[1:19] Heat. Heat.
[1:25] Heat. Heat.
[2:17] Heat. Heat.
[2:39] Heat. Heat.
[3:39] Heat. Heat.
[3:48] Heat. Heat. N.
[4:16] Heat. Heat.
[4:22] Heat
[4:51] up Heat. Heat.
[5:36] Heat. Hey, heat. Hey, heat.
[6:39] Heat.
[6:53] Heat. Heat.
[7:18] Heat. Heat.
[8:44] forever.
[9:01] We will call to order the regular
committee of the whole meeting. Can we
[9:05] please begin with roll call?
>> Council member Lee
[9:07] » here.
>> Oren
[9:08] » here.
>> Seely
[9:09] » here. Dman
>> here.
[9:10] » Turpin
>> here. Winter
[9:12] » here.
>> Karns
[9:12] » here.
Uh, first item,
[9:17] Tammy, community development director
Johnson.
[9:21] » Yep.
[9:25] » Travis, don't yell at me. It came back.
>> It did. I told you.
[9:28] » I appreciate it. Appreciate it, Jamie.
>> Good evening, Mayor and Council. Um, the
[9:33] first one I have for you, uh, we
discussed about a month or maybe a
[9:36] little over a month ago on an offer on
offers on two parcels on 19th place. I I
[9:42] reached out to them, worked the
development agreement with them.
[9:45] » Um, still the same price. Um, they're
willing to start the project in 18
[9:49] months. Gives them time then to get the
house designed.
[9:52] » Okay.
>> Get a contractor in place and hopefully
[9:55] begin building even maybe they'd like to
have it done before it start before 18
[9:59] months.
>> Okay.
[10:00] » October.
>> Okay. So, we just basically shortened
[10:03] that time frame up for the
>> we switched it. So, they have 18 months
[10:05] and three years.
>> And this is one of the nicer lots by the
[10:08] newer houses.
>> It's two parcels. Long two parts.
[10:13] I I'll make a motion to move this
forward. Second,
[10:16] » we have a motion in a second.
>> Any discussion?
[10:20] » Where is this exactly? Sorry.
>> Longfellow
[10:23] » where they built the What? What was that
program?
[10:25] » I didn't live here then.
>> It was for Habitat.
[10:28] » Um that they turned over the lots to us
when they went to 19th place up off of
[10:33] Comanche Avenue.
>> It's a nice little neighborhood. Do you
[10:36] know where?
>> I I lived on 19th place.
[10:40] that's probably been torn down way. But
>> yeah, it's it's big lot. It's got an
[10:45] alley going through it. Houses on both
sides. One of the houses has like the
[10:48] columns in the front of it on the
>> It's for sale, actually.
[10:51] » I'll take a drive tomorrow. I'll take a
drive. It's easier drive.
[10:54] » I'll take a drive.
>> Drive.
[10:55] » All right.
>> Any other discussion?
[10:58] » Can we have roll call, please?
>> Council member Turban,
[11:01] » yes.
>> Winter,
[11:02] » yes.
>> Karns,
[11:03] » yes.
>> Lee,
[11:04] » yes.
>> Oren, yes.
[11:05] » Sely,
>> yes.
[11:06] » Dutterman,
>> yes.
[11:08] » Go ahead.
>> Right here.
[11:10] » Yes. Um, so this one is the uh proposal
to do go out for an RFP to sell our city
[11:16] lots um that are buildable, the
commercial and the residential. Um,
[11:20] Council Member Winter wanted to do this
um and take a look at it. I've got in
[11:24] the packet the RFP. There's four models
of how we could um look at doing it with
[11:30] a with a real estate agent. My
thought is we put it out for the RFP the
[11:37] way I have it written, which is all four
models, and let them bid on those that
[11:40] way. So then you can compare which one
>> I'm sorry, what did you say, Sammy?
[11:45] » That's okay. So there's four models of
how we could do that. One of them is a
[11:48] hybrid. The fourth one is a hybrid where
we kind of combine two of them.
[11:52] » Uhhuh.
>> Like commission flat fee.
[11:54] » Yep. One's a commission flat fee and
then um a bundle portfolio price. Um,
[12:02] and then the hybrid model is commission
and flat fee.
[12:04] » Yep.
>> What I typically see on these lots that
[12:09] because are a lot of these going to be
pretty low price points. T
[12:12] » I think your or your residential ones.
>> Yeah. Like those I see a lot is just a
[12:17] all it's a flat fee split.
>> But on the bigger ones I think it should
[12:21] maybe the commission or the you could do
the hybrid too.
[12:25] » And that's why I had the hybrid model of
both. Yeah. Figured the commercial would
[12:28] be the commission. Um the residential
buildables would be the flat fee.
[12:33] » I agree.
>> Um but I think we should put it out for
[12:35] bid that they give us a proposal on all
four. That way we can pick then.
[12:40] » Okay.
>> I think it's just a good base that we
[12:42] can decide by proposals on how they
>> and and they could say, "Oh, I don't
[12:47] want to give a proposal on type C."
>> Yep. Yeah. They would.
[12:52] » So they can just give a hybrid proposal
or it could just give whatever. They
[12:56] could give all four or just one,
>> whichever one they choose. they would
[13:00] like to try.
>> Will that be confusing?
[13:03] » I don't think so.
>> Okay.
[13:04] » I I don't think it will.
>> I see it both ways. So,
[13:07] » um
>> it'll be able to
[13:09] » I think it'll be more competitive that
way.
[13:11] » Okay.
>> Yeah.
[13:13] » We're going to,
>> you know, your standard
[13:17] listing fees usually 6%. Um that's
normal. But on these lots that they we
[13:24] may only sell for $500, let's say,
they're they're gonna want a flat fee.
[13:30] That might eat up the entire value,
>> you know, and I don't know how much
[13:34] work. I think we're looking at them more
to use their internet base.
[13:39] » Yep. They'll get them on.
>> These are lots. So they're other than a
[13:41] commercial one they'll go out and look
at. Um they might drive by and look at.
[13:45] I don't think they're going to go,
>> but they can also help us with pricing
[13:48] and stuff like that. a better idea in
the market with some of our we have a
[13:51] couple in the north end up by center
that lots that
[13:55] » be good ones. Yeah.
>> Yeah.
[13:56] » Um
>> Oh, go ahead.
[13:58] » Go ahead.
>> Um how how did you plan on you just
[14:02] going to send it out to the local?
>> I was going to send it out to local and
[14:05] kind of reach out to maybe even Quad
City area some of them just to get a
[14:09] feel and just send the RFP out to them
with a letter saying this is what we're
[14:12] doing. Give them a date and
>> Yep. Like if you go to like the rule and
[14:16] rule office here, there's no need to go
to another one because they're all but
[14:20] um if it's a company that's not here.
Yeah, you could do that. Yeah.
[14:26] » Yep. It would be nice to keep it local
obviously, but
[14:29] » Yes. And I think we'll get
>> we've already had some interest a little
[14:32] bit just from it being out that they've
called. So
[14:35] » cool. Good.
>> Yeah, let's get them off the lawn mower
[14:39] list.
>> That was going to be my question is just
[14:40] how it's going to get marketed. I was
hoping it wasn't just going to get put
[14:43] on ion wave and
>> no I don't think putting this on ion
[14:47] wave uh would justice so I think it's
better just to mail it out to the state
[14:51] agency give them that way there will be
one change on two of the residential
[14:56] lots um the two on second avenue and 800
and 756 2nd Avenue South okay
[15:02] » we'll remove those engineering is using
that as a staging area and everything
[15:07] for the bluff expansion so those will
get removed
[15:10] » okay
And yeah, I would just go directly send
[15:14] it to the broker
>> of the company. Yep. Okay, cool.
[15:19] » I'll make a motion. Move it.
>> Second.
[15:21] » Second.
>> All right, we have a motion in a second.
[15:24] » Move this to u. It's got to go to a
business meeting. Yeah, I guess it
[15:27] would.
>> Yep. Okay.
[15:29] » Um,
>> can we have roll call, please?
[15:33] » Council member Turpin,
>> yes. Winter,
[15:35] » yes.
