[0:00] It looks like the park and I'm calling
this meeting to order.
[0:05] Good evening and welcome everyone. This
meeting is now live on Zoom and is being
[0:09] recorded. The recording will be
available on the city's YouTube channel.
[0:14] Special meeting agendas do not include
citizens that are on the agenda topic,
[0:18] but limited questions or comments
relating to the agenda topic
[0:22] being discussed may be allowed. Just a
reminder to the in-person audience,
[0:26] whether you are presenting or just
commenting on the agenda topic, please
[0:30] come to the podium and wait to be
recognized by the mayor stating your
[0:32] name. There's a 7-minute time limit. If
participating by phone, please be sure
[0:38] to mute your phone unless speaking.
Above all, be civil, courteous, and
[0:41] respectful at all times. Thank you.
Now, please rise if able and join me in
[0:46] reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
[0:52] » I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America, and to the
[0:57] republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and
[1:04] justice for all.
>> Amen.
[1:09] Thank you.
Move on
[1:12] to the roll call, please, Megan.
>> I, here.
[1:17] » Dan Marley.
>> Dan Waszak.
[1:20] » Cindy Anderson.
[1:23] » And absent, Mike Barry.
[1:28] Thank you. Next, uh, we need approval of
the meeting agenda.
[1:36] » I
>> On favor?
[1:39] » I, I.
>> Any opposed?
[1:43] Okay. Our first order of business
tonight is number five, consider
[1:47] resolution authorizing and approving a
loan agreement for the issuance of the
[1:52] $755,000
general obligation corporate purpose
[1:56] bonds and providing for the levy of
taxes to pay the same. At our last
[2:01] council meeting, as you'll recall, maybe
Burger was here, financial,
[2:05] um gave us the information off of the
the sale. Um Rosina, this is our final
[2:12] step?
>> I believe so.
[2:14] » Okay.
So, tonight we need to You've got some
[2:19] initial information in your packet.
And the final step is authorizing and
[2:23] approving the actual loan agreement by
resolution.
[2:29] Any questions for Rosina?
[2:35] If not, need a motion to adopt the
resolution.
[2:38] » So moved.
>> Second.
[2:41] » Roll call, please. Voting.
>> Aye.
[2:44] » Aye.
>> Aye.
[2:47] » Thank you.
[2:49] Okay.
And I'll turn it over to
[2:53] Jane Wirth, who's going to share some
miscellaneous information where he needs
[2:57] some feedback from the council.
Starting with item number six,
[3:01] discussion on possible motion regarding
the TEAP study and possible inclusion of
[3:06] additional intersections and related
components.
[3:09] » Thanks. Okay. Excuse me, I handed out a
few documents. I think the first one
[3:14] is pertaining to this agenda item.
Um
[3:19] as you're all aware,
city's been coordinating with the
[3:25] the DOT
getting the uh um
[3:28] traffic study done on Highway
[3:32] and what they were proposing,
um that there would be some TEAP money
[3:37] available
to do that. And what um Sam Shay with
[3:41] the DOT had indicated
is that TEAP, which is 150 hours of
[3:46] traffic engineering,
they anticipate that would cover three
[3:50] intersections.
Um
[3:53] that that exhibit, I think it's the
intersections that are marked with a
[3:56] little square.
So, it'd be the intersections of
[3:58] Williams, PA, and F.
And the intersection of Natalie {slash}
[4:02] Craig.
Is what they anticipate they would
[4:07] have covered with the team. So, there'd
be a full cost for that.
[4:11] From the city. Now, I know that there
was some discussion about doing all the
[4:14] intersections.
Um
[4:16] Obviously, one intersection we do would
mark cost. You may not
[4:20] much additional benefit from it.
Um
[4:23] Brian
Mayor Bear
[4:26] and I had talked previously about
possibly wanting to do one of the two
[4:29] any extras. You know, two extras being
Church Street
[4:34] Um
and doing Highland Avenue up on top of
[4:38] the hill.
Now, we don't have a cost. They're still
[4:42] working on getting the consultant on
board and everything like that. But,
[4:45] based on their estimate of 150 hours
covering three intersections, just an
[4:51] estimating about $200 per hour, that's
about $30,000 or roughly $10,000 per
[4:56] intersection. So,
you're just kind of using a rough
[4:59] estimate that would, you know,
based on that,
[5:03] if the city, you know, if the council
wants to do two additional
[5:06] intersections, that would be
around $20,000 city cost.
[5:12] Um as part of this traffic study.
>> [clears throat]
[5:16] » Now,
you recall as part of the
[5:19] FY 20 27 funding,
council has earmarked roughly $40,000
[5:29] for side street improvements. Just minor
improvements, sidewalks, and things like
[5:34] that along Highway 151 based on the 2022
team study that was done.
[5:40] Now, this would be very similar if if
council wanted to reallocate some of
[5:44] that funds towards this, that could be
one option for
[5:47] hoping to fund that if you need one,
we'll get a couple extra intersections.
[5:52] But,
and I don't know if we need a decision
[5:55] on that tonight,
but I think we'd probably need one by at
[6:00] least the regular board meeting in a
couple weeks.
[6:03] So, we can coordinate that with the the
DOT and do when they have their
[6:07] consultant ready to go, they're doing,
you know, whether it's just the three
[6:11] that they're proposing or if you want to
have additional ones.
[6:16] » I have a question, Shane.
>> Yeah.
[6:18] » So, at the one that they're looking at,
um
[6:23] over here, Beverly Road and Prairie
View,
[6:26] » Yes.
>> so how does that work because it's so
[6:29] close to that other stoplighted
intersection? You you can't really do
[6:33] much there because then traffic would
back up into the other intersection,
[6:37] wouldn't it?
So,
[6:39] do we need to do a study there because
what would they
[6:42] what would they do? I mean, I don't want
to waste the money to do that and then
[6:47] have them tell us you can't do any
improvements there because they stop at
[6:51] that stoplight and you do something and
have another
[6:54] You can't have a stoplight 50 ft apart
or they'll be backed up into this
[6:58] intersection.
>> Yeah, no, I
[7:00] they definitely couldn't do a stoplight
there. I don't know if there'd be any
[7:02] sort of additional control that they can
do, but I'm not aware of anything.
