional way to draft a zoning
[36:02] code. You don't typically put in noise
[36:05] limits and all those different types of
[36:06] things. uh they may be regulated
[36:08] elsewhere in the code but not
[36:10] necessarily in zoning because that deals
[36:11] with land use. But the trend pretty much
[36:15] all across the United States is that
[36:17] zoning codes regarding data centers.
[36:19] They may not have all of the specific
[36:22] issues that are nonzoning, but they do
[36:25] have requirements that these plans that
[36:27] all applicants submit, water studies and
[36:31] things like that, including noise
[36:33] studies and all those different things.
[36:35] So even though it isn't traditionally
[36:37] what is done,
[36:40] the council can if they wish include
[36:43] more or less every anything they want in
[36:45] a zoning ordinance. So I'm just saying
[36:48] that I agree with you.
[36:50] >> I agree with you that that's not the
[36:52] typical land use plan because
[36:57] >> we never really ran into a hypers scale
[36:59] data center animal before in our
[37:01] country's history.
[37:03] But that has been the trend. So I'll
[37:05] just tell the council if you look just
[37:07] all you got to do is do a Google search
[37:10] for all the different ordinances and
[37:12] you'll see that they're doing all of
[37:13] this. So I'm just saying you aren't
[37:17] legally permitted or legally prohibited
[37:19] from including more extensive
[37:22] requirements up front if somebody wants
[37:24] to be an applicant to site one of these
[37:25] things. Well, then the question
[37:27] >> and it's a pain for Karen
[37:29] >> because who enforces this then? Because
[37:31] I don't have a noise or size
[37:35] metering system or we don't walk around
[37:38] with those things on our belts. But the
[37:40] ordinance,
[37:40] >> who's looking at the studies? Because I
[37:42] tell you what, when the land use is
[37:44] done, when I'm done, you know, yep, your setbacks are great, your height is
[37:49] great, your what you're approved to use
[37:51] is great.
[37:53] >> That's usually where I stop. You won't
[37:55] be able to enforce this ordinance by
[37:57] yourself. That is for certain. You will
[37:59] need expertise to come in and assist
[38:02] you.
[38:03] >> Yes.
[38:03] >> Karen, are you able to come to the
[38:05] meeting September 1st?
[38:06] >> Absolutely.
[38:07] >> Okay.
[38:08] >> I I think what a bet I think you and
[38:09] Karen need to I would like Karen to go
[38:11] through it and give her input, but I
[38:13] think maybe you guys need to talk
[38:14] outside of this meeting on some things.
[38:17] >> Yeah. Well, she she did red line and
[38:18] send me a bunch of comments from Good.
[38:21] Well, those are things I want to see,
[38:22] but I would need to make sure you guys
[38:24] are on the same page as well. Yeah.
[38:27] >> If you guys want it in this zorning
[38:28] again, how who's enforcing it and who's
[38:31] looking at it because I'm not looking at
[38:33] I don't look at sound waves.
[38:36] >> We'll just give you a different title.
[38:37] >> Oh, that'd be great. [laughter]
[38:39] >> All-encompassing.
[38:41] >> Thank you. Thank you, everybody.
[38:43] >> Thank you. Thanks. I guess that's the
[38:45] issue that I have then is we sp we sit
[38:48] up here and we spend hours looking at
[38:50] ordinances and and we put things in it
[38:52] and then if we don't have anybody to
[38:54] enforce it,
[38:56] what's what's the value in it then?
[38:59] >> Yep.
[39:01] >> Well, most of these ordinances are
[39:03] enforced through expert assistance
[39:07] during the construction phase
[39:10] and afterward.
[39:13] It's just the that's just how it is. And
[39:15] I it's not easy. Council member Wyers's
[39:17] correct that it's not easy to enforce
[39:19] these. I gone blind reading about all
[39:22] the horror stories of how they tried to
[39:24] determine, you know, if the water usage
[39:26] was actually what it was really used or
[39:29] >> whatever or whether the noise levels are
[39:32] what the ordinance contemplates or
[39:33] something greater than that. And there
[39:35] are ways to enforce that. It just isn't
[39:36] easy for Karen to do that by herself.
[39:38] And you just need to be aware of that.
[39:41] >> Okay. Perfect.
[39:42] >> Okay. So, I guess as far as a plan
[39:45] >> for this, we're going to start at the
[39:47] top of that ordinance
[39:49] >> and we're going to we're going to go
[39:50] down.
[39:51] >> Is that the easiest way to do it so that
[39:52] we stay on track? We're not skipping section to section.
[39:56] >> What if there's sections that they don't
[39:57] have any concern with that portion? I'm
[39:59] not saying that they do or not. I mean,
[40:01] we just move on to
[40:02] >> I think there probably are some things
[40:03] in there, maybe some definitions, maybe
[40:05] some things that there's going to be
[40:07] zero controversy and we can basically
[40:09] just check them off and move down.
[40:12] I think that's the easiest way to keep
[40:13] us on track is just go top to bottom
[40:15] instead of starting at noise and then
[40:17] going here and then going there. And
[40:19] obviously some of these things may uh
[40:21] mingle together a little bit and we'll
[40:23] just have to make sure that we're being
[40:24] cognizant of that as we look through it.
[40:26] So,
[40:28] okay,
[40:30] >> Laney,
[40:32] >> good.
[40:39] » Laney last 308 South Boulevard. Thank
[40:41] you. I'm just trying to envision the
[40:43] room setup at the lodge. So are you in
[40:47] talking about council will be like you
[40:50] are here
[40:51] >> and then a table where like two people
[40:55] from our group come at each section or
[40:58] are you looking at a room set up where
[41:00] there's an equal number of people
[41:04] in a round table? Have we moved from the
[41:06] round table concept?