>> Karns,
[15:36] » yes.
>> Lee,
[15:37] » yes.
>> Oren,
[15:38] » yes.
>> Sely,
[15:39] » yes. Det.
>> Yes.
[15:41] » Thank you, Tammy. Uh, Council Member
Oberin.
[15:44] » Thank you, your honor. Um, Memorial Day
weekend, we had a child break a fibbean
[15:51] a tibia by being run over by an ebike.
And in some short short discussions,
[15:57] communication with Chief Jurian. um they
have been working on this because I did
[16:03] not know this but there actually three
classes of ebikes
[16:07] » and now there's e scooters.
>> Yeah.
[16:10] » And what um we kind of had, you know,
just some communication back and forth
[16:14] and what we'd like to do is put together
a workg group. um he suggested and
[16:19] offered up Captain Lorenzan to kind of
head this up and kind of put a work
[16:24] group together with some of our PD folks
and and I would volunteer my services on
[16:29] that kind of you know see what you know
what we can do um just to kind of you
[16:35] know as I stated before things are
moving fast with technology and this is
[16:41] just another one of those things that is
moving fast because of technology.
[16:46] technology and I think we need to handle
it just like we did with our um side by
[16:51] sides. I think we need to start handling
it with ebikes and e- scooters.
[16:56] » So, I'd like to forward a motion. Well,
I don't know.
[16:58] » What's the plan here?
>> Just to get a workg group going to kind
[17:02] of figure out what we need to do is if
we need to update an ordinance.
[17:05] » There are other cities that are writing
ordinances for these things. Um in my
[17:10] mayor's association, um I've I've had
some there's been some discussion there.
[17:14] So I can forward some of those
discussions to you, council member
[17:17] Oberin. Maybe you can use some maybe
something some other community is doing
[17:20] will work for you
>> or hybrid of it. So
[17:23] » yeah, just I I think we just need to,
you know, kind of
[17:26] » What's the police department say?
>> Major Davis,
[17:31] » I can help you with it.
>> I I only ask and I understand. Yes,
[17:36] » I could give you a draft to work off of
easily.
[17:38] » Great.
as well.
[17:42] Well, is it is it a problem that we is
it a problem that we really need an
[17:46] ordinance or is it a one
>> I think we've Major Davis Clinton Police
[17:49] Department I think it's something we
just need to look at because of I think
[17:52] there's going to be similar to what we
have for bicycles and bikes but some of
[17:55] the scooters I know like even the
scooter I bought one for my daughter for
[17:58] college it was only a 50 cc you know
some are faster than others there's
[18:01] three different types so I think we just
got to look at it and maybe plan out
[18:04] » I remember when we had this discussion
when I was on the other side of the
[18:08] table about uh rollerblades and
skateboards birds downtown.
[18:13] » I remember that discussion.
>> It's hard to, you know, they don't
[18:17] » it's hard for they're not obeying stop
signs.
[18:19] » Yeah, exactly.
>> Those things, they should follow the
[18:22] rules of the road. So, it's good to get
a work group with it together.
[18:25] » Don't step away yet. Hold on. Hold on.
Hold on. Second.
[18:30] » The scooters and ebikes, I see them
drive. I don't know if it's driving is
[18:35] the right term, but I've seen them
literally leaving Walmart with the flow
[18:38] of traffic
that
[18:41] » with the flow of traffic
>> with like literally like they're a car
[18:44] like in
>> they can ride in the road. I mean, some
[18:46] of them it depends what the CC is. Some
of them are depends if they're ready to
[18:49] I mean, but yeah.
>> Yeah.
[18:51] » 50 cc can be on the roadway. It's no
different than
[18:53] » There's three classes of of ebikes.
>> We want them riding with traffic.
[18:58] » There's a gentleman I see ripping down
Second Street out of my office window
[19:01] all the time. Makes me nervous. So they
are they can be problematic. We've had a
[19:05] few
>> Well, you better regulate the segways,
[19:07] too, while you're at it.
>> They wear helmets.
[19:13] » Okay.
>> So, what's who's who the work group is?
[19:16] Council member Oberin. And
>> anybody else want to help?
[19:19] » No.
>> Council member O.
[19:23] » I will.
>> Council member Winter. Council member
[19:26] Oberin. All right. Perfect. We'll work
with PD and get going there. I have way
[19:31] too much emotionally involved right now.
I'm I'm good. Thank you, Tanner. Thank
[19:34] you.
>> Anything else for that 2C item?
[19:37] » No.
>> All right. So,
[19:39] » we're just going to start a work group.
>> We should do a work group.
[19:41] » Yeah, just do a work group.
>> It probably should go through the
[19:43] traffic safety commission.
>> Yes, of course. Working through that.
[19:46] » I think I think that would be part of
the work group.
[19:49] » Perfect.
>> All right.
[19:51] » I can't even go to one.
>> Council Council Member Lee
[19:56] » 2D. Thank your honor.
>> Uh, let me figure out how to start this.
[20:01] » Can you make it bigger?
>> PowerPoint.
[20:04] » Power.
>> We have We do have two citizens here to
[20:07] talk. Do you want them to talk first?
>> Yeah, that sounds good. Okay.
[20:12] » Which one Which one would like to go
first?
[20:14] » You've been waiting patiently.
[20:20] » We appreciate it. You're doing a great
job.
[20:23] » You're doing a great job.
>> Hello, mayor and city council members.
[20:26] Uh my name is Bill Tweford. I live at
702 Desperado Road in Bailey, Colorado.
[20:31] And I wrote you guys a letter uh I don't
know, last week, week before, something
[20:36] like that.
I've really thought long and hard about
[20:40] this. I'm requesting that the topic of
relocating the bis the building and
[20:45] safety division from the fire department
be placed on the committee of the whole
[20:52] agenda for today. Basically, I would
like the council to discuss moving the
[20:57] building and safety division back under
city hall administration, potentially
[21:02] within the community development
department under the direction of Tammy
[21:06] Johnson or another appropriate
department. After researching,
[21:12] you know, many other communities in
Iowa, I have found that most cities
[21:18] separate building and development
functions
[21:22] from fire suppression
and emergency response operations. In my
[21:28] opinion, the fire department already has
a significant responsibility
[21:34] related to emergency response, fire
prevention, EMS services, and public
[21:40] safety. And I think they do a great job.
Allowing the department to focus on
[21:45] their core functions may improve
efficiency while placing building and
[21:50] development services within a department
more focused on economic growth,
[21:56] development, customer service, and
permitting.
[22:00] Now, I also believe relocating the
division would improve accessibility for
[22:05] residents and business owners. in the
past. I could visit city hall, obtain
[22:10] permits, ask questions, make payments in
a centraliz centralized location, and
[22:17] also returning these services to the
city hall would create more of a
[22:22] convenient and a customer-friendly
experience. Additionally, I would like
[22:26] the council to discuss how the city
balances public safety objections with
[22:32] economic development.
I've heard concerns regarding the
[22:36] building that houses the troll exhibit
and the possibility that the occupacy
[22:41] issues related to the sprinkler
requirements may affect its future
[22:46] operation.
While safety must always remain a
[22:51] priority, I believe the city should work
with property owners and businesses to
[22:57] identify practical solutions when
possible. However, when we get something
[23:02] good going for this city, I believe
sometimes the city gets in the way. It
[23:06] throws up roadblocks and slows things
down. And I don't know why that happens.
[23:11] Clinton cannot afford to discourage
investors, tourism, redevelopment when
[23:17] alternatives may exist that both protect
public safety and support economic
[23:24] growth. I would also like the council to
discuss the consistency on how fire and
[23:29] building code requirements are applied.
The city invested significant resources
[23:35] into remodeling the Eagle Point Lodge
yet. To my understanding is that there's
[23:42] not a sprinkler system was not installed
in that project.