[7:07] » That would be my
>> ask them if if they could do island
[7:10] instead of that intersection, but the
concern is that there's not much benefit
[7:13] on that intersection.
>> To me, that would make more sense cuz I
[7:16] just don't think that there's any kind
of anything they can do there that
[7:21] they're going to allow because of that
close proximity
[7:24] » well controlled intersection to the
other one.
[7:27] » Yeah.
Well, that's that's a good point. And
[7:30] there may be other
you know, other traffic control
[7:35] options, but
and it's not, I mean, obviously Prairie
[7:39] View is busy, I'm sure,
compared to but
[7:43] Beverly's fine, not too busy there.
Anyway, yeah, I can inquire on that and
[7:49] see if they can
move that northeast, that Beverly Road
[7:52] down the island.
>> Are you guys okay with that? Do you Do
[7:56] you see what I'm saying? I was looking
at
[8:01] It's the same
Beverly intersection. If you do
[8:03] something that close, they can't You'd
have 10 cars and then they'd be in
[8:09] And you can't do a roundabout cuz it's
the same thing. They'd get to the point
[8:12] that they'd all be in a standstill.
>> too. It's not a permanent fix.
[8:18] I've heard a lot of accidents at that
intersection, though.
[8:22] At Beverly and Prairie View?
I don't I don't know.
[8:27] The traffic hits it, but I'm not sure.
>> Yeah, and so it's not So, this isn't
[8:33] This isn't the one at Beverly and Stone.
This is the one where the little
[8:37] » where they found this
>> at the sign, the city sign.
[8:39] » where Lynn County comes together with
us.
[8:42] » Yeah, Beverly
doing the sign.
[8:45] Yeah.
It's It's And again, remember this is
[8:48] for increased traffic in the data
center.
[8:51] So, it's for temporary traffic control.
[8:55] Being a temporary traffic signal,
additional signing,
[9:01] new speeds, or whatever it may be.
That's what they're
[9:06] That's what this TIS / traffic study is
for.
[9:12] » Yes.
Is there a
[9:15] Is there a view that they can look at
traffic in general cuz I know we need a
[9:20] traffic study conducted on
safety on the road, but if
[9:24] it's too narrow,
then do we have to do another traffic
[9:28] study and is that out of our pocket
later?
[9:32] Anything traffic safety traffic study,
right?
[9:36] » Jason, I quite find your question
annoying.
[9:39] » I can take it down.
>> Do you think you could turn the
[9:41] microphone up just a tad?
Okay.
[9:45] Fine.
[9:49] Not dramatically, just a little bit.
>> What's that?
[9:56] » And the other thing to think about if we
do something private for I don't know
[10:00] what you would do that would not make
that situation really dangerous,
[10:03] but the next intersection at Beverly is
also a shared intersection. So, it's us,
[10:10] Linn County, and Cedar Rapids. So,
whatever you want to do there has to be
[10:15] agreed upon and paid for by everyone.
And there's already a signal there, so I
[10:21] don't
[10:24] » Yeah, I frequently hear from residents
about the Highland
[10:29] intersection and how some of them are
even
[10:33] going further over to
um East Robins Road and then go all the
[10:38] way around to Beverly and then come back
down the highway because they can't turn
[10:43] left.
So, so that is
[10:48] a concern of the residents, the one
intersection with Highland, and that
[10:52] would be all would be ours and the DOT's
only.
[11:02] » Yeah, I can definitely inquire if
that's, you know, there would be better
[11:04] options since to your point, maybe it is
200 ft or something.
[11:11] Beverly's 25 ft intersection.
[11:18] And I can definitely, you know,
coordinate with that tomorrow.
[11:22] They can get feedback right away. We'd
definitely be more than happy to
[11:24] coordinate.
[11:30] » Yeah, I agree that Highland is more
than that.
[11:36] Beverly Perry gave us a written
Guess what I was What I was asking is so
[11:41] okay, so this key study is for
the increased traffic burden big trucks.
[11:48] Right?
>> Yeah, so if there's obviously a lot of
[11:51] concern with respect to that and the
time the DOT
[11:55] they indicated that the city has to have
a traffic study completed
[12:00] to
warrant
[12:03] the traffic study for Kittery whether or
not
[12:06] the traffic volumes warrant
any sort of temporary traffic control
[12:11] such as traffic signals.
So that's why we're doing this traffic
[12:16] study is to see if they current traffic
volumes will warrant any sort of
[12:22] temporary traffic control to address the
issue of the traffic.
[12:28] » This traffic the traffic studies are
being done. So let's, you know, fast
[12:32] forward I guess a couple topics while
they're doing their
[12:35] demobilization
process. So then it's going to be
[12:41] better.
Um
[12:44] It'll be better [clears throat]
uh in future months, years, whatever,
[12:48] but then we're going to have to do
another traffic study.
[12:51] Or we just say that this traffic study
is
[12:55] » How long are they good for then?
>> Yeah, so they're good for a period of
[12:58] time. That's how that works.
>> is I don't know if there's We've had
[13:02] some of that conversation last week.
It's It's how do you determine when it's
[13:06] back to normal? You know, or when do
they the temporary traffic signals go
[13:11] away?
Um
[13:13] I mean, that's a good question, Dan, and
I and I don't know.
[13:17] You know, jumping topics
Scott Allen indicated, you know,
[13:22] starting the process for them.
We've been at stage there.
[13:28] He mentioned that in April. That's kind
of where they're shooting for at this
[13:30] point.
7 months off that could be changed, but
[13:34] yeah, let's say they leave in April.
What does that just mean the
[13:37] construction
will be east on that side so the traffic
[13:40] stays same? Or does that mean it
completely goes away and they go back
[13:44] exactly where it was 3 years ago?
Or is it somewhere in between? It's
[13:48] likely that it'll be somewhere in
between, but
[13:51] yeah, what does that mean? I would and I
would think
[13:56] you know, from that 80th Street, which
is kind of the central and maybe the
[14:01] busiest intersection along the corridor,
I would think it would make sense to
[14:06] keep stuff, I mean, unless the traffic
dra- drastically changes drives that
[14:10] maybe
hearing everybody, but if it does, I
[14:14] would think it makes sense to have
temporary control.