[41:09] >> I think we did.
[41:11] >> I I think we have moved from the round
[41:13] table concept. Okay.
[41:15] >> So, I think it would be more of a
[41:18] setting like this, but I don't know
[41:19] exactly how that that's going to set up.
[41:21] We're going to have to figure out what
[41:22] the most appropriate way to do it is.
[41:25] [snorts]
[41:25] >> We're just we're wondering then so then
[41:28] two people from our group would come up
[41:29] and talk it
[41:31] >> whatever section you were on in the
[41:33] ordinance and then there'll be an area
[41:35] for the public.
[41:36] >> Correct. Yes.
[41:37] >> To see that.
[41:38] >> Well, I would I would say that you know
[41:40] the parliamentarian is the mayor. He
[41:43] will run the meeting. He will say,
[41:45] "Okay, we're done with that section.
[41:47] We're moving to the next one." Just like
[41:48] we do when we go through an agenda. So,
[41:50] whoever's going to address that section
[41:52] comes up, talks, then the council
[41:54] discusses, throws their own two cents in
[41:56] on each thing. And then when everybody's
[41:58] done and the mayor thinks he's that's
[41:59] worn out, we've got everything. We're
[42:00] moving on. Just like that. So, it'll be
[42:03] just like in this room, except there'll
[42:05] be six people sitting across the front
[42:08] doing all the talking for the public.
[42:09] And then
[42:10] >> but I will I will say that um I got an
[42:15] email and I shared it today with
[42:17] everybody up here. I shared it with the
[42:19] mayor yesterday, but there is a for the
[42:22] data center person that wants to know
[42:25] when those people are going to be able
[42:28] to speak because if you're limiting
[42:29] these guys to two per section, then what
[42:33] happens when you have somebody that
[42:34] wants to come up and speak in favor of
[42:37] I don't know that they're necessarily
[42:39] going to want to come up and speak in
[42:40] favor of, you know, telling them that
[42:42] they don't want the setbacks to be the
[42:45] same, but um I I don't know what they or
[42:48] they were, you know, what they would
[42:50] want to talk about, but they feel like
[42:53] we are excluding people that are for it
[43:00] and not including them.
[43:05] » So, okay, quiet, please. Quiet, please.
[43:08] Um,
[43:09] >> okay, that Let's let Laney finish, I
[43:12] guess. Did you have anything else? I was
[43:14] just wonder just trying to envision the
[43:16] room set up and
[43:18] >> where everybody will be and how many
[43:20] people
[43:21] >> you want a table where people come up
[43:23] and and back and forth because you know
[43:26] at Lions we talk about a round table and
[43:28] so then we were talking as a group well
[43:30] is that small groups at roundts doing
[43:34] each thing and so you know we we're just
[43:37] seeing how things are and also we
[43:40] appreciate your mayor Scott your
[43:43] interview on KO because you gave us
[43:46] props for the meeting at Lions and we
[43:48] appreciate that.
[43:50] >> Yeah,
[43:50] >> absolutely.
[43:53] >> If I may just kind of point out the
[43:55] obvious here. Um there is a lot of
[43:57] unknown still happening and it seems
[44:00] that we really need to get some experts
[44:02] involved here. I mean, we've got the
[44:05] fire marshal of chief, I'm sorry, I
[44:07] don't know the title coming up here.
[44:08] We've got zoning. We've got all kinds of
[44:10] people that are coming up and saying,
[44:12] "Hey, what about this? What about this?
[44:14] We really need to rethink this
[44:16] moratorum. We really do. We need experts
[44:19] involved in this if it's going to go go
[44:21] through."
[44:22] >> I I'm sorry. Go ahead.
[44:24] >> So, we've we've talked to these people
[44:26] that we've had groups and we've talked
[44:29] to the fire chief and we've talked to
[44:31] zoning. So, we do have this information.
[44:34] Unfortunately, we have not been able to
[44:36] share everything with you guys because
[44:37] we haven't had the type of meeting other
[44:40] than public comment for you guys to come
[44:42] up and we can't respond to any of that.
[44:44] >> Well, respectfully Rhonda, I mean, I
[44:46] just heard our attorney talk about,
[44:48] well, you can do this. We don't know if
[44:49] we can do this. There is a lot here that
[44:53] we're all kind of going different
[44:54] directions, it seems. Maybe I'm wrong.
[44:57] And maybe that's just because we're not
[44:58] getting the information.
[45:00] I think t
[45:01] >> we will gladly take more information.
[45:03] >> T Tuesday is going to be really the
[45:06] first opportunity where there can be
[45:08] some back and forth dialogue as far as
[45:10] how the meeting set up. So um
[45:14] I think u I'm not saying there I'm not
[45:17] discounting what you're saying but I
[45:18] think we should we should go forward on
[45:21] Tuesday. Let's have the conversation as
[45:23] we're kind of talking about it. Um
[45:25] obviously we have not drafted an
[45:27] ordinance like this in the past, right?
[45:29] So, let's have that public discussion,
[45:31] everybody that's in the room, and if we
[45:33] have to shift course on how we do the
[45:35] meeting, then then we can do that.
[45:37] >> I would just appreciate if we keep that
[45:39] in mind.
[45:39] >> Yeah. I don't think I don't think
[45:40] there's a perfect answer right now. Like
[45:42] I said earlier, I'm kind of thinking on
[45:43] the top of my head, I've been thinking
[45:45] about this for two weeks, how to do it.
[45:46] Um, I think we just sit down. Anybody in
[45:49] the public that wants to come can come.