[23:47] I can't imagine if I would have bought
the Eagle Point Lodge what they would
[23:51] have ran me through. They would have
wanted me to sprinkler it like they do
[23:56] other buildings. Okay, I get that. But
the thing of it is we need a level
[24:01] playing field for all parties. At the
same time, private party or private pop
[24:06] property owners and businesses are being
required to make costly sprinkler
[24:12] upgrades in order to continue operating
or complete renovations. We need to help
[24:18] the city flourish, not diminish. in my
understanding is correct. I believe the
[24:25] public deserves an explanation on why
different standards appear to be applied
[24:30] to public and private projects.
Consistency, transparency,
[24:36] don't like that word, but it's there.
Consistency, transparency, and fairness
[24:42] are essential to maintaining public
trust and encouraging investments in our
[24:47] community. More broadly, I believe the
building and safety division should be
[24:53] structured in a way that encourages
problem solving encourages customer
[24:59] service and economic development while
maintaining appropriate safety
[25:04] standards. I believe in moving the
division out of the fire department and
[25:09] into a department focused on development
and community growth would help achieve
[25:14] that balance. I appre appreciate your
consideration of this request and look
[25:20] forward to discussing these issues at
the committee of the whole meeting.
[25:26] Is there any questions on that letter
that I sent you guys? All of you.
[25:33] » No, I I appreciate it, Bill.
>> I'm sorry.
[25:37] » I I appreciate you sending that letter
out. Um, I've actually been on a small
[25:41] work group with Rhonda and Travis and
Gro Clinton and some others um that have
[25:46] conducted some factf finding information
with contractors in the area, business
[25:51] owners in the area, and kind of came to
the same conclusion that they liked how
[25:56] it was before and they didn't understand
why it switched.
[25:59] » Yeah.
>> Um,
[26:00] » I'm the I'm under the same thing.
>> And um they and a lot of the contractors
[26:05] work in dual counties. So they'll work
in um Scott County or Jackson County and
[26:11] they claim that our system is a little
harder to work in.
[26:14] » Um not so much
it I think it's the organizational
[26:18] structure rather than they don't like
the answers they're getting. I think
[26:22] they it just needs to be structured
different because no nobody wants to um
[26:26] jeopardize safety at all.
>> No, not at all.
[26:29] » And that's not like our concern at all.
It's mainly just how do we make this
[26:32] flow better so that we're comparable so
when a contractor comes to our area they
[26:37] get the same thing as if they came to
Davenport.
[26:39] » Well, and that's the thing. I mean, I I
went through and had my staff I sent
[26:43] this to you guys, too. I went through
and had my staff go through all the
[26:47] cities in Clinton that have more than
20,000 people and went through how do
[26:52] the how many inspectors do they have?
Like in Clinton we have three. Davenport
[26:56] has six. Deuke has four. You know Iowa
City has six. And do they all wear their
[27:03] badges? They do in every city. Okay.
Clothing.
[27:08] They just wear plain clothing is what
they wear in these other cities. Here
[27:15] they wear bulletproof vests. Now I door
knock for a living with people that are
[27:21] losing their homes and stuff like that.
And if I went looking like some of the
[27:26] inspectors here, they would nobody would
open the door. People I'd feel people
[27:30] were going to start shooting at me. But
I mean, you have to go up to the door
[27:36] dressed in just normal clothes. Even if
you got a jacket that says city
[27:39] inspector or you have a badge on, that's
fine. But, you know, the way that they
[27:45] dress is very intimidating. And I've had
a lot of people tell me that there's
[27:50] only two cities in Iowa that wear
cameras. Clinton and Musketine. They're
[27:56] the only two. No other cities have
cameras, body cams. Okay? No other
[28:01] cities wear bulletproof vests.
So the thing of it is no other cities
[28:07] also do three-party or third-party
inspection which I think would be a good
[28:12] two good thing too because third party
inspection
[28:17] puts all the burden on the homeowner
>> or the or the building owner. Yeah. To
[28:23] do to get the inspections done, turn it
in the city, turn it into somebody like
[28:26] Tammy and move on. you know, I I really
think uh there's a lot of stuff that
[28:34] could be changed.
>> Okay.
[28:37] » So, I just wanted to bring that up.
>> Thank you.
[28:39] » Bill, for those of people that don't
know you, can you explain what your
[28:42] involvement is with Clinton?
>> Well, I've been here since 2018, late
[28:50] 2018. And between myself, my son, and
his wife, and my wife,
[28:57] and
seven other students, we've bought 97
[29:01] properties in eight years here.
Buildings, houses, rentals, multi-units.
[29:08] We bought We've had 97 closings so far
in eight years. That's a lot. We spend a
[29:13] lot of money in this town. When we go
out and flip houses in Denver for $600
[29:18] 700,000, we make $1500 or $200,000.
We bring it here and we work on
[29:24] buildings that haven't been worked on
for 50 years. We put money into the
[29:30] downtown. I have brought in or started
or saved 13 businesses downtown from
[29:38] leaving. from Holl's Hot Dogs to the
Lighthouse to a management company to a
[29:43] construction company to Riverfront
Antiques and Consignment to the
[29:46] boutiques at Riverfront to the
Riverfront Event Center to H to um Lewis
[29:53] right down here in the Tucker building
that's working for Gold Clinton right
[29:56] now. I brought him to town. I brought
underground to town. I kept Ashley here.
[30:00] I kept Graham's here. I moved Gary Dorne
down here. thing of it is I have a tight
[30:06] grip on what's going on downtown because
I really like it says on the back of my
[30:11] shirts, you know, grow downtown Clinton,
make it great again, you know, and I'm
[30:16] really really trying to do that and I
just, you know, need a little bit of
[30:21] help, you know, with the city going,
hey, listen, you know what? We see what
[30:25] the guy's doing. We see what everybody's
trying to do, you know, with all of
[30:29] these investors I'm bringing to town.
They're all students of ours. So, and
[30:34] it's not drug money coming in. I want to
clue you in on that. I might look like I
[30:38] do drugs, but I don't. I've never puffed
a cigarette. I've never been drunk. I've
[30:45] never done drugs. And I've only dated
two women, married both of them. So, the
[30:50] thing of it is my wife now tells me, she
goes, "You're like a dinosaur." But you
[30:55] know what? I I just And and everybody
thinks it's drug money coming into town,
[30:59] but it's not. I promise you it's not.
you know, so
[31:03] » it's true
legal in Colorado.
[31:07] First couple years, all we bring money
>> and it's Yeah, it's kind of ridiculous,
[31:14] but
you know, and and and I have a
[31:18] relationship over there, Patrick, too. I
mean, you know, I I know all the dudes
[31:22] up in Cedar Rapids. You know, I've spent
$18,000 in attorney's fees fighting the
[31:26] city. And you know what? That's
ridiculous. I could put that money into
[31:30] buildings because that's what I would
do. I'm not going to go out and just
[31:33] blow the money on on a fancy car. You
guys see what I drive. I drive an old
[31:37] beat up van that hit a deer. That's
missing half the front end and I haven't
[31:42] been pulled over yet. But I'm getting
ready to take it to Mike's body shop and
[31:45] get it fixed. But I don't drive fancy
vehicles. I drive old vehicles. I put my
[31:50] money into Clinton. And I told the Smid
a couple months ago, I said, "You know
[31:54] where I vacation? I vacation in Clinton.
That's what I do. I come here and I
[31:58] work. And I know you guys see me out
there work.
[32:02] » So that's just all I've got to say. I
know other people have to talk. Was
[32:06] there any other questions?
>> No.
[32:10] » No. Carrie.
>> Well, thank you very much for your time.
[32:13] » Thank you, Bill.
>> Y
[32:17] » Hello everybody. Carrie Wade. I'm a
property owner at 408 South First
[32:20] Street, Clinton, Iowa. I'm here as the
president of your local downtown Smid.
[32:26] I'm also here as a business owner. I'm
also here as a proud member of this
[32:31] community. I may not live in this
community. I educated my children in
[32:35] this community. I open enrolled to your
community. Okay? I am a big community
[32:40] supporter. I'm just not willing to move.
The reason I'm here today is to ask you
[32:47] guys for a little consideration.
Obviously, it's no secret there's nobody
[32:52] lining up at our downtown or even in
some of our Lions businesses where there
[32:57] are empty buildings and there's nobody
lining up beating down the doors to buy
[33:02] these buildings.