[14:17] That's probably the primary one we're
talking about anyways. Until that
[14:21] intersection is approved in 3 or 4 years
when it matters.
[14:24] » That's similar to what's happening north
of town with the power plant and
[14:28] proposed data centers.
>> In 6 months from now they may be
[14:31] building, you know, and could be better
could be worse. The data center just
[14:35] twice as good.
>> Could be better, could be worse.
[14:39] One of the things that I thought, sir,
is
[14:43] that it appears that we have a lot more
semi truck traffic that seems to be
[14:47] coming up from Omaha. It almost is like
they're the traffic on 80 is avoiding
[14:54] coming up 380 and coming up 151 instead.
And they have
[15:00] » a couple of those, um,
like the airport road's closed to, um,
[15:05] North Liberty exit's closed, one of the
ones down in North Liberty. So, right
[15:08] now that whole corridor, there's like
three major
[15:13] ramps that are closed, so it is like
>> That's so that's
[15:16] » another temporary possibly temporary
thing.
[15:19] » I think that's factoring in. But I've
noticed that sometimes I go out here in
[15:24] Cedar Rapids and sometimes they go up
again.
[15:28] Anyway, the perfect storm of
construction and traffic.
[15:35] » So, they got
>> I inquired with, you know, with that
[15:38] Marion's question about, "Okay, so we do
this, it triggers certain temporary
[15:44] traffic
um
[15:46] control devices, be it traffic signals,
be [snorts] speed limit reductions,
[15:52] additional signage, what have you.
You know, I guess the the question is,
[15:58] how do you determine
when those are removed?
[16:02] And is an additional traffic signal or
an additional traffic signal required?
[16:09] » And it's the DOT
I agree with the priority, like the
[16:13] order that let's just turn it out, then.
Would the DOT still be concerned about
[16:18] all of those?
And if the center cost us a little bit
[16:21] extra,
[16:24] we should send someone to help
go ourselves.
[16:30] » That could be a recommendation from
them.
[16:32] Special traffic study. Can you find out
we are responsible?
[16:37] I would assume they can't really hold us
responsible if they put the temporary
[16:40] things in, wouldn't it be up to them to
decide if they have to type for them to
[16:43] go without. They can't make us do
another traffic study and pay for it at
[16:48] that time, can they? Unless the language
is in this agreement.
[16:53] » Yeah.
>> Can you find out what that was asked cuz
[16:56] yeah.
I can't remember what I was asking them
[17:00] cuz yeah. When is it going to be removed
and then
[17:03] » How would you trigger that?
>> And it may be one of those things where
[17:06] the DOT feels it's not needed anymore.
And then if the city absolutely says,
[17:11] "No, we
think it needs to be there." Then the
[17:13] DOT may say, "It can't be there." But
then we have to state just like me
[17:18] It's what I would anticipate happening.
but I'll ask him.
[17:23] » Question backing up to the $40,000,
that's
[17:27] on our current CIP current.
>> Yes. Yeah, I think it's I think it's
[17:33] funded either through
lost or road use. I don't know what
[17:38] we're going to look at for that.
>> It's road use tax.
[17:41] » Yeah.
>> Do you think we need to do all these
[17:44] intersections and so that the other road
is open again and traffic is settled
[17:48] down quite a bit?
>> So,
[17:52] I think, you know, I'll ask Sam about
moving Beverly {slash} Gray you off the
[17:57] island, which then would take off one of
those options.
[18:01] You know, cuz then that 30, you know,
the three intersections one of them
[18:04] would just be
relocated.
[18:08] And then, you know, Church Street, my my
only concern is let's say
[18:14] they do put a temporary traffic signal
in on Gray's.
[18:18] So, cuz I can
you know, promote all this construction
[18:22] traffic while I'm not going to go to the
light, I'm just going to cut Church
[18:26] Street, you know.
So, part of my thought with Church
[18:30] Street is obviously it's you know
the main entrance to the you know, the
[18:34] original part of town
and it's the main cut through. So, if
[18:39] you do
put a traffic signal in there, I'm
[18:42] concerned it's going to promote traffic
cutting through the town.
[18:47] And so, if we study that intersection,
maybe they would have a better
[18:51] feel
and what we're saying.
[18:55] But, that that's kind of why we picked
that those two intersections, but
[19:00] » But, you can't ignore the impact of what
you do at one intersection possibly have
[19:05] on the other.
>> Exactly.
[19:09] » Just for informational lightning through
town,
[19:12] certainly after 4:00 today from the
north headed south.
[19:16] And traffic
backed up
[19:23] from that east
just a bit south of 88.
[19:30] Brewerton
[19:33] and it was
bumper to bumper.
[19:39] They were all speeding towards Button
and then you had people on Church that
[19:44] were trying to
zoom out in between them
[19:48] as well.
So, they're changing their times.
[19:52] 4:00 they didn't realize was the time
they were now
[19:57] on the way.
So, this traffic is heading north.
[20:03] And there were data center vehicles
coming off Church Street to get on the
[20:08] highway.
Just because they were running vehicles
[20:10] in the city.
The light vehicles in the city were 24
[20:14] hours out of the Atlanta traffic.
First shift still runs in Atlanta.
[20:19] So, when that leaves, it was coming off
the
[20:23] the truss tool.
[20:26] So, I think you know
a study on Church would unfold.
[20:34] Like we said, people learned they go
through town rather than around.
[20:38] Um rather than
>> Not to not go bank.
[20:43] This can't be right, but
they're also coming out on
[20:48] » Brewerton.
>> Yeah.
[20:51] » Church first.
>> They're turning on Brewerton.
[20:55] You're saying they're coming on the
highway and then coming in Brewerton and
[20:57] then down Bank.
>> I don't know about in Brewerton, but I
[20:59] believe I've seen them leaving
>> Yeah,
[21:01] out of Brewerton. So, they're coming out
on Church and on Brewerton.
[21:05] Yeah.
Because they learned when it was closed
[21:08] that that's the way to go.
[21:14] » Yeah, some of that traffic may be
utilizing
[21:17] you know, like Starbucks or things
downtown just a benefit, but yeah, it's
[21:22] just cutting through and you wanted to
do that, but
[21:24] » So, you want to do three plus one extra,
so I'm hearing.