[45:51] Um, I'm not trying to tell people they
[45:52] can't talk. I don't want to do that. I
[45:54] if you watch my history over the last
[45:56] seven years, I I generally I have never
[45:58] told anybody they can't talk. I give
[45:59] them their time, right? That's that's
[46:01] important to me. So there are people
[46:02] that are for or against or whatever, we
[46:04] want to give them the opportunity. I
[46:06] just want to make sure that we're
[46:07] efficient with the time as we're doing
[46:08] that so that um when we're talking about
[46:10] topics, we we dig into it. We get
[46:12] through all the data that we have. We
[46:14] share everything and then and then we
[46:16] kind of move on. The ordinance is not
[46:18] going to be passed on Tuesday. They're
[46:20] not going to be voting on anything on
[46:21] Tuesday. This is really going to be talk
[46:24] about each section, gather information.
[46:26] Um, I like more of a setting like this
[46:28] because I I did have uh um I I got a lot
[46:31] of information from meeting with with
[46:33] your group, right? And I want them to
[46:35] hear all the same information and I
[46:36] think that's important as well. Um there
[46:38] could be some people that show up that
[46:40] are for it and if they have information,
[46:41] we'd like to hear that as well. So
[46:43] >> I think that's important.
[46:44] >> No, we're I mean obviously we want more
[46:46] information. we're willing to listen as
[46:48] well, but
[46:49] >> I just want to make sure that we're not
[46:51] >> rushing through anything.
[46:52] >> Right. And on Tuesday, it it we the
[46:54] council and myself will be able to
[46:56] respond. So, if you came up with a point
[46:57] or asked a question or something like
[46:59] that, we could then respond with, you
[47:01] know, maybe someone up here has the
[47:02] information, uh, if it's a power or
[47:04] water question and we have Alliant and
[47:07] Iowa American there, we can ask them the
[47:09] question specifically. They can give us
[47:10] those answers. We can talk through it as
[47:12] a group. Um, we just want to make sure
[47:14] that we're being efficient, we're
[47:16] staying on task, and, you know, we're allowing everybody the the same
[47:20] opportunity no matter what side of the
[47:22] fence they are on any issue that's going
[47:24] through there. I guess that's my thing.
[47:26] >> Alliance
[47:32] is also on our steering committee.
[47:34] That's why she she's coming up. Um but
[47:36] to be clear, American water and Alliance
[47:39] are there in a like uh consultatory
[47:44] role. They are not being given weight
[47:47] for advocating for what they would like
[47:49] to see.
[47:51] >> Facts. They're there to give facts.
[47:53] >> Okay. Right.
[47:54] >> So they're not they can't like come up
[47:55] and say, "Well, I think it should be
[47:57] this because our business vested
[47:59] interest, whatever."
[48:00] >> Yeah.
[48:01] >> Well, they could. and then they're free
[48:03] to express anything they want. We're
[48:05] getting really sidetracked. This is an
[48:07] ordinance for data centers, not an
[48:09] ordinance for QTS. So, we need to stay
[48:11] focused on that and we need to put out a
[48:14] product that applies across the board to
[48:17] anything that meets the definition of a
[48:18] data center and that's what we need to
[48:21] focus on.
[48:22] >> So, they can advocate for what they
[48:24] want.
[48:24] >> They could just like you can advocate
[48:26] for your interests, they can advocate
[48:27] for theirs. Everybody has the right to
[48:29] do that.
[48:37] Linda Chapman, 3711 Second Avenue South,
[48:40] aka Mean [snorts] Girl, sixth grade
[48:42] girl. Um, so you're
[48:47] Pat was talking about
[48:50] dwindling it down, not having too many
[48:52] people. So, steering committee, but now
[48:55] you have these other entities that are
[48:57] here tonight even all in cahoots
[49:00] together.
[49:02] You got SWAT,
[49:04] you got Alliant, American Water. You're
[49:06] going to QTS, you're going to allow them
[49:08] to come to the meeting. That's fine
[49:10] because it's a public meeting. But are
[49:12] you you're going to sit there and let
[49:14] them speak? I know Rhonda just said
[49:17] they'll give factual like if someone had
[49:19] a question, they'd give a factual
[49:21] answer. Are they going to be putting
[49:25] input in? because QTS already tried that
[49:27] by trying to sneak in their own little
[49:30] ordinance. So where are we going with
[49:32] that?
[49:33] >> It is a public meeting and you said
[49:36] you're trying to get so not very many
[49:38] people talk. I was also going to suggest
[49:40] to Rhonda how about the people like six
[49:44] people that are for the data center come
[49:46] and also discuss the ordinance that
[49:49] night. allow them to be part of, you
[49:52] know, like two people per section, I
[49:55] think Greg said, or someone said. So,
[49:58] allow,
[49:59] you know, a couple people from that are
[50:02] for it to come and sit and talk as well.
[50:05] But you're not, are you letting every
[50:07] public person there show up and speak?
[50:09] Pat said no, because that would
[50:13] >> I'm going to try to be as fair as
[50:14] possible,
[50:15] >> right?