But I'm also asking you guys to consider
[33:06] safety because I do believe safety is
important. I'm a rule follower. This is
[33:12] where Bill and I don't generally get
along. I follow rules. I enjoy rules. I
[33:17] like to follow them. But I do think that
our fire code and our building and
[33:22] safety codes are very extreme in this
town. I think we need to put together a
[33:27] committee or a work group um with
community members, business owners,
[33:32] council members, whoever. But we need to
come forth and realize that we are
[33:36] stopping growth. We are stopping things
from happening. I don't want to go into
[33:41] a dark, deep hole because we've all been
here way too long tonight. Um, but I do
[33:45] want you guys to know I am so proud to
have everybody sitting up here on this
[33:50] council. This is a very thankless job.
And I do appreciate that when I call
[33:55] council members, they answer. They call
back. I appreciate when I call the mayor
[34:00] and he called me back.
>> Well, you're a mayor, so I
[34:02] » You're right.
>> the biggest town in Iowa, right?
[34:06] » But I I appreciate everything you do,
but I really am I'm begging you guys. We
[34:11] need to start growing our downtown, our
Lions district. I've got lots of great
[34:16] ideas. We've got lots of people who want
to see this town flourish. But
[34:20] unfortunately, I think soon we're going
to have more empty buildings and tumble
[34:24] weeds than we are people who own the
buildings. I want to touch a little bit
[34:28] on our troll situation. Guys, you all
know if you know me, I was not the
[34:34] biggest fan of the concert series. It
did not do my business well. I am here
[34:40] for myself. I'm here for other business
owners. We have a troll across the
[34:44] street from my business at Happy Joe's
that thankfully the sawmill brought to
[34:49] our town. They projected only it's like
60,000 people which was a lot. And I
[34:54] will be the first to say I was like yeah
right we're never going to see it chain
[34:58] the doors. I am seeing so many customers
so much business as I was at a point of
[35:04] where I was like you know what I don't
know if I can hang on much longer. The
[35:07] economy is tough right now. This is
bringing people from Virginia, Vermont,
[35:11] Florida, Texas, all over the world to
come see this. So, I'm asking that we
[35:16] not make our fire codes and our our
rules for this city so hard and extreme
[35:24] that we can't we we don't we're
deterring people from coming here, from
[35:27] living here, from from owning a
business, which is most people's dream
[35:30] to be a business owner, but it's tough.
It's tough in this town. Um, so I'm just
[35:36] asking you guys to take this into
consideration. Let's get a committee
[35:39] together. Let's look at these
ordinances. How long have these
[35:42] ordinances been in place? You know, are
they even appropriate right now? Are
[35:45] they appropriate for what this town is
trying to do? Ask yourselves that
[35:49] question. And like I said, I'd be glad
to to be a part of a workg group. I'll
[35:54] be glad to get my hands dirty in all the
free time I have. But let's do it, guys.
[35:59] Let's bring Clinton back. Let's bring
businesses back. Let's stop deterring
[36:02] business. Let's stop making these guys
jobs harder. You know, when the the
[36:07] inspectors come to the buildings, when
the fire department has to come and
[36:11] inspect something, I'm sure they don't
love the kickback that they get. Let's
[36:15] make it a little easier. Let's look at
these ordinances and say, "What makes
[36:17] sense? What makes sense for growth?" So,
you guys have a wonderful night.
[36:22] » Thank you. I will I will say that we did
we did have some meetings recently to
[36:27] talk about code stuff and I probably
slowed that down a little bit just with
[36:30] all the other stuff going on and
meetings and things like that. So the
[36:35] discussion is not lost on that I guess.
So, so we we did have some conversations
[36:40] and so yeah,
>> thank you.
[36:43] » Mayor, Council, Fire Chief Mike, got to
admit,
[36:46] » wait, you didn't fill out a card.
>> A little taken back by the discussion
[36:50] being on the cow. Um I was called Friday
said, "Hey, it's going to be on the cow.
[36:55] We have a work group already put
together that we've done some work on
[36:58] it, which I want to discuss that work
group with you, mayor, and I believe it
[37:02] may end up in a closed session." Um
>> Okay. I'm going to start with our codes.
[37:07] So, currently the city of Clinton adopts
the state building code,
[37:13] which means we have to follow the state
building code and we cannot amend it to
[37:18] be less strict. That's how it's worded
in law. Now, we're looking to change
[37:23] that to where we the IBC, which is the
international building code, the IBC,
[37:30] which is the existing building code, and
one other one.
[37:39] » Yeah, there's one other one that we can
adopt as long as it's substantially in
[37:44] accord with the state's adoption.
>> Mike, can I butt in for a second? This
[37:47] isn't this isn't about codes. We we
don't want any codes. um how to carry on
[37:52] safer.
>> Okay.
[37:54] » Are no not safer, more lenient so that
businesses can come into town. So I'm
[37:59] telling you that cities aren't more
lenient than we are. They're adopting
[38:05] the exact same fire code that we are
except maybe making local amendments
[38:10] that have to be at least as stringent as
the state. The fire code, the mechanical
[38:17] code, the electrical code, the plumbing
code, they all have to be substantially
[38:22] in accord with the state and cannot be
amended to be less stringent.
[38:28] That's the law. We did a lot of research
on it. Um, and I remember standing up
[38:34] here, I don't know, a year and a half
ago and it was like, yeah, we have to
[38:36] adopt everything because that's the
state law. And at the time we did
[38:42] because we currently adopt the state
building code. Now is everybody at dial
[38:46] going to enforce that? Maybe, maybe not.
Not my call, but I know that we are in
[38:51] line with the law.
Now, we found out that there are a few
[38:55] codes that we can amend locally to be
substantially in accord with the state
[39:01] law. We can look at doing that. I have
no problem with looking and doing that.
[39:06] I have no problem with a workg group to
do that. Um, again, I'm a little taken
[39:11] back. I was just told about this on
Friday. Just given this nice PowerPoint
[39:16] presentation prior to the other meeting
starting,
[39:20] totally uninformed that this is even
going on. Troll
[39:24] trolls a fire hazard. Um, and we're
working on a way to make it work.
[39:30] » Can you tell me about the
>> Can can we can we get I um I'd like to
[39:35] go back to this discussion for tonight.
Not that either one of your points
[39:39] aren't valid. They definitely are. But
tonight,
[39:42] » there's a lot of stuff thrown around
here that I really think I should have
[39:45] the opportunity to talk about because
you guys have been talking about it
[39:49] behind closed doors without my opinion,
without my thoughts.
[39:54] » Yep. I I agree, Mike. And when we did
have a meeting recently, Carrie, it was
[39:58] actually Pat, myself, the mayor, Mike,
Eli, Greg, Tammy. Is that anyone else?
[40:07] And we're actually I believe we're
waiting on Pat, aren't we?
[40:11] » Last I knew.
>> No,
[40:13] » he was supposed to follow up on
something.
[40:14] » I already told you that I probably
slowed that up a little bit.
[40:17] » Oh, okay.
>> Okay. All right.
[40:18] » I thought we were still waiting on Pat
because I have some questions. I have
[40:22] some questions that came out of
>> advice has been clear. I I I I said that
[40:26] we could
we could get we gave the option that if
[40:30] we wanted we could get rid of adoption
of the state building code and adopt
[40:33] those those international codes
>> independently. So I think
[40:39] » as long as they substantially comply and
Mike agreed and we said that abs the
[40:43] state didn't even adopt chapter one of
the state building code. They got rid of
[40:47] it entirely. They did they have their
own administrative rules so we can do
[40:50] all that locally. That's what we settled
on. But
[40:53] » right,
>> I don't think you were waiting on me. I
[40:55] just think the council needs to do that.
>> No, I I just said I'm the one I'm the
[41:00] one that slowed that up. I had some I
have some conversations out of that
[41:03] meeting, but we've been dealing with uh
data centers and uh city administrator
[41:10] duties and a lot of things that have
come up in the last month that needed
[41:14] priority. And I know codes are
important, but I slowed those
[41:18] conversations down just because I do
have some questions and it is on my
[41:22] radar. So
>> yeah, you can put that on me.