[21:29] » Potentially if we want to
[clears throat] study traffic.
[21:32] We moved Beverly to Cliff Island.
>> Well, let me check let me ask Sam those
[21:38] two questions and then, you know,
we can kind of go with maybe the city
[21:43] kicking in for one to if they'll move
that Beverly to Island then.
[21:49] Request that they do traffic as well.
But,
[21:53] if I can come back confident with you
some some answers from Sam on those
[21:57] questions, maybe you
I finally have
[22:01] that meeting in two weeks.
[22:04] » Okay.
>> Sounds good.
[22:07] Thank you.
>> All right.
[22:09] So, item number seven is yours as well,
discussion of a possible motion
[22:13] regarding potential removal of
intersection
[22:18] um at
East South View and Highway 151.
[22:23] » So,
I think that's the second sheet I have.
[22:27] And excuse the meeting.
Do you
[22:31] The uh
the DOT
[22:36] is planning a pavement replacement
project um on 151 there.
[22:43] And it's going to start just on the
northeast corner of Williams Boulevard
[22:47] there. That's basically where the
pavement ended with bridge project with
[22:52] the the five years ago or so.
And they're going to
[22:56] do the reconstruction all the way East
South View all the way to the Norway
[23:00] curve.
And thought is they're just going to
[23:04] close that down that whole section.
[23:11] I I don't know what the line of thinking
is. I mean, it's obviously quicker. It's
[23:15] you know, less expensive.
That's a good point.
[23:18] » But the timing of that like Brian
mentioned that a couple of months ago
[23:22] was like April. Is that still the
>> So, they're hoping to get I think
[23:27] they're hoping to get it out for bids.
Maybe start construction later next
[23:33] year, but it would just
Technically, the project would start,
[23:38] but construction wouldn't start until
spring of
[23:41] 2018.
So, it could start next year and it
[23:45] would probably be April.
But to me, I don't think you'd want to
[23:52] leave it shut down,
you know, for a month or two in the end
[23:55] of '27 and then let it sit all winter
and
[24:00] And I think they would want to They're
going to shut it down,
[24:03] you know, you don't start until April
1st or April 15th or whatever to give
[24:06] them 3 or 4 months or whatever to get it
done soon, but
[24:10] Yeah, we don't know for sure yet on that
and on the exact timing.
[24:15] But anyway,
>> [clears throat]
[24:17] » in the city's long-term plans,
we are looking to remove that
[24:23] intersection with East Old Pewter Road
and 151.
[24:27] On the west side as about an African
property we develop
[24:31] that intersection to be improved and
would become a right angle.
[24:35] Um somewhere in the area where it
currently connects, but
[24:40] we aren't going to mess with that now
because we don't want to put an
[24:43] intersection in somewhere that doesn't
make sense for future development on
[24:46] that land. We don't The city doesn't
want to put that money in there. You
[24:49] know, put something that the developer
could do in the future.
[24:52] But
the timing got to make sense. If they're
[24:55] going to come back and reconstruct it,
why are we spending money on that?
[24:59] Improving that intersection, figuring
that intersection, if my history is
[25:03] correct.
It's obviously been sitting there. The
[25:06] angle's not good. It's not It's It's
used obviously by Stutzman, you know,
[25:10] those properties probably on the right
of you south. You might use them, but
[25:14] it's it's a It's a bad intersection.
When we met there yesterday,
[25:19] there was a semi coming out of Stutzman
was having a significant intersection
[25:23] and it was backed up almost to the road.
They couldn't turn in.
[25:27] You know, so we're backed up on Iowa as
other people are coming south and it's
[25:31] just a significant safety issue.
Everybody and railroad
[25:38] part of that is Linn County's
responsibility, Linn County,
[25:41] the DOT.
They're all like we need to get that
[25:44] tomorrow, but they want to do it, so
>> So, what does Stutzman say?
[25:48] It affects their business.
>> talked to them a little bit, you know,
[25:51] they're not excited about it, but they
understand it.
[25:54] So.
[25:57] They need to get on it and there there
is an easy rear access to that as well,
[26:03] so it's not like it's going to be valued
to anybody
[26:06] a long distance.
[26:09] » Does the DOT pay for all of that then or
would still have a percentage?
[26:13] » So, if we remove that, obviously there's
going to be removal costs. There's going
[26:17] to be We'd have to have some sort of
turnaround there at the dead end.
[26:22] And then we'd probably have to do some
sort of widening improvements
[26:26] you know, for truck traffic that
make it better.
[26:30] » So, do we have to do that or can they do
that with their project?
[26:34] » So,
they Well, we'd have to coordinate with
[26:37] Linn County on who's doing what because
some of that's that intersection is at
[26:42] least three quarters in Fairfax, but
part of it's Linn County. And as you
[26:46] know,
that portion of road to the south part's
[26:48] in Linn
County, so they'd coordinate with Linn
[26:51] County and
make it work it out. That's our
[26:54] responsibility. to what
The DOT
[26:57] » [clears throat]
>> will provide up to $100,000
[27:02] for those intersections. So, obviously,
those will be funded.
[27:05] by the sport
of cross.
[27:07] » Wasn't the railroad going to give a fund
bus the extent they were going to close
[27:11] that at one time? Were they offering
funds as well?
[27:13] » railroad would offer up to $100,000.
>> They had 200.
[27:18] » So, yeah, the county would
There could be up to $200,000 close
[27:23] intersection, obviously, which could go
up towards
[27:27] what was approved so we could
do that.
[27:30] I don't know I am putting I am putting
that for living. Saying, "Okay, it's
[27:34] going to be an estimate. Just made it
150,000."
[27:38] And
we have reached out to the county.
[27:40] They're completely supportive of what we
have gone any further than that. We
[27:44] haven't done anything further.
[27:48] But we thought we want to get that in
front of the council but, you know,
[27:52] it's something we're seriously looking
at.
[27:54] Yeah.
>> [clears throat]
[27:56] » You know, like projects are important.
We're doing
[28:00] but we just want to at least give you
the heads-up.
[28:04] » [clears throat]
>> The DOT was asked this at least three
[28:06] times yesterday. When when do you think
you can get an answer from the council?