[50:15] >> Yeah. And we have the right to control
[50:18] the meeting at some point where we can
[50:19] say we've elected these six
[50:21] spokespeople. And I think we should do
[50:22] that. There's going to be public
[50:24] hearings later also where anybody in the
[50:27] public can come express whatever they
[50:29] want. But at this drafting stage, we're
[50:31] trying to be efficient. Also, it might
[50:35] be advisable for the council to set a
[50:37] separate work session where every
[50:40] anybody can come and watch, but where
[50:42] people that have a differing point of
[50:44] view, the experts for example,
[50:47] can come and address the council about
[50:50] the draft, once we get the public input
[50:53] in and get their input, get if QTS wants
[50:57] to provide its red line and have have
[50:59] that discussion or the water company
[51:00] wants to say, "Hey, this is what we
[51:02] think or this is what the power company
[51:04] wishes it thinks. The council needs all
[51:06] of the input. So you can the mayor can
[51:09] do it any way he wants. And so what
[51:11] we're doing at this first meeting I
[51:12] think is to get the whole citizen input
[51:14] first and get that going and then we'll
[51:17] get the technical experts maybe at his
[51:19] separate meeting. And I'm going to leave
[51:20] that to Scott to figure out. I I don't
[51:22] think you need to the council does not
[51:24] need to be afraid that just because
[51:26] somebody might have some sort of vested
[51:28] interest that they can't speak or they
[51:29] can't give advice because they can and
[51:31] they should. They might be right about
[51:34] some of the stuff they say. You know, if
[51:35] they have experience with something, it
[51:37] it'd be good for for us to hear it. So,
[51:40] and I think you I think the council's
[51:42] free to do that. It's perfectly
[51:42] [clears throat] legal. There's nothing
[51:44] underhanded about it.
[51:46] So, and as long as the public gets to
[51:48] watch it and you [clears throat] know
[51:49] they get to see it, too. We're not doing
[51:51] anything in secret. We, you know, that's
[51:53] okay.
[51:54] >> Okay.
[51:56] So, what's council's privy on that then?
[52:01] Do you want to keep those meetings, I
[52:03] guess, separate, so to speak, or do you
[52:05] want to allow public comment from from I
[52:08] guess we'll call it both sides at the
[52:09] meeting on Tuesday?
[52:11] >> I'd like to see it from both sides.
[52:15] >> Okay. I think we just have to limit that
[52:18] portion of the meeting so we can get
[52:20] some work done.
[52:22] >> Can we eliminate sections to
[52:25] five minutes?
[52:27] >> Well, I think there's some sections that
[52:29] are going to require a lot more
[52:30] discussion than five minutes probably.
[52:32] So, I don't I don't know about limiting
[52:35] a section to a time limit. I think you
[52:37] have to you got to get through it until
[52:39] you get through it, you know? I I don't
[52:42] think you can [clears throat] I don't
[52:43] think you can put a time limit on a
[52:45] section. So, yeah,
[52:47] >> I I think there will eventually be a
[52:50] time Tuesday night that all of us are
[52:53] going to be getting tired that we're
[52:54] going to have to continue
[52:57] >> probably. Yep.
[52:58] >> And and continue as you know, as many
[53:02] times as we need to continue, you know.
[53:05] So I I think we just like you say start
[53:07] section one and just work through it and
[53:10] when we get to a point where you know
[53:12] I'm getting tired I'm getting hungry
[53:15] [clears throat] let's let's call it an
[53:16] evening and set it another day
[53:18] >> so that we continue with
[53:20] >> Kevin
[53:21] >> just a couple things would it be
[53:23] beneficial for us to give you the names
[53:24] of the steering committee before so you
[53:26] know who the people are going to be
[53:27] speaking
[53:28] >> the other is um I the time limit you
[53:31] know just you know if you have the the
[53:33] steering committee individuals coming up
[53:34] there putting a time limit on it's going
[53:36] to be difficult and I think we all know
[53:38] that and and I want everybody to
[53:40] understand this. I know this meeting is
[53:41] not going to be a one and done. This is
[53:43] just a a start of something that could
[53:45] be beneficial I see for the the city.
[53:48] And Karen, I'm absolutely agreeing with
[53:50] you. I've been saying all along that any
[53:52] of these things that we try to put in
[53:54] place, we have to have a way to be able
[53:55] to enforce it. And I know Karen can't do
[53:57] that. So, we have to put something in
[53:59] place. And that's some of the things we
[54:00] have to be looking at to address in the
[54:02] ordinance. And and again, I again I
[54:04] agree with Karen. I've done these
[54:05] before. The de development plan as well.
[54:08] >> Those are some things we have to really
[54:09] put in force. And I know Pat could
[54:11] probably give us some direction on that
[54:12] as well or give us some direction where
[54:14] we could go to for that third party that
[54:16] we need to be able to do those
[54:17] enforcements.
[54:18] >> Okay.
[54:18] >> And that's what I suggest we might be
[54:20] looking at doing to put into the
[54:21] ordinance and or the development plan.
[54:23] >> Okay.
[54:24] >> Thank you. Most most of the ordinances
[54:26] will have language in them that say um
[54:28] that the that the applicant will pay for
[54:31] whatever that engineer is that has to
[54:33] look at certain enforcement issues. And
[54:34] so that's something the council has to
[54:36] consider.
[54:36] >> Well, that's as I was writing my
[54:38] presentation, I was putting in in some
[54:40] of my I think you might have seen I
[54:41] wrote in there to be determined by a
[54:43] third party, you know, neutral or
[54:46] something like that. I wrote I forget
[54:47] now, but a neutral third party that
[54:49] would be an expert in that field. The
[54:51] question is though, yeah, the person
[54:52] enforce it, but what's the enforcement?
[54:55] That's the other part that we have to
[54:56] define. Is it going to be a fine? Is it
[54:58] going to be what? Do they have a certain
[54:59] time frame in which to to take care of
[55:01] these issues? These are things that need
[55:03] to be addressed that we have to discuss
[55:05] and figure out what's in the best
[55:06] interest for the city.
[55:07] >> Yep.