[41:25] » We're standing in a public forum um
talking about operational level stuff,
[41:30] » the inspectors wear vests for their
safety. And I think that if anybody
[41:35] questions whether or not citizens of
Clinton threaten our our inspectors
[41:40] crazy because they do. They wear the
cameras for the exact same reason. You
[41:45] also wear the crank cameras because when
they when I get a complaint, I'll go
[41:48] back and watch the footage and be like,
"Uh, I'm sorry, sir, but here is what
[41:53] was said." Or to solidify a complaint
that was made.
[41:58] Third party inspections, we have them.
Okay.
[42:03] $18,000. I can't control that.
>> Sorry. I'm going to go back to what I
[42:09] actually prepared before I had all the
information before I saw this. I want to
[42:13] better understand the objective behind
the proposed organizational change so we
[42:17] can evaluate it from an operational,
fiscal, and civil service delivery
[42:22] perspective. Given there has been no
documented performance concern, I think
[42:26] it's important we clearly define the
problem we are trying to solve. When
[42:30] we're trying to clarify the purpose of
this proposal, we should ask, what
[42:33] specific issue or gap are you seeking to
address by moving the building safety to
[42:39] community development? Has an analysis
been conducted comparing current
[42:43] performance metrics with your desired
outcomes?
[42:47] Do we have data showing deficiencies in
inspections, plan reviews, timelines, or
[42:54] enforcement under our current structure?
Is there a concern with current service
[42:58] levels, response times, or customer
experience?
[43:02] Currently, the building safety division
operates within the fire department. The
[43:06] structure aligns the building code with
the fire prevention and life safety
[43:09] functions. on a daily basis. This allows
for coordinated plan review,
[43:14] inspections, and code enforcement
activities that are closely
[43:18] interconnected.
At this time, there have been no
[43:22] identified performance concerns with the
building safety division. Permitting,
[43:26] inspections, and plan review functions
are being carried out in a manner that
[43:30] meets operational expectations.
Additionally, no formal analysis to my
[43:35] knowledge
or defined objectives have been
[43:39] presented outlining what specific issue
this proposed change is intending to
[43:43] address.
As you consider this po proposal, I
[43:46] would encourage focusing on a few key
areas.
[43:50] First, service delivery. Any
restructuring should clearly improve
[43:54] outcomes, whether that's permitting
timelines, customer service, or
[43:58] development activity. At this point,
it's not clear what measurable
[44:02] improvement is being sought, and all
those things that Mr. Tweifer could do
[44:06] at city hall before, he can do at
Central Station.
[44:10] Second, operational coordination.
Building and fire code enforcement are
[44:14] closely linked. Separating these
functions would require new processes to
[44:18] ensure consistency, communication, and
alignment, particularly
[44:23] on life safety issues.
Third, organizational capacity. As
[44:28] currently structured, community
development primarily focuses on
[44:31] nuisance enforcement and property
maintenance. And I'm sorry, Tammy, I
[44:34] know you do more than that. That's what
I have.
[44:38] How do you envision in integrating
technical building code enforcement?
[44:42] They are technical, right, Cody?
Sometimes difficult to read and
[44:46] interpret and sometimes you have to look
in four different books to get your
[44:49] answer.
An oversight into the framework. What
[44:53] staffing expertise or structural changes
would be required to support your
[44:57] transition?
Fourth, fiscal impact. Obviously, you
[45:02] are seeking $5,000. Um, organizational
changes often come with costs, whether
[45:07] that's through restructuring, training,
or administrative adjustments. To date,
[45:12] I guess maybe a a financial analysis has
been provided, but I didn't know of it.
[45:18] Fifth, risk and compliance. Consistency
in code enforcement is critical for
[45:22] legal defensibility. And I can tell you
in the last two years and especially the
[45:27] last year with Eli, that has been our
focus because that was the number one
[45:31] complaint of our department before was
inconsistencies.
[45:35] That's why you have 60some pro or
policies because we wanted to make sure
[45:42] that when I came and inspected, you got
the same inspection as when Cody or
[45:47] Connor or whoever does them.
That was our number one complaint
[45:54] in public safety. Any fragmentation
between building and fire code oversight
[45:58] could introduce risk if not carefully
planned. Finally, best practice. From an
[46:03] administrative perspective, organiza
organizational changes of this scale are
[46:07] typically driven by a demonstrated need,
supported by data, and aligned with
[46:11] strategic goals. I would recommend we
follow that same discipline approach
[46:15] here. In closing, without a clearly
identified problem, measurable
[46:19] objective, or supporting analysis, it is
difficult to fully evaluate the
[46:23] necessity or benefit of this proposed
change. I would recommend that any any
[46:29] decision be based on defined goals,
data, and a thorough understanding of
[46:33] operational and financial impacts. How
many people sitting up there know what
[46:38] the building safety division does on a
daily basis?
[46:44] All right. Furthermore, that this
conversation happen at the operational
[46:48] level between the city administrator or
interim and departments with the plan to
[46:53] meet your desired goals and outcomes
presented.
[46:57] » Thank you. Any questions?
>> Mike, I got two questions.
[47:00] » Can I run through my PowerPoint too
after that so it can because I don't
[47:04] want to get off topic. We're not Mike,
you're doing a great job. We're not
[47:08] trying to lessen safety. All I'm trying
to say is the organizational change so
[47:13] that
They're not quite the same.
[47:18] » So I guess my first question would be is
when the department was at city hall,
[47:23] how was it rain?
>> Way back when. Yes. It's So I'm going to
[47:28] I don't know if this is foul language or
not. When I took over the building
[47:32] department, they said we are the bastard
children, sorry, of the of the city.
[47:37] Why? Because we get moved around.
Different leaders, different that.
[47:41] Anytime there's a problem, something
happens to BNS. There's a change in
[47:46] leadership, whatever, because the focus
is on all the negative things, right?
[47:51] You said you have 21 20ome complaints
that are sitting on your desk at home. I
[47:56] asked for them so I can work on them. I
haven't seen them. So, we do SWAT
[48:01] analysis to ensure that we're performing
the standards. And if there's
[48:04] expectations that are out there that
we're not meeting, give them to us.
[48:08] We'll meet them. And if by law we can,
we will. So, let me go back to your
[48:14] original question.
We adopted the building code in 2012. I
[48:21] think at that time,
I'm trying to remember who was in
[48:24] charge. Anyways, when Jessica Kizner was
here, the building department was not in
[48:28] a good place. Kraton Reganweather
retired from the fire department. He
[48:32] went over there with an order to shape
it up. spent a couple years over there
[48:36] shaping things around, getting rid of
people, moving people, and then he
[48:40] wanted to retire or actually go to the
street department. And so Jeff Chapman
[48:44] took over to Billy Neighborhood
Services. He remained over there until
[48:48] 2020 when he came over to the Clinton
Fire Department. That move I won't
[48:54] discuss in public. There was personnel
matters that came into that move. So
[49:00] it's been with the Clinton Fire
Department for do the math. 20
[49:05] » 14 years
>> for a while.
[49:08] » So, it wasn't moved because anything was
wrong at the city hall. It was moved
[49:12] because of
>> Well, again, uh I think multiple reasons
[49:17] come into play. I keep hearing that Matt
wanted to have an office for Gro Clinton
[49:21] over here, so he wanted them separated.
So, he moved the inspectors to the fire
[49:25] over to the fire department and moved
Nuisance over to the police department.
[49:28] Nuisance came back. inspector state
and Bill Clinton never had an office
[49:34] over here.
>> When did when did you say it was
[49:36] separated to fire department?
[49:40] » So the records that I went through
>> 2013 would be the year that record sorry
[49:46] Kraton came over to man the ship.
However, he retired from the fire
[49:51] department to do that.
The information that I got um through
[49:55] some city records was 2020 is when um it
officially went to the fire department.
[50:00] » That is when it came over to the fire
department. That is correct.
[50:03] » So it's only been the last four years.
>> Yes.
[50:05] » Yes.
>> Correct.