[28:09] And we said, "Well, we plan on a fire
time."
[28:12] We know it's tomorrow night April but,
you know, maybe you can as early as
[28:15] September or August the August meeting
or the September meeting but
[28:22] So,
just put that on there. We'll We'll
[28:25] coordinate more details with the band
dick about participation.
[28:29] You know, um
the county about how you know, this will
[28:33] work out. Yeah. They'll take the lead
and we'll take the lead, you know, and
[28:37] and where this money will go.
And if they call this money should go
[28:41] towards the police first thing should be
covered but the cost is particularly
[28:46] Anyway, so I'll get some of that
information.
[28:50] It
just kind of put that in the back of my
[28:53] head for something
to decide on here in the future.
[28:58] » Would we just have to remove, like,
remove our dead end up to tracks on our
[29:03] on the east side? Cuz wouldn't they
remove the other stuff during their
[29:07] project?
[29:11] » Yeah, yeah, those details are stuff we'd
have to work out with Ryan.
[29:17] Ideally,
you know, we would remove the pavement,
[29:20] so there might be a small ditch on the
east side, so you don't have people
[29:24] trying to drive around
cutting through to the highway.
[29:28] You know, so you get pavement going, you
know, any culverts, and we just
[29:33] reestablish the ditch.
Now, you'd definitely need to have some
[29:36] further county engineering and things
like that, but
[29:42] we also need to kind of figure out that
kitty-wampus intersection and
[29:48] properties, so stuff we need to figure
out. We have to have some sort of
[29:51] turnaround for
you know, emergency access and
[29:54] maintenance
and things like that. We also need to
[29:56] have maintenance.
[29:59] So.
[30:03] Any other questions?
[30:09] » Okay.
>> Thank you.
[30:11] » All right, let's move on to item
number eight, discussion and possible
[30:15] motion on QTS participation,
demobilization, and 76th Avenue related
[30:21] construction projects.
>> Yeah, so Stan Landwehr with uh
[30:27] Lake Construction has kind of been our
contact with Lake this project.
[30:34] He sent out an email a couple of weeks
ago now. Uh
[30:37] » [clears throat]
>> just so you know, letting everybody know
[30:39] that
they're starting to consider
[30:43] demobilizing from that staging area.
And
[30:47] so he just kind of he wants to get
the process started, get some direction
[30:52] to the city
on how we want to move forward with
[30:55] this.
And talking to him on the phone, he did
[30:58] indicate that he anticipates this
happening in April.
[31:03] Yeah, obviously could that change, you
know, forward or back? Yes, you know,
[31:07] and
and what does that exactly mean? Does
[31:10] that mean
everything's going to basically be the
[31:13] same for the QTS
data center realignment?
[31:18] Or are they just going to be further
down the road?
[31:21] It's hard to say.
Um
[31:23] » [clears throat]
>> but I think that's when they're shooting
[31:25] to at least start the process of
moving their staging area from the
[31:31] Fairfax Boulevard alignment. So it's
kind of awesome.
[31:35] Uh in that email on that that second
shooting
[31:40] Scout had kind of highlighted
paragraph 12 in the development
[31:44] agreement. Now that paragraph is
pertaining to I think 76th Avenue
[31:48] Williams Boulevard
west
[31:52] of Leftwich Road.
But I also included the the development
[31:57] agreement, highlighted a couple things
in there.
[32:01] But
so paragraphs 9 and 10 development
[32:06] agreement
pertain to
[32:10] the
76th Avenue with the 8-in 8-in HMA
[32:15] overlay
76th Avenue east of Leftwich Road.
[32:20] And
we'll go over the possibility and we'll
[32:22] go over that.
And then paragraphs uh
[32:27] 11 and 12
pertain to
[32:31] and at that time it was just seal
coating and maintenance on 76th Avenue
[32:36] with Williams pulling out
west of LaFebvre Road.
[32:39] But since then, as you all are aware,
they came in a month ago or so and
[32:44] they put asphalt on that entire section
as well. So, that side has been changed
[32:49] 180°.
And then 13, paragraph 13 and 14,
[32:54] uh pertaining to Iowa Land Buildings' uh
participation
[33:00] and uh
late construction's participation
[33:04] uh
the 76th Avenue and LaFebvre Road turn
[33:10] lane improvements
project student survey costs and etc.
[33:14] for
for that project. So, [clears throat]
[33:20] Mary Ann, when
you're on council then, may have been I
[33:23] think you were then, but
you we had we were planning to move
[33:26] forward with 76th Avenue improvements
and then this came came up. So,
[33:31] obviously we didn't actually start the
design
[33:34] and uh
that's
[33:37] UPS came on board late construction came
in.
[33:40] They
uh
[33:43] requested you know to use that property,
Iowa Land Buildings' property, then the
[33:47] city wanted some fair facts for staging
for the UPS data center. So,
[33:53] that was delaying that 76th Avenue
project. So, some of this this language
[33:57] for paragraph 13 and 14 were
you know, tied to additional delayed
[34:02] costs due to that.
So,
[34:06] some of the things that the city is
going to have to determine, decide
[34:12] is if you want to move forward with that
76th Avenue project
[34:17] or
do that
[34:19] just maintain that asphalt that's out
there
[34:22] and then push that project down the
road.
[34:25] Um so, it's a big thing you're going to
have to consider.
[34:28] Uh
>> [clears throat]
[34:29] » so, those decisions will have to be made
sooner than later, you know, so we get
[34:33] those details worked out with the
development agreement construction.
[34:37] And Iowa Native building.
[34:41] You know, there's other
there's other projects um
[34:45] 76th Avenue is not a priority now.
You know, maybe South Dubuque Road is
[34:51] that's been on the uh
>> [clears throat]
[34:53] » the city's uh
[34:58] CIP for some time.
And I know property owners and and
[35:02] Shueyville streets, which is out there,
so we're looking at possible
[35:05] developments in there, so and then
there's also if you
[35:08] And then there's also, if you recall,
there's also Church Street, which we
[35:12] were you know,
you know, planning to improve Church
[35:15] Street.