[55:08] >> So, that's why I'm saying some of these
[55:09] meetings are going to be continuing, I
[55:11] think, further down the road. This open
[55:12] dialogue is going to help us get there.
[55:14] >> Yep. Corey,
[55:16] >> yes, your honor. Council Porter Robinson
[55:19] 3801 second south neighbors with Linda
[55:23] probably the most unpopular person in
[55:25] here as I am in favor of it. Um one of
[55:28] the things that we continue to talk
[55:29] about is environmental impact and
[55:31] environmental concern. What I don't see
[55:33] is expertise having that conversation.
[55:35] I'm fearful that a lot of input and a
[55:38] lot of influence being undue brought to
[55:40] the council to make decisions regarding
[55:42] how we're going to draft this ordinance
[55:44] and how we're going to include things
[55:45] that are already heavily regulated. I
[55:47] would caution council from doing that
[55:50] and to bring in the experts in these
[55:52] fields. Talk about noise and talk about
[55:54] water and talk about energy. There's
[55:56] people in the community that know these
[55:58] things, understand these things. I
[55:59] already understand how to regulate. So,
[56:02] I would just make sure that we're we're
[56:03] getting both sides of it. I know you
[56:04] guys have done your due diligence, but
[56:06] in these conversations and debates, uh I
[56:09] think it's easy to be influenced one
[56:10] direction or the other. The second part
[56:12] of this is is like being in favor and
[56:15] coming forward is not a popular thing in
[56:17] our community. Um, as an educated
[56:20] expert, right, I have a master's degree
[56:21] in environmental management. I've been
[56:22] doing this for a really long time. I
[56:24] understand the environmental impact a
[56:26] center like this has on the community,
[56:28] on the water, on our resources, but to
[56:31] speak out uh is a challenge because
[56:34] those that are not in favor.
[56:38] So, I would actually encourage you guys
[56:40] to get both sides, not in the same room,
[56:44] report both sides, share both sides, but
[56:47] I don't know that the conversation will
[56:48] be as um transparent maybe as it should
[56:51] be uh in the current environment that
[56:54] we're operating in. That's all. Thanks.
[56:56] >> Thank you, Corey.
[56:59] >> Can he be part of the conversation? He
[57:01] doesn't want to
[57:04] >> I'll happily be. I mean,
[57:08] >> okay.
[57:12] » All right.
[57:14] >> Okay. So, council, is there any other
[57:16] discussion? Laney? Yep.
[57:23] » Laney, last 308 South Boulevard. I'd
[57:26] like to suggest some other key
[57:27] stakeholders that you may be
[57:31] communicating with like you are in the
[57:33] agenda tonight like someone from the
[57:36] EPA, someone from Iowa DNR, someone from
[57:40] the state geologist or archaeologist
[57:44] department because if we don't answer
[57:46] have those answers early on, you may be
[57:49] dealing with them years later. And so I
[57:52] just like
[57:53] >> to put that suggestion forward. Thank
[57:55] you.
[57:55] >> Thank you.
[57:58] >> Any other discussion or points from
[58:01] council
[58:02] >> on how we operate Tuesday?
[58:05] [clears throat]
[58:08] » Do you want to schedule two separate
[58:10] meetings
[58:12] and do citizen input and then we'll call
[58:14] them expert or other stakeholder input?
[58:17] Is that how you want to do it or do you
[58:18] want to do it in one meeting?
[58:25] You're not going to get even halfway
[58:26] through that ordinance.
[58:27] >> Yeah, you won't. No,
[58:29] >> I I think what I would suggest is that
[58:31] you run it like a congressional
[58:33] committee when you get the experts. Just
[58:36] get all the public input, then hold a
[58:38] cow with the experts and run it like a
[58:41] committee hearing where there's no
[58:42] public comment. But we're going to ask
[58:44] you all these questions we have of you,
[58:46] figure out who we need here, and then
[58:48] you may need to do more than one of
[58:49] those if people aren't available. If you need DNR, EPA, somebody region 7
[58:54] to come here, you could do that, too.
[58:57] I'm sure they would do it. They have
[58:59] field people they'll send to answer your
[59:01] questions. But you can hold as many
[59:03] committee meetings as you want in that
[59:05] fashion where there is no public
[59:06] comment, but you can question them all
[59:08] you want. So, you can get all the input
[59:10] you need and have it open to the public
[59:12] to watch, but they won't they won't have
[59:14] any public comment, but you'll get
[59:16] everything you need in an efficient way
[59:17] from all of them. I would suggest we do
[59:20] a wide openen discussion with the six
[59:22] member panel. Get all the public input.
[59:24] You can always go back to the public
[59:25] again later if you want more public
[59:27] input, but then hold succession meeting
[59:30] successive meetings. This is the way
[59:31] I've seen it done. That's how PO did it.
[59:33] They brought people in and that's how
[59:35] they did it and it was an efficient way
[59:37] for the council to ask its technical
[59:39] questions to the to the people that you
[59:41] want to call in.
[59:44] >> Sounds good. comments on that
[59:46] >> and and I would just want to caution the
[59:48] public if that happens and you're not
[59:50] invited to public comment do not panic
[59:53] >> because there will be numerous other
[59:55] additional opportunities for you to
[59:57] write take notes and address the council
[59:59] again. So it's just that they're trying
[1:00:01] to get as much as they can in there to
[1:00:04] get this thing drafted and and
[1:00:05] understand what they're doing.
[1:00:08] So
[1:00:11] » sounds good.
[1:00:12] >> So citizen input Tuesday. Yeah.
[1:00:15] >> Yeah.
[1:00:16] >> Congressional hearing style uh expert
[1:00:18] input at a future meeting.
[1:00:20] >> That would be my suggestion.