[50:10] » So as far as financing goes, can
somebody come over there and pay with a
[50:13] credit card?
>> You guys have a credit card reader?
[50:16] » They pay online with a credit card.
>> Online?
[50:18] » Yep. So when it was at city hall, they
could just walk over to finance, pay it,
[50:23] bring it back over, get their permit,
get their certificate or whatever
[50:26] without
>> Now they can just stand there, pay it,
[50:28] and get their permit. It's a lot more
convenient.
[50:32] » But they have to go online to do it.
>> Yep.
[50:34] » Okay.
[50:42] » Thank you, Mike. Any other questions?
>> Let's see. I truly think this should be
[50:47] done at the operational level and then a
presentation brought to you guys.
[50:54] Can I just clarify Travis your question
and actually Mike I think when Kraton
[50:58] come over he was still as a battalian
chief if I remember right because I was
[51:02] working under him he was still a
battalion chief and administrator at
[51:06] that time Kissner brought him over due
to issues to clean it up that was done
[51:12] at some point then he retired went down
to the street department Jeff came in
[51:18] before then we had a community
development director Mike Reynolds for
[51:22] that there was uh Stzeski. I think it
was John Stzeski.
[51:26] » John.
>> So,
[51:28] » so did you guys work all together when
it was at city hall before?
[51:31] » Yes.
>> Yep. And in 2020,
[51:34] previous administrator made the decision
to separate the department.
[51:38] » Did it work?
>> Leading question.
[51:43] » Code enforcement was brought back to
city hall.
[51:49] » Thank you, Tammy.
[51:53] Connor, go ahead.
>> You want to run through your
[51:55] presentation or
>> Yeah, it's almost 10.
[51:57] » Can I just say one thing?
>> Yeah, please.
[51:59] » The only issue that I ever have with the
inspections is they'll come out and say,
[52:07] "Take care of these three things and we
agree on it." And I say, "Okay, we'll
[52:11] get those done the next two weeks." But
then when you get the letter, there's 15
[52:16] items on there. And I'm like, "We didn't
talk about all this stuff." So that's my
[52:20] issue with it. If we're talking about
these three things, put the three things
[52:24] on the letter, not 12 other things on
top of the other three we talked about.
[52:28] Because then I send these letters when I
get them, which I'm not I've only been
[52:34] in Colorado 16 days this year. So if
they send me letters, I don't get them
[52:39] most of the time until I come home a
month or two later. By that time,
[52:43] everything's passed. So, I have a great
relationship with Tammy and we work back
[52:49] and forth together on stuff if something
comes up and things like that. So,
[52:55] that's the big reason, you know, I I
think that's the reason a lot of people
[53:00] have trouble with the inspectors is
because they say we'll take care of
[53:04] these two things and then when they get
the letter in the mail, there's 15.
[53:07] » I think we can discuss that at a
different
[53:09] » I think so too, but I I just let's go
through this presentation. Yeah, when
[53:13] they were talking about safety and
stuff, I just thought,
[53:16] » you know, that's that would what drives
me nuts and I probably drives other
[53:19] people nuts.
>> I understand. All right, Connor.
[53:22] » Thank you, Bill. And and also, just to
clarify, uh Friday when I put this on
[53:26] the agenda was the day that I notified
Mike and Tammy at the same time. Prior
[53:31] to that, neither of the department heads
knew. Um this wasn't something that I
[53:36] wanted to discuss with department heads
and not all together the same time. Um
[53:42] so just to clarify that
so this presentation was brought to us a
[53:48] few months back um to discuss why it's
at the fire department and should it be
[53:55] back at the building safety division. So
in this presentation I went through um
[54:00] just a short summary and Christa can get
you these powerpoints. I don't want to
[54:04] waste any morebody's time. We compared
peer cities um to who is running
[54:10] building and neighborhood services,
permitting, code enforcement, and
[54:14] nuisance out of their fire department.
And if you I'll jump to that slide.
[54:20] Um I couldn't find one that was running
out of the fire department.
[54:24] » Ames,
>> Ames, Iowa. I I I appreciate that.
[54:30] But in our local area or city our size,
I couldn't find one. So we had called a
[54:35] couple of them to kind of get an idea of
how they functioned and why they were in
[54:40] that place. That's what made our
decision to get to that point. So if we
[54:45] get back to history, um we did a little
bit of history of where building and
[54:49] neighbor services was. And currently or
up until 2020, it had always been under
[54:55] code enforcement. Um and it had operated
[55:04] And then our core question, this isn't
about safety. We're not trying to make
[55:08] safety go away. We're not trying to
change codes. Um, that's not my
[55:12] objective at all. And that wasn't
discussed in the work group one bit. All
[55:16] we care about is how it's perceived to
the citizens and to the business owners
[55:20] and contractors.
Fire department will still have their
[55:24] roles um as they are in the state code.
That's your job. All we're trying to do
[55:29] is change the optics and how the
citizens perceive how this this looks
[55:34] and moves forward.
Um that touches on what we found
[55:43] communities. So that's the current
structures there on your left, the
[55:47] proposed structures on your right. Fire
department still involved with their
[55:50] same practices under life safety and
critical activity.
[55:56] Kind of defines the roles. Um, all fire
departments operate under the same
[56:00] rules. Ours is a little different having
code enforcement with it or I'm sorry,
[56:05] permitting and
um,
[56:08] » code enforcement.
>> Code enforcement. Yes.
[56:13] Um, customer service is really this main
focus is how do we get better for our
[56:18] community? Again, I I don't want to
change codes. That's not this objective
[56:22] at all.
[56:26] Um, this was brought up because also
contract contractors that work in other
[56:31] communities claim that the our city is a
little harder to work in and they don't
[56:36] get the same
structure that they operate in
[56:40] currently. That hurts our investments
from outside companies.
[56:46] Um so recommendation would be to move
back to city hall under the direction of
[56:51] code or under the direction of community
development and Tammy.
[56:57] We talked a little bit about um what
would be required to make this move. Um
[57:02] that was just a hypothetical number. We
think it's going to be much less than
[57:06] that. Um but that would ultimately come
out of permitting fund as if it was a
[57:10] permitting expense anyways.
Um, so work group, the work group that
[57:15] we are for council was Winters, Lee, and
Karns. Um, I'd spoken with Brian about
[57:20] how to make this move happen under our
budget system. I talked to Tammy about
[57:25] it. I talked to Kevin about safety. Matt
Parbves was our um, community outreach,
[57:30] so he's the one that kind of met with
all the business owners on that. And as
[57:34] Carrie suggested, I'd love Carrie to be
on the board as well or the committee.
[57:39] Um that's just a little bit of how the
structure looks now. Um
[57:46] still everything pretty much stays the
same just the perspective to the
[57:51] community.
Um
[57:55] back to the same structure it was before
and then our proposed timeline. So work
[58:01] group would be phase one, then getting
to the relocation plan, and then
[58:05] hopefully by the end of summer having a
set in stone, here's how we're moving
[58:09] forward to help better our community.
[58:14] That would be the motion that I would
like to make. Um I motion to have the
[58:17] work group listed above
proceed forward with the necessary steps
[58:21] to accomplish this move.
[58:26] Um,
the work group has to include the fire
[58:30] department.
>> Yeah,
[58:33] » they're definitely more than welcome for
sure.
[58:35] » This just kind of turned into an odd
conversation how it's going.
[58:41] » Yeah.
>> Um, yeah. I mean, if that's what you all
[58:45] want to do, but the fire department has
to be an integral part of this
[58:48] conversation
>> cuz even if so, I go to court with all
[58:53] these people all the time and you know,
the fire department handles its
[58:57] expertise and Tammy handles generally
private property. You know, the rental
[59:03] side is almost always
>> Rich and Eli and those guys
[59:09] fire code. the fire code. The fire
department usually I just mean for the
[59:12] work.
>> So yeah,
[59:13] » what I'm trying to say is you could put
everything under Tammy. You could change
[59:17] the code to change our code to say that.
>> But if you did that, she would still
[59:22] have to have Eli and Greg and Mike
involved in all of that.
[59:28] » 100%. Yes.