And that got put on the table for a
[35:18] little bit. And we're forcing it and
that railroad through railroad and
[35:21] Vander Go Street crossing now. So now
that happens, Church Street can be
[35:25] considered again for possible
improvements.
[35:28] So and I'm not promoting anything. I'm
just saying that there's some you know,
[35:31] significant roadway projects there that
the city is
[35:35] looking at and
and they should all be considered when
[35:39] you're you know,
talking about throwing $7 million for
[35:42] roadway projects. 76th still priority.
And I assume part of that is, you know,
[35:47] reaching out to Shueyville streets, how
seriously are they about developing,
[35:49] reaching out to Iowa building, what do
we have coming up there?
[35:54] And that all probably plays a role to a
point.
[35:59] » Speaking about Iowa Native and what they
have coming up, I did share home pool
[36:03] with you and also with Shane
that um
[36:07] recent article in the Gazette about
Virgin Energy
[36:12] um getting the 10-year
agreement with the University of Iowa.
[36:17] And because they were coming to us, I
gave it the timeline on that a few years
[36:23] ago
about, you know,
[36:25] building at the intersection of 76th and
Lackman Road, and we actually have some
[36:29] vaccines already approved for them to do
that.
[36:34] Um, it says they're looking at other
sites, so it's an unknown
[36:38] right now.
They haven't knocked on our door yet,
[36:42] but that could happen any day, and that
might
[36:47] influence your decision as to what to do
with
[36:50] 76 and the general subject. That's part
of the project I think you talked about
[36:54] originally but is it that now?
>> Yeah. Yeah.
[36:58] » Are we obligated to do that improvement
if they if something comes to that?
[37:02] » Well, the building agreement
>> I'm saying. It's specific to that
[37:05] project, that paragraph 1314. So, if you
look through that, it's it's tied to the
[37:11] 76 Ave improvements.
You know, in hindsight,
[37:16] we should have had some language in
there about us contributing to a fund up
[37:19] front for road maintenance and repairs,
but, you know, it's easy to say now.
[37:26] And they also, you know, came to the
city saying it was a 15-year build-out,
[37:30] and after it was approved, then all of a
sudden it's a 3-year 5-year build-out.
[37:35] So, yeah, we should have the
construction good. It's very important,
[37:38] but it was indicated that
[37:42] Yeah, so it's
there may be some leeway with that
[37:46] language just tied to the development of
76 or the improvement of 76 Ave. That
[37:51] those two paragraphs are at least.
>> So, if they wanted to build out there,
[37:54] then we're obligated to put the
concrete.
[37:56] » Are you talking about commercial on
there or what?
[37:58] » Yeah.
>> talking about commercial.
[37:59] » Oh, not commercial. We don't have any
agreement with commercial.
[38:02] » So, there's there's something that
triggered that, like if they build on
[38:06] one of those lots, we would then have to
make the improvements.
[38:08] » Yeah, there's certain developments on
that language. That was the development
[38:11] agreement with Iowa Land and Building,
and they submitted a preliminary plan.
[38:15] And then, like,
we started then doing the 76 Ave
[38:20] improvement plans, and that was within
like 3 or 4 months after all this.
[38:26] that you just said.
The construction being ordered. So,
[38:30] Um yes, so there's nothing specific to
conversion.
[38:35] No, but that's there's yeah, development
of that parcel was tied into part of the
[38:41] part of the 76th and turn lanes on the
bigger road.
[38:46] And that's a separate
development agreement with BioMed
[38:49] Realty. So, the one I gave you doesn't
go into that detail.
[38:54] But,
[39:00] Any other questions with that?
>> You need anything tonight from the
[39:04] council? Shiner's is pretty much
>> No, just look through it. Um you know,
[39:09] come up with questions, start thinking
about it.
[39:12] » Yeah, this is special meeting.
>> You know, Scott Gladue and Eric are
[39:16] supposed to get that process started.
I think they're very reached out to you.
[39:20] Yeah, we're
looking into it, but it
[39:24] it'll take a little time.
And I just wanted to provide you that
[39:27] information so you can start thinking
about it.
[39:34] » Okay.
>> Anything else?
[39:37] All right, thank you.
>> Speaking.
[39:43] All right.
So, we're up to item number nine,
[39:48] discussion of possible motion to
establish a hiring committee
[39:51] for the temporary part-time
as needed financial administrative
[39:56] assistant position that council you
approved that your last
[40:01] meeting. Rosina, what do you need from
the council tonight?
[40:05] » Um
I think
[40:07] from my understanding of
the hiring policy, um
[40:13] not just this one, but the one prior, I
mean, if this one that we have in place
[40:17] now says um has a lot of administrative
um
[40:22] roles in it. So,
>> We probably changed it when we added the
[40:26] administrative assistant. So, it's
probably not in
[40:30] » Correct. There's quite a few policies in
place right now that are related to an
[40:34] administrative position. This is one of
them. So, I'm just looking for your
[40:38] suggestion. I know we need to form a
committee
[40:41] to for the hiring position.
But, um
[40:46] I don't know if we want to convert back
for hiring or there's some guidance from
[40:52] the council on
some of the language in there. Um
[40:57] I know
just generally how to how the council
[41:00] would like to proceed with
the hiring.
[41:05] So, I've outlined just some of my
questions would be
[41:09] um my interpretation of the policy
with the admin vacant role would mean
[41:14] that the council would now form a
committee and then that committee would
[41:18] bring it their recommendation back to
the council for
[41:22] this one.
Um
[41:24] I just need to make sure everyone's okay
with that with the administrative
[41:27] position vacant.
[41:35] Then, um
the other things the part-time
[41:39] administrative assistant position ad is
part of the requirement. So, I've listed
[41:45] that here and the
um
[41:48] part-time finance administrative
position information sheet is also there
[41:52] for your reference.
[41:56] We just need a committee.
[42:00] » Can I say something real quick though?
If
[42:03] are you looking to change the policy so
that
[42:06] all part-time people that are hired
would need a committee to hire them?
[42:11] » The policy as it stands now just states
that my my understanding we can pull it
[42:18] up cuz
[42:21] it just states that
[42:25] this is for
any hiring. It doesn't This one does not
[42:30] specify
part time or full time
[42:33] unless I I'm reading this wrong.
