[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.

City of Fairfax, Iowa 07 28 2026 City Council Meeting Special

Transcript