>> You know, they'd still have to have
[59:32] their division correct under her.
>> So that's just how it appears to me in
[59:37] court. Like when I know it's a rental
code violation and I'm there with Eli,
[59:42] » Tammy doesn't really go usually unless
she has a nuisance issue in the same
[59:47] case, right? It's she just deals with
nuisance mostly and you know like unsafe
[59:52] buildings, that type of thing. But a lot
of times it's a mixed bag. I've got the
[59:57] fire people there and I've got her
there.
[59:59] » Um
you know it's almost 10 o'clock guys and
[1:00:03] I think everybody's starting to get a
little cranky. Um,
[1:00:06] I mean, if that's what you all want to
do and the council's okay with that, as
[1:00:10] long as everyone's getting together and
talking about this and actually going
[1:00:13] through it and strategizing to figure
out, yes, this makes sense, no, it
[1:00:18] doesn't, I'm fine with that. And I will
make a motion for you all to do that.
[1:00:22] » Can we Can we Okay. Can we do it a
little differently?
[1:00:28] » Yeah.
Can we actually look at
[1:00:33] some of the data points and the goals
and objectives and and what it's going
[1:00:37] to look like?
Like I I feel like we're
[1:00:42] » this isn't a new structure to cities.
This is how all the other cities are
[1:00:45] operating.
>> No, I understand that. I understand
[1:00:47] that. But why are we doing it other than
customer service?
[1:00:52] » Well, customer service,
>> anybody can do customer service. Well, I
[1:00:54] figured once they got together and
started hashing this out, they would
[1:00:57] come to some conclusions.
>> I I guess going through it, it's just
[1:01:01] kind of a odd way to have this
conversation in my opinion.
[1:01:07] » It's really It's really choppy kind of.
>> It's an idea. I kind of I'm I'm tired,
[1:01:11] too. I'm kind of understand where
Scott's coming from. Maybe like have a
[1:01:14] work group to then come back to a
separate cow to have those conversations
[1:01:18] with the departments. I understand where
you're coming from, Connor. I understand
[1:01:22] where Bill and Carrie's coming from. I
also understand where Mike and Sammy and
[1:01:26] everybody else is coming from.
>> We never had a work group to move a
[1:01:29] department though. That's what I'm
getting.
[1:01:31] » Well, we didn't have a work group to
move it the first time.
[1:01:34] » Well, technic because
>> I don't know if changing structures is
[1:01:39] the city administrator's job. Pat, I
mean, I think Matt's change should have
[1:01:44] probably went through the council when
that whole department was re completely
[1:01:50] gutted and moved. I think that was
something we should have talked about,
[1:01:54] but we came in one day and it all had
happened and it's been that way for six
[1:01:58] years. So, here we are. Um, so I don't
mind if you all want to talk about it,
[1:02:02] but I already think I have an idea where
you all going to end up concluding. And
[1:02:07] I don't know if it is going to be
concluded that a move is what's
[1:02:10] necessary,
but I'm fine with you all talking about.
[1:02:14] » Eli, go ahead, sir.
>> Thank you. Eli Voss, building official
[1:02:17] with the fire department. Um, there's a
couple points I want to just maybe add a
[1:02:20] few more
talking points to that have been
[1:02:24] addressed and then I want to address the
codes that might help answer questions
[1:02:28] you guys have regarding them. Um,
regarding peer cities, Connor, I took a
[1:02:34] fire inspection class, got my
certification a year and a half ago out
[1:02:37] in De Moines metro with all the De
Moines metro fire marshals. And um
[1:02:43] although it's relatively uncommon in
Iowa, our model has uh gained a lot of
[1:02:47] attention from those professionals out
there because of its effectiveness and
[1:02:51] discussions with those De Moines metro
area fire marshals and code
[1:02:54] professionals reinforced that the
structure provides substantial benefits
[1:02:57] in communication, coordination, and life
safety oversight. And our model was
[1:03:01] viewed by many of them out there as
forward thinking and highly effective.
[1:03:05] So it's not necessarily modernize it.
Maybe we were ahead of it and we're more
[1:03:10] advanced than other cities like us who
don't think that way because
[1:03:14] seriously they were impressed. All those
bigger cities out there were absolutely
[1:03:18] impressed with how our model works here
in Clinton. So I just wanted to share
[1:03:21] that. Um regarding customer service, so
I took over about a year ago. One of the
[1:03:27] programs we implemented was quality
assurance and we hand out um anonymous
[1:03:31] quality assurance questionnaires and we
get them back and I'd be happy to share
[1:03:35] every single one of those with you. We
have high remarks on everything we do
[1:03:40] and so we are addressing customer
service and where we do have downfalls
[1:03:44] we address those weekly at our um team
huddle every Thursday morning to start
[1:03:49] our day off and that's one of the items
we always go over are the QAs and where
[1:03:54] there are issues we address them and we
fix them and we move forward and we get
[1:03:57] better. So, we address that every single
week and I will share every one of those
[1:04:02] with you guys if you want to see what
we've been doing because it's working.
[1:04:05] And I've heard that from contractors out
on site. I had somebody say um a couple
[1:04:09] months ago building a new house that I
don't know what's changed, but I went
[1:04:12] into your office and it was very
pleasant.
[1:04:15] » That's good.
>> I thought it was great.
[1:04:18] » Seriously, I thought that was great.
>> You wonder what was happening before
[1:04:21] though, don't you?
So, I just want to let you know we are
[1:04:25] addressing customer service and we
actually hold that very high on our list
[1:04:30] every single week. So, I I'll share
those with you. Um, regarding
[1:04:35] contractors from other cities, we do a
lot of work with contractors from other
[1:04:38] cities. On a ECIA job, I was dealing
with a customer um who does primarily
[1:04:43] all their work out of Debuke, and he he
uh commented how pleasant it was to work
[1:04:47] with the city of Clinton because up
there it could take up to 14 days to get
[1:04:50] an inspection schedule.
[1:04:54] um dealing with a contractor from
Bentonorf on a big project here in town.
[1:04:58] He said he was told in Bentonorf it
could be up to 90 days to get his
[1:05:01] permit.
We exceed that by far. And so those are
[1:05:06] some comparables in this area of other
contractors who also work here who are
[1:05:10] actually glad with the services they get
here. Um, as far as the committee goes,
[1:05:16] I would love to be a part of that
conversation because there's a lot of
[1:05:19] insight I think I can bring where like
the QAS, maybe you guys didn't know that
[1:05:23] we were doing those kinds of thing.
We've implemented a lot of things to get
[1:05:26] better in our office. So maybe that's
just not known and I'd love to share all
[1:05:30] that kind of a show and tell um for
Carrie and Bill. So, the city of Clinton
[1:05:36] has codes and ordinances and we've
adopted them and it's become law. And
[1:05:41] once adopted, those laws cannot simply
be ignored in order to make it just
[1:05:46] easier to build here. Um, city staff
both um have both a legal and ethical
[1:05:52] obligation to interpret administer the
the adopted uh regulations consistently
[1:05:56] and fairly. and selective administration
or intentionally looking the other way
[1:06:01] creates significant ris uh risk, excuse
me. Um such as increased liability
[1:06:06] exposure for the city, for the building
safety division, for us inspectors
[1:06:10] personally, increased danger to
occupants, inconsistent and unfair code
[1:06:15] administration for customers if we're
not treating everybody the same, then
[1:06:18] that can be viewed poorly. Um loss of
public trust, and increased likelihood
[1:06:23] of future incidents if something goes
wrong because we didn't enforce it. If
[1:06:27] it's believed that certain codes should
change, there's a legal process to
[1:06:30] change them through legislation uh
legislative action. And the mayor just
[1:06:34] talked about how Cody and Connor and Pat
and a few of us met to talk about that
[1:06:38] right now. So, we're in the middle of
that. And I think we have some wiggle
[1:06:41] room because the state cut out a big
section of where we were really tied
[1:06:44] with. So, we we're going to look at
those options and try to make those the
[1:06:48] administration part of that much user
friendly. Until that occurs occurs
[1:06:54] though, the code officials are obligated
to interpret and administer the codes as
[1:06:57] they're adopted. And as they're adopted,
the codes provide the rules that we have
[1:07:03] to follow.