[1:00:24] » Yes.
[1:00:25] >> Yeah. Yes.
[1:00:26] >> Yes.
[1:00:26] >> Okay.
[1:00:27] >> Are we figuring out when
[1:00:31] » um
[1:00:32] >> Yeah. I mean, we can figure it out now
[1:00:34] if you want. I
[1:00:35] >> think we should.
[1:00:37] >> Okay.
[1:00:39] So, Tuesday the 1st is the the citizen
[1:00:43] meeting.
[1:00:46] >> How much time does council need to
[1:00:47] digest the information that we'll get
[1:00:49] that night? We might not get through the
[1:00:50] whole ordinance either.
[1:00:52] >> Right.
[1:00:53] >> So, most likely need to get through the
[1:00:55] ordinance first.
[1:00:56] >> Y
[1:00:58] uh how about we do this? Why don't we
[1:00:59] get why don't we go to the meeting on
[1:01:02] the first with the plan that we have
[1:01:04] now? Uh let's get um
[1:01:09] a few dates on the calendar to continue
[1:01:12] working on this so that we have we have
[1:01:16] they could be to be determined dates I
[1:01:17] guess if we don't get through the entire
[1:01:19] ordinance that that evening. Um do we
[1:01:23] want to look at the next day on
[1:01:24] Wednesday? Do we want to look at
[1:01:26] Thursday? What is I don't know
[1:01:28] everybody's schedules and when they can
[1:01:29] make it. Wednesday.
[1:01:30] >> Can we do Wednesday?
[1:01:32] >> The second.
[1:01:33] >> The lodge is booked the rest of the
[1:01:35] week.
[1:01:35] >> The lodge is booked the rest of the
[1:01:36] week. Wonderful.
[1:01:40] >> Um
[1:01:44] » the next available date on the lodge is
[1:01:47] well that's Labor Day. Uh so the 8th,
[1:01:49] but then we have our council meeting
[1:01:50] that evening,
[1:01:51] >> but then the 9th's available would be
[1:01:53] the next time.
[1:01:55] I mean,
[1:01:58] we can do the meeting here on the second
[1:02:01] if we have to.
[1:02:02] >> Yeah. I mean, they can
[1:02:03] >> Do you want to start it?
[1:02:05] >> It's not It's not perfect, obviously,
[1:02:06] because it's not as big a space, but it
[1:02:08] can still be recorded. It can still be
[1:02:09] broadcast. It can still be all of those
[1:02:11] things.
[1:02:13] >> I'd say let's keep it moving.
[1:02:15] >> I agree. Okay.
[1:02:16] >> So, if we have to have it here, have it
[1:02:18] here.
[1:02:19] >> All right. So, we'll we'll plan on the
[1:02:20] first at five o'clock at Eagle Point
[1:02:22] Lodge. We'll go uh through that and then
[1:02:26] if we need to we'll spill over to
[1:02:27] Wednesday at five o'clock on the 2nd
[1:02:30] here
[1:02:34] » and then from that point we'll have to
[1:02:35] determine [laughter]
[1:02:36] from there
[1:02:38] um where we're at with everything.
[1:02:40] >> I would set I would say experts public
[1:02:44] on one and experts on two. That way it
[1:02:48] keeps
[1:02:49] >> public on the first and experts on the
[1:02:51] second. That's why that way it keeps us
[1:02:52] moving.
[1:02:54] >> I don't know if you'll get through the
[1:02:55] ordinance on the first though. That's
[1:02:57] the thing.
[1:03:01] » The first, second, isn't doesn't expert
[1:03:04] opinion
[1:03:06] part of the ordinance drafting process.
[1:03:08] >> Yeah, they're saying that
[1:03:09] >> I mean, why would you want to get the
[1:03:10] ordinance entirely done and then seek
[1:03:12] expert opinions and then change it
[1:03:14] again?
[1:03:14] >> Yeah,
[1:03:15] >> it's it's getting public comment on the
[1:03:17] entire ordinance on the first or second.
[1:03:20] Well, you don't think we can?
[1:03:21] >> We've got 3 hours if it'll keep us on.
[1:03:23] >> I think that should be enough. I mean,
[1:03:25] >> we're going to have their letter ahead
[1:03:27] of time.
[1:03:28] >> I mean, getting all the ordinance
[1:03:29] actually finished, I understand,
[1:03:31] probably won't occur, but I don't know
[1:03:33] why we can't get through the discussion
[1:03:36] >> on the sections.
[1:03:39] >> I don't expect to get through the
[1:03:40] discussion on the entire ordinance on
[1:03:42] the
[1:03:42] >> Why are we limited to only three hours?
[1:03:44] Why can't we just go later if we have
[1:03:46] to?
[1:03:48] If it goes any more than three hours, we
[1:03:50] lose focus.
[1:03:56] » Okay.
[1:04:00] » Go ahead.
[1:04:00] >> This is a big thing. And why do we want
[1:04:02] to keep pushing, pushing, pushing? Um,
[1:04:05] you just found out about it supposedly
[1:04:07] in May and all of a sudden you just, we
[1:04:09] got to get this done. We got to get it
[1:04:10] done. We wanted a moratorum. You had all
[1:04:13] kinds of time to do it. Now all of a
[1:04:14] sudden, what are we gonna do the
[1:04:15] following day after the public
[1:04:16] discussion? What's the big push?
[1:04:19] >> Well, I'd like I'd like it to stay
[1:04:20] relevant. I'd like to remember what I
[1:04:22] talked about the day before and it'd be
[1:04:23] nice to keep moving so I don't forget
[1:04:25] the things that we had already
[1:04:26] discussed.