>> Cuz I don't I don't think right now we
[42:39] have hiring committees for part-time
employees anywhere. Library, parks, or
[42:46] maintenance. I think that
they those department heads are
[42:50] responsible for the
>> So, number seven says a hiring committee
[42:54] requirement may be waived by the city
administrator and the parks and rec
[42:58] director Sorry, parks and recreation
director when the position is specific
[43:02] to concession stand coaching, or
officiating the Fairfax Youth Sports
[43:06] Party.
So, you There is something in there for
[43:09] you.
>> So, what about maintenance?
[43:11] » We did have a hiring committee for
part-time.
[43:15] It doesn't say anything about
maintenance in there for him.
[43:19] » Well, there was Yeah.
I put down
[43:24] part of that discussion. Yeah, Fairfax
got together and
[43:27] decided to hire her.
>> Didn't they tell you like a bunch of
[43:30] different people though? And so then
they selected out of that group. So,
[43:34] they weren't just doing it for the
part-time position.
[43:37] » It wasn't part-time. It was full-time.
Brian had a question specific
[43:42] to the hiring of Dallas. Not to the
Not to the hiring of a part-time person.
[43:48] But specific to the hiring of Dallas
that it wasn't a committee.
[43:53] We just got together and he wanted to
bounce some ideas off of us. So, it was
[43:56] not a committee that was
put together for that.
[43:59] » It wasn't.
>> Was that?
[44:01] » It wasn't put together.
>> No.
[44:04] » There's no language currently, but that
is something to consider if we're
[44:07] talking about maybe revising this again
to be more clear for
[44:12] how we want to proceed without um
the city administrative position.
[44:18] » So, Rosina, um I already indicated to
you
[44:22] that I don't feel it's necessary for me
to participate in this specific hiring
[44:26] committee.
That I would defer
[44:30] to you. Do you have any other preference
on how many people would you feel like
[44:33] you would need on this committee? And
>> Um if I have one? Yeah, maximum of two.
[44:40] Um
but, you know, it could be one. It's um
[44:44] I without having prior
experience with the city's
[44:50] practices, I'm I would have to lean
towards
[44:53] maybe in some of your direction.
>> Considering that it's part-time and
[44:59] temporary, is there a necessity there?
[45:06] » I I wouldn't think I wouldn't say so,
but I don't think it's necessary in
[45:12] every situation. No.
>> So,
[45:15] but any department
really especially I easily for
[45:21] a really short period of time to get a
hiring committee together, that
[45:27] I think I think better wording would
[clears throat] be is that
[45:31] part-time hiring is up to the
um
[45:35] uh the department head unless they want
some help.
[45:39] Instead of saying that there will be a
department or there will be a hiring
[45:44] committee unless it's for this specific
thing.
[45:48] Does that make sense? We should We
should be looking at this the other way.
[45:52] » That's
>> So, um
[45:55] we can direct him to do that and then
maybe fix this.
[45:58] » Yeah, that's
we're not looking at the policy tonight
[46:01] other than at a high level.
Um but yeah, just give her some guidance
[46:05] what you want her to do.
>> This is temporary part-time then.
[46:09] » About 3 months.
>> Yes, probably worth it. Yeah.
[46:11] » I mean, I would say and then if it's a
bad fit, then well,
[46:15] you know, we can deal with it at that
time.
[46:19] » You bet. And just for clarification
purposes,
[46:23] um I'm still coming back to the council
at the next meeting with that decision
[46:27] or that recommendation and then the
council approves
[46:31] Is that what I'm getting or is it just
up to me?
[46:34] » Usually we have to approve it.
>> Okay, yeah.
[46:37] I'm making sure.
>> approve.
[46:39] » Not necessarily, yeah. We approve the
>> Well, don't we get some
[46:44] I I I guess we have to approve the pay
part of it.
[46:46] » Yeah, the pay part, yeah. Yeah.
>> Unless the office
[46:50] » Yeah.
>> There's always from what I'm seeing with
[46:53] past is Cynthia always provides an
updated resolution with that person's
[46:58] payroll, pay salary and scale included.
So, I would proceed like that as usual.
[47:04] But so you're saying to proceed with
hiring.
[47:07] And
>> Pretty good.
[47:09] Like that, yeah.
>> But that's how you
[47:11] I I would think we should treat them all
the same.
[47:13] » The same, which would be that the
department heads of the part-time hiring
[47:17] has control over it unless they would
like some help.
[47:20] » Input.
>> Yeah, unless they want input, but
[47:23] » Okay.
>> Rosina, I think would be quite capable
[47:27] of interviewing for this position.
>> Okay.
[47:31] » And it is posted already, correct?
>> Correct, yeah.
[47:34] » I would receive any applications.
>> Yes.
[47:37] » Woohoo.
[47:41] » You need to think
Oh, we have public that wants to come
[47:44] in.
>> Sorry, Paul Marley.
[47:47] I want to see spare pants. Just have a
question. What is part-time? Is
[47:52] part-time
3 months, 6 months,
[47:57] all 9 months? Although I mean, if you're
setting a policy in the future,
[48:02] it should be specified.
>> The
[48:06] Well, I think there's a difference
between part-time and temporary.
[48:09] And so, what you're talking about is
temporary.
[48:13] Part-time could be year-round.
>> But it just can't be more than
[48:17] » 29 hours.
>> Yeah. Can't get to get to a certain
[48:20] point and you have to give up benefits.
>> Yeah.
[48:24] » It's a part-time dictates how many hours
they can work less. They just can't work
[48:28] more.
>> Right.
[48:31] » So, Resina, on this position
you're describing it as
[48:35] » temporary part-time. So, it is both
temporary and part-time. And she's she's
[48:41] stipulate or somehow we stipulated it's
3 months.
[48:44] » 3 months with the possibility.
>> Wait, it wasn't there.
[48:47] It wasn't there. Wait, you said 3
months. The
[48:50] » potential
>> Wait, it wasn't there. The quantity of
[48:53] hours.
>> Yes, with the review after 90 days.
[48:57] » Kathy has people in the library that are
part-time that
[49:01] » Yeah, nobody's more than 20 hours.
>> But they've been there for
[49:05] They're part-time for a number of
>> Yeah. Yeah.