First and foremost, the codes tell us
[1:07:07] what we must do. Second, if the codes do
not include rules for us to follow, then
[1:07:12] we can approve alternatives as long as
they meet or exceed that code minimum.
[1:07:18] Lastly, if an approved alternative is
not available, then we can approve
[1:07:22] solutions designed by an engineer.
Those are the options. If it's in the
[1:07:27] book, we follow it. If it's not in the
book, we can approve a alternative that
[1:07:30] meets it. And if there's no
alternatives, then solutions can be
[1:07:34] prepared by a registered design
professional.
[1:07:37] So, approving anything outside the scope
of those three options willfully
[1:07:41] violates the code and puts legal risk on
the code officials who look the other
[1:07:46] way. and we do not want to put ourselves
in that position. I don't know if
[1:07:50] anybody's paid attention to city of
Davenport in the last couple years with
[1:07:53] the building collapse. I wouldn't be
surprised if some of those people are
[1:07:56] going to be held criminally for actions.
We don't want to put ourselves in that
[1:08:01] position.
Um the thing about the rules, they're
[1:08:05] not always crystal clear. Cody saw this
firsthand when we were dealing with
[1:08:08] chapter 152 a couple years back. How
many different books you have to get
[1:08:12] into and how this references this. So
they're not always clear and so they
[1:08:15] must be interpreted. Code officials
interpret the rules to ensure that the
[1:08:19] proper scope and applicability of that
code went into the proper ruling. So we
[1:08:24] got to make sure we're dealing in the
right book and then do these chapters
[1:08:27] apply to this project. So we got to
break it down like that every time to
[1:08:31] make sure our ruling is correct.
If a customer disagrees with the code
[1:08:37] official's interpretation of those
rules, um the code official cannot
[1:08:41] simply ignore or change the rules. By
law, we cannot do that.
[1:08:45] » Those rule changes only come through
legislative action. Um, we can only
[1:08:49] approve that alternative if there's one
there or we can accept something
[1:08:54] designed by a professional that says it
meets those rules. Um, if the customer
[1:08:58] is dissatisfied with those options, they
have the right to appeal what we
[1:09:01] interpreted. And appeals are not viewed
negatively or taken personally. I
[1:09:06] actually prefer them um because it's my
preferred method of reaching a solution.
[1:09:10] It puts it on a a board. It takes it off
of everybody else and the board says,
[1:09:15] "Did I make the right ruling or not?"
And then we move on from there. Um, the
[1:09:20] building safety division prides itself
on working with customers to find those
[1:09:23] solutions and approve projects. We do
this all the time where we can within
[1:09:28] those rules that we have to work within
the code book. Um, and I can give
[1:09:33] examples of that that we do that every
day. Um, one is, um, YWCA, the new
[1:09:38] building, you know, they were they had
to have a temp CFO or CFO by a certain
[1:09:42] date or they were going to lose all
their funding. Well, we absolutely
[1:09:45] worked with them. We go through, we find
out, is this thing safe to be in for
[1:09:49] right now and can they work on these
other minor things and we work with them
[1:09:53] and we reach that conclusion and we
approve them, gave them that tempo and
[1:09:59] everything's good to go. Um, we've done
that for Unity Christian School, we've
[1:10:03] done that for private residential
dwellings. Um, just this probably two
[1:10:07] weeks ago, I had a customer put an
addition on the back of a house. They
[1:10:11] were one truss short. Trusses can only
span 24 inches on center. So, the first
[1:10:16] one was 24. Second one was 24. The next
one was 30. The next one was about 38.
[1:10:20] The next one was 40. So, they tried. So,
what's the solution? We need an extra
[1:10:25] truss back in there so they're all
spaced right. Well, that was going to
[1:10:28] require ripping all the roofing off, all
the shingles off, all the um sheathing
[1:10:33] off and then adding another truss in.
So, they have to buy another truss. They
[1:10:36] were going to have to cut plumbing
vents. So, working with them, I said,
[1:10:39] "How about you just stick frame another
rafter in to cut that 40 in down to make
[1:10:45] that compliant?" And the guy was almost
in tears and wanted to hug me because we
[1:10:50] saved him all that time and money
because we do that. We work with our
[1:10:54] customers to find those solutions where
we can. we just can't look the other way
[1:10:58] or not follow something if it's adopted.
So, I just wanted to share that that we
[1:11:02] do that all the time for our customers
and and where we can we we try to do
[1:11:07] that.
>> Yeah.
[1:11:08] » Can I ask a question, Eli? Cuz because I
don't understand the process because I
[1:11:12] don't own anything that's got to be
inspected anymore.
[1:11:15] » But how did we get down to on the troll?
How did we get to where everybody's
[1:11:20] frantic and
>> it's not really on the agenda though,
[1:11:24] » but it was brought up,
>> but it's part of getting way off.
[1:11:27] » We're getting way out in the weeds.
>> I think you we need to decide do they
[1:11:31] want to get together and talk about
this. Yes or no?
[1:11:34] » Yes.
>> Okay. Then I think you all should get
[1:11:36] together and talk about this and then if
you guys have something meaningful,
[1:11:40] we'll talk about it in another committee
of the whole. How's that sound?
[1:11:44] » That sounds good.
>> Perfect. Great.
[1:11:47] Good deal. Do we need to motion that or
just let it happen? I don't think so.
[1:11:52] » Just a work.
>> Well, then it would be just a work
[1:11:54] group.
>> That's what you proposed.
[1:11:57] » He proposed.
>> I proposed what was brought.
[1:12:00] » Oh, well, I'm not comfortable without
you guys going and meeting with the fire
[1:12:03] department first.
>> Okay.
[1:12:05] » Y that's got to happen.
>> That's got to happen.
[1:12:08] So the motion is to put forward to a to
direct at a working group including
[1:12:14] Connor's people that he suggested plus
the fire department.
[1:12:17] » Yes, that sounds good. If Yeah, they
they too many moving parts to not have a
[1:12:24] » Yeah, there's just too much.
>> I think we need I suppose we should
[1:12:26] include Tammy because
>> Yeah. No, Tam whoever was on that list
[1:12:30] and the fire department.
>> There's a lot of people talking right
[1:12:33] now.
>> Yeah. Let's
[1:12:36] » All right. We got a motion. A second.
>> Second.
[1:12:40] » You're getting sleepy.
>> It's all you, buddy. A meeting if you
[1:12:43] want to.
>> I know. Go do it.
[1:12:46] » Is there a motion to move the work group
forward?
[1:12:49] » I make the motion.
>> Is there a second?
[1:12:51] » Second.
>> Second.
[1:12:53] » Can we have roll call, please?
[1:12:57] » Council member Turpin.
>> Yes.
[1:13:00] » Winter.
>> Yes.
[1:13:01] » Karns.
>> Sure.
[1:13:02] » Yes.
>> Lee?
[1:13:04] » Yes.
>> Oren?
[1:13:05] » Yes.
>> Celely?
[1:13:06] » Yes. Determin.
>> Yes.
[1:13:09] » Are we talking about 2E?
>> Oh god. Do you want to skip it?
[1:13:13] » I mean, sure.
>> Is it urgent?
[1:13:15] » Nope. I motion to remove it from the
committee.
[1:13:20] » We just place it on the next committee
of the whole.
[1:13:23] » Yep.
>> Perfect.
[1:13:24] » Make make a motion to move it to date
certain, which is
[1:13:27] » 23rd.
>> 23rd.
[1:13:30] » I'll make that motion.
>> I'll second.
[1:13:33] » Can we have roll call, please?
[1:13:38] Karns,
>> yes.
[1:13:40] » Lee,
>> yes.
[1:13:41] » Oren,
>> yes.
[1:13:42] » Seely,
>> yes.
[1:13:43] » Yes.
>> Turpin,
[1:13:44] » yep.
>> Yes.
[1:13:48] » We have a motion to adjurnn.
>> Motion.
[1:13:51] » We're adjourned.
[1:14:03] Heat. Heat.