[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.

Regular Committee of the Whole - Aug 25 2026

Transcript