[1:04:30] » Wouldn't wouldn't you agree? Like,
[1:04:32] >> well, as far as how are you going to
[1:04:34] line up these people? And if we're not
[1:04:36] done with the uh discussion on the uh
[1:04:39] ordinance, how you going to discuss the
[1:04:41] following day with the other people? Why
[1:04:44] don't you wait and see what's done with
[1:04:45] the ordinance with the public?
[1:04:46] >> I was going to make that comment. It
[1:04:48] would take time to coordinate who you
[1:04:50] want there.
[1:04:51] >> If you want the DNR, if you want those
[1:04:52] folks, it it will take some time.
[1:04:55] >> So,
[1:04:57] well, we we'd have you have to determine
[1:04:59] who you want to hear from and then we
[1:05:00] have to reach out and try to get them. I
[1:05:02] mean, if you want the the you know, I
[1:05:04] talked to uh the state geologist. If you
[1:05:07] want him, he's not necessarily gonna be
[1:05:08] available at at our call. You know,
[1:05:11] we're going to have to coordinate that.
[1:05:12] So,
[1:05:12] >> mayor, didn't they have public comment
[1:05:14] during the plan commission when they
[1:05:16] went through this?
[1:05:17] >> Yes.
[1:05:18] >> So, didn't they get a lot of their
[1:05:19] concerns out then?
[1:05:22] >> I mean, there was there was public
[1:05:24] comment at the plan commission. Yes.
[1:05:26] >> Yep. There wasn't at the last public
[1:05:29] comment at the last
[1:05:30] >> at at the first one there was. Yeah.
[1:05:33] >> Yeah.
[1:05:33] >> Oh yeah.
[1:05:37] >> Yeah. So
[1:05:39] >> can I ask a question real quick? Chris
[1:05:41] Dean Boss and Clinton. Um have any of
[1:05:44] you looked at any other ordinances from
[1:05:46] other cities other than QTS's like
[1:05:49] Debukes?
[1:05:50] >> Yes. Yes.
[1:05:51] >> You did? Okay.
[1:05:52] >> Yes.
[1:05:53] >> All right. Yep. I just asked that maybe
[1:05:55] >> Brad Brad from Debuke sent me their
[1:05:57] packet with they had I don't know was
[1:05:58] there three or four of them in there and
[1:06:00] then our ordinance is based off um two
[1:06:03] or three different cities correct Pat as
[1:06:05] well or our draft that we have.
[1:06:07] >> It's based off
[1:06:10] 18 different ordinances
[1:06:12] >> including six I got from Cody and then I
[1:06:16] had one from PO that our firm worked on
[1:06:19] and then I had the Deuke one I believe
[1:06:21] was another one we looked at. So there's
[1:06:23] a lot of
[1:06:25] >> a lot of ordinance review by everybody
[1:06:27] up here.
[1:06:28] >> If [snorts] we would have had a
[1:06:29] moratorum,
[1:06:30] this we wouldn't be so rushed and then
[1:06:33] this is something that we could have
[1:06:35] thought out and not feel like it's being
[1:06:37] rushed. But I feel right like right now
[1:06:40] and I I get it like we need to decide
[1:06:43] something but
[1:06:45] >> should have had that moratorum.
[1:06:47] >> I don't I don't think in my perspective
[1:06:49] I don't think we're rushing. I think
[1:06:51] we're trying to set up work sessions to
[1:06:52] work through it, right? I think that's
[1:06:54] what my focus is and and I'm sitting
[1:06:56] here saying that I don't know if we'll
[1:06:57] have enough time on Tuesday to finish
[1:06:59] all the way through it.
[1:07:00] >> Um but you know, we council is we're in
[1:07:04] the process to get an ordinance in place
[1:07:05] and we need to work on it and and the
[1:07:07] only way we can do it is in a public
[1:07:09] meeting. So, uh I think that's really
[1:07:11] what my focus is is to get everybody
[1:07:12] together so we can have the conversation
[1:07:14] and we can work on it and the time that
[1:07:16] it takes is the time that it takes is
[1:07:18] the way I the way I see it. So,
[1:07:20] >> okay. I just hope that everybody is
[1:07:21] open-minded
[1:07:22] >> and I can stay up later
[1:07:23] >> both on our side and on the other side
[1:07:25] that everybody is open-minded.
[1:07:27] >> Correct.
[1:07:27] >> Thank you.
[1:07:28] >> Yes. Yes.
[1:07:30] >> All right. So,
[1:07:32] um I think we'll go with this plan.
[1:07:35] >> Y
[1:07:35] >> Tuesday 5:00 we'll start right away. Um
[1:07:38] we'll start working through it and we'll
[1:07:40] see how far we get and then we'll
[1:07:41] [clears throat] determine what we have
[1:07:42] to do
[1:07:43] >> from there. Um,
[1:07:46] why don't we put a placeholder for
[1:07:50] Wednesday at five o'clock for this room
[1:07:52] for another work session because we have
[1:07:54] to have 24 hours notice. So, if we make
[1:07:56] the notice now, if we get through if we
[1:07:58] don't get through everything and we want
[1:07:59] to operate the next day, we can. If we
[1:08:01] want to cancel it, we can cancel it as
[1:08:02] well.
[1:08:03] >> Same agenda attachments.
[1:08:04] >> Yes. Yes. I think that at least gives us
[1:08:06] a schedule a week out so we know the
[1:08:08] schedule and then we can we can deviate
[1:08:11] from that if we want. we can meet on
[1:08:12] Wednesday and go through more or we
[1:08:14] could not do it and then, you know, we
[1:08:17] obviously have that 24-hour notice again
[1:08:18] and we could pick a different day.