[49:09] » Are you asking because you
people that have concessions down at the
[49:14] bus?
>> No, I'm asking just because
[49:18] if you're going to
have a policy, which I strongly
[49:21] encourage that you do,
that
[49:25] it sounds vague at this time. Department
heads hire whoever they want calling
[49:31] this part-time or
temporary or whatever.
[49:36] I think there should be
some check and balance.
[49:42] What that is would be up to to you, but
I do think you just can't have
[49:51] where I work, you can't do that.
You have to have some check and
[49:56] balances.
[49:59] » Thank you.
>> The big check is the budget.
[50:03] Well, there's no real budget.
[50:08] » For the park
For the park and rec.
[50:14] » I think there should be a policy that
specifies the information.
[50:19] Too.
>> I'd like to see what that looks like
[50:21] though. And I And I will just use the
parks as an example.
[50:25] Typically, we're interviewing 14 and
15-year-old kids that have never had a
[50:28] job before. Their resume is nonexistent.
Their application basically consists of
[50:35] a name and an address and a signature
because they have no work experience. I
[50:39] don't know what type of check and
balance you can do on
[50:48] » So, we have a policy but it sounds like
it
[50:50] could
some updates and
[50:52] » I think the department has control the
part-time temporary positions. When they
[50:57] don't need them anymore, they just let
them go.
[51:00] » Right.
>> And if it's if there's an issue with
[51:02] somebody that doesn't belong
the council approves their pay and all
[51:07] those things and reviews them.
>> Right.
[51:11] » Well, I guess we've never had an issue
as many as long as we've been doing
[51:14] this. But the current policy
does specify certain departments and not
[51:18] overall.
>> No, that's the
[51:20] » uniform.
>> Yeah, that's the updated. Okay.
[51:25] And then are we leaving the city
administrator thing alone in this? And
[51:29] just kind of adding that?
>> Um when we were previously with our city
[51:35] administrator, our attorneys indicated
that it falls back to what was happening
[51:39] before we had a city administrator.
>> Okay.
[51:41] » Was their guidance.
>> Um
[51:43] that's useful. Thank you.
>> So.
[51:46] » Okay.
So, do we need language says in the
[51:49] absence of a city administrator, these
duties fall back? Do we need to clarify
[51:54] that, Senator?
>> Cuz we just know that one.
[51:58] » We just know that there was a email or
conversation with the attorney. To me,
[52:01] it just seems like that should be
documented somewhere.
[52:04] » In in
>> Mhm.
[52:06] » in that case that I would say better.
>> Yeah.
[52:08] » So that there's no confusion
>> moving forward who
[52:12] who gets who does what.
>> Cuz we've had that issue before. I
[52:16] should go back to what it was.
>> And say that out louder, Kathy.
[52:19] » The mayor's page should go back to what
it was.
[52:22] » Not well.
I know it's not that easy, but
[52:27] that is something we should talk about
then.
[52:30] » Okay, what else do you need from the
fire department?
[52:32] » That is it for um item nine.
Thank you.
[52:38] » Okay, move on to item number 10. We've
got
[52:43] a rather major item on the claims list.
[52:49] So no one's here from the fire
department, but
[52:52] this is a new truck, right?
>> Yes.
[52:55] Um
well, this isn't the one that he
[52:57] presented last time, just to be clear.
This is one that's already been approved
[53:02] by PO 202538.
And then there were subsequent um
[53:07] change orders that were also approved.
So the PO is already been approved.
[53:12] Um
which kind of leads me into some maybe
[53:16] some of my comments later is um
the purchasing policy isn't really clear
[53:23] about whether or not a PO needs to come
back again for approval prior to the
[53:30] actual check being written.
Um it doesn't really specify that
[53:35] in the purchasing policy. So I might
look for some direction on and
[53:40] clarification on that in
in the future. Um
[53:44] » might not be a bad idea just because
like with the fire truck for example, if
[53:49] it's late it cost them money if this
gets changed it cost them. So the what
[53:53] we've been doing might be totally
different than what we actually end up
[53:56] paying for the truck.
>> Yes, and in this case it's actually a
[54:00] little lower than in what the original
PO was.
[54:04] So that's that's a nice thing. Yeah,
it's it's
[54:07] by a little less than a thousand.
Um
[54:10] But the and the change orders too, they
they were approved as well. So I guess
[54:15] the the purchasing policy itself might
need just a little clarification on that
[54:20] to myself if I'm cutting a check knowing
that you've previously approved it or am
[54:25] I still waiting again to make sure it
gets on a claims and then cutting a
[54:28] check.
So I I might just need some clarity on
[54:31] that moving forward. But I I was able to
get this in front of you. So there's no
[54:36] issues currently.
[54:40] » Okay. So I need a motion to approve the
claims.
[54:45] » Motion.
>> Second.
[54:47] » All in favor.
>> I.
[54:49] » I.
>> I.
[54:50] » Thank you. Sorry, who was the second on
that?
[54:54] Yeah. Okay, thank you.
[54:59] All right, I did.
>> [laughter]
[55:02] » All right, so that takes item number 11
mayor's comments.
[55:06] » Yes.
>> Thank you everyone. Have a good night
[55:09] the rest of your evening.
>> Mhm.
[55:10] » Was there anything you have any
additional items?
[55:13] » I do. Um just real quick is some little
things like that um I'm just going to be
[55:21] shooting you guys some emails with some
resolutions or maybe just some questions
[55:26] and tweaks that um
I've just come across as I'm going that
[55:30] I I would like clarification on um and
just in order to
[55:35] um make sure that I'm doing my job and
you know you guys have a lot of things
[55:39] that you're used to or have been normal
but I'm very much an SOP person and a
[55:44] policy person and it's very it's
it's generally I don't
[55:51] like way of saying it it's a cover my
butt. I like to make sure that if I that
[55:56] I have my directions and that they're
very clear. So there's just a few things
[55:59] that I might be sending your way to
review to provide me and my staff with
[56:04] that clarity.
Want to give you an update.
[56:08] » Appreciate
>> Anything else?
[56:13] If not I need a motion to adjourn.
>> Motion.
[56:16] » Second.
>> All in favor?
[56:18] » I.
>> I.
[56:19] » Thank you.