[1:08:21] >> So, at least at least we're prepared to
[1:08:23] have the the conversation the next
[1:08:25] evening if we need to.
[1:08:27] >> Is that is that fair? I'm guessing
[1:08:28] that's kind of what council is looking
[1:08:30] for. Yes.
[1:08:31] >> Yes.
[1:08:32] >> All right. Okay.
[1:08:35] I
[1:08:35] >> it's important everybody reads the
[1:08:37] ordinance again and again and again and
[1:08:40] comes prepared to discuss things and
[1:08:43] look at just like Christine said look at
[1:08:45] other ordinances there are lots out
[1:08:48] there they're all a little different
[1:08:51] some are very strict some are not some
[1:08:54] have operated without them but you need
[1:08:57] to come prepared so we can have a
[1:08:58] meaningful discussion
[1:09:03] » agreed Okay. All right.
[1:09:06] >> Yes, ma'am.
[1:09:10] » Uh, [clears throat] Linda Chapman. Um,
[1:09:14] I think we are not that hostile of a
[1:09:17] group that we could not sit in a room
[1:09:19] with people that are for it. Um, we are
[1:09:23] neighbors. I I didn't really know he
[1:09:26] wasn't for it. I don't care. But
[1:09:28] >> yeah, we've gotten a little snarky with
[1:09:30] you guys, but we could sit in a room and
[1:09:33] be
[1:09:34] >> I agree.
[1:09:34] >> And work together.
[1:09:35] >> I agree.
[1:09:36] >> And on top of um the people that are for
[1:09:39] it, I've also talked to many people that
[1:09:42] are against it, but they're also afraid
[1:09:46] to come out because they work for the
[1:09:47] city, they work for Alliant, they work
[1:09:50] for American Water. So that kind of goes
[1:09:52] both ways. Rhonda, they're afraid to
[1:09:55] speak out as well because of their job.
[1:09:57] They've been told not to or they're just
[1:10:00] fearful,
[1:10:02] you know, to do so. So, I think that's
[1:10:04] unfair to say that they're afraid to
[1:10:06] come out because of us cuz what we're
[1:10:09] >> Fair enough.
[1:10:11] >> Oh, okay. Sorry, you misspoke.
[1:10:13] >> But I just wanted to get that out there
[1:10:15] that that goes both ways.
[1:10:17] >> I agree. Yeah.
[1:10:20] >> Okay.
[1:10:22] >> Good.
[1:10:23] All right. Uh any updates from council
[1:10:27] on anything?
[1:10:30] >> Nothing.
[1:10:31] coming up.
[1:10:34] >> No,
[1:10:35] >> just the only thing that I've been
[1:10:37] working on is um September 11th is we
[1:10:40] are doing the 25th remembrance. Um Clint
[1:10:43] Trees Forever is hosting that with
[1:10:46] police and fire and sheriff and band and
[1:10:50] choir and you know there's going to be
[1:10:53] amates [clears throat] Legion are all
[1:10:56] part of that. So we're going to be doing
[1:10:57] that. Um it's going to start 9:00 on
[1:11:00] Friday, September 11th. Um we have um
[1:11:04] MTA is going to provide shuttle service
[1:11:06] for us. Um so we're expecting a big
[1:11:10] crowd for sure,
[1:11:11] >> right? It'll be a good event. So, just
[1:11:13] put that on your calendar. Yep.
[1:11:16] >> Couple weeks yet.
[1:11:17] >> Okay.
[1:11:19] Um, does anyone in here watch PBS?
[1:11:24] >> Yes.
[1:11:24] >> PBS. [laughter]
[1:11:26] >> Yep. So last night I watched a couple on
[1:11:31] well I downloaded the app and on PBS
[1:11:34] they have some really good interviews
[1:11:37] um on data centers with and they don't
[1:11:39] take a position on it but they've got
[1:11:41] professionals they kind of do a
[1:11:43] discussion
[1:11:45] um I actually found it pretty useful.
[1:11:48] Um, if you if you have a smart TV and
[1:11:51] you go to the PBS thing, you just type
[1:11:53] in data, there's a whole lineup and they
[1:11:56] were I I watched two hours worth and it it was actually pretty entertaining.
[1:12:03] The one I watched was
[1:12:06] um, Deal or Dilemma is what it's called.
[1:12:10] And it it was a pretty good one. Um, and
[1:12:13] then I watched another one. I can't
[1:12:14] remember the name. So, um, but I mean,
[1:12:17] if you're interested in continuing to
[1:12:19] learn more, um, I think a lot of what we
[1:12:22] see, um, it may not be real. So, um, I
[1:12:26] think it's good to get honest
[1:12:28] perspectives from people that have, uh,
[1:12:31] you know, dealt with these, have put
[1:12:33] them in their communities. you'll see uh
[1:12:36] it might give you goosebumps because the
[1:12:38] exact same situation
[1:12:40] um we've been handling here is exactly
[1:12:44] how it's gone in a lot of communities.
[1:12:46] Um and uh but there's good information
[1:12:49] on there. So I'd encourage you as you're
[1:12:51] learning to go out and check that out.
[1:12:54] So I'll probably go home and watch
[1:12:56] another one tonight. So,
[1:12:58] >> all right.
[1:12:59] >> On on Monday night, uh, on Riverfront,
[1:13:02] there's the overdose and addiction
[1:13:03] awareness vigil. It'll be from 4 to
[1:13:06] 7:30, the band shell.
[1:13:09] >> Okay.
[1:13:10] All right. Anything else from council?
[1:13:13] All right. We are adjourned.
[1:13:41] Heat. Heat.