[1. A public hearing will be held to consider repealing Chapter 9 of the Municipal Code, Streets, Alleys and Sidewalks, and enacting a new Chapter 9 in its place to include updated right of way widths, a new major streets map, and clarification of property owner responsibilities for maintaining sidewalks and underground vaults in the right of way (Ken DeKeyser). CIP/DID #49-26-001]

WHICH IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REPEALING CHAPTER 9 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, STREETS, ALLEYS AND SIDEWALKS. AND ENACTING A NEW CHAPTER 9 IN ITS PLACE TO INCLUDE UPDATED RIGHT OF WAY WIDTHS, A NEW MAJOR STREETS MAP, AND CLARIFICATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS RESPONSIBILITIES FOR MAINTAINING SIDEWALKS AND UNDERGROUND VAULTS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY.

KEN DEKEYSER IS HERE. KEN I'LL RECOGNIZE YOU.

THANK YOU MAYOR AND COUNCIL, KEN DEKEYSER CITY ENGINEER.

HERE IS THE BACKGROUND LAST TIME CHAPTER 9 WAS UPDATED WAS IN 2018 FOR SIDEWALK REPAIRS.

WE ARE PROPOSING MAJOR UPDATES THIS YEAR FOR A NEW CITY STREET PLAN.

POLICIES FOR CLEARING SNOW AND ICE UNDERGROUND VAULTS IN PUBLIC RACEWAY, WHICH IS A TOTALLY NEW SECTION OF THE OF THE CODE,

[00:20:06]

AND THEN CLARIFYING SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR AND JUST NOTING THAT THESE ITEMS ARE WITHIN THE CITY COUNCIL'S PRIORITIES FOR CLEAN AND SAFE CITY.

SO THE FIRST THING WE'LL TALK ABOUT IS THE CITY STREET PLAN. THERE'S AN OFFICIAL STREET MAP FROM THE 1960S THAT'S ATTACHED TO THE ORDINANCE THAT IS SINCE OBSOLETE.

AND WHAT WE WOULD PROPOSE IS TO REPLACE THAT WITH THE IOWA DOT'S URBAN FEDERAL FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION MAP.

THAT MAP IS UPDATED EVERY YEAR. WE WOULD ADOPT IT BY REFERENCE, AND OUR PARTICIPATING CITIES AT MPO HAVE INPUT INTO THAT MAP.

IN ADDITION, THERE ARE REQUIRED RIGHTS OF WAY WIDTH.

THERE IS A LIST OF STREETS IN THE CURRENT CODE THAT HAVE A PRESCRIBED RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH.

FOR THOSE THAT WE WERE PROPOSING TO REMOVE THAT, AND TO PROVIDE A MORE FLEXIBLE RANGE FOR THE TYPE OF STREET, AND THIS WOULD ALIGN WITH OUR DESIGN STANDARDS WITH SUIT AS THE STATEWIDE URBAN DESIGN AND SPECIFICATIONS.

SO HERE'S SOME EXAMPLES I KNOW BELOW. BLAIRS FERRY ROAD CURRENTLY IS LISTED IN NEEDING A MINIMUM 66 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY.

BLAIRS FERRY ROAD HAS A MUCH BIGGER NEED FOR THAT.

BASED ON THE FUNCTION OF THE ROAD AND UTILITY CORRIDORS, SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS.

SO TYPICALLY IT'S GOING TO BE THE 80FT TO 105FT ACCORDING TO THE CURRENT DESIGN STANDARDS.

AND THAT ALIGNS WITH WHAT WE SEE IN BLAIRS FERRY ROAD TODAY.

CONVERSELY, EASTERN AVENUE IS A COLLECTOR STREET THAT'S PRESCRIBED AS 80 FOOT.

WE REALLY WE CAN PROBABLY LIVE WITH 60FT OR 75FT.

SO WHY ARE WE PROPOSING THE CHANGE? BECAUSE THE CITY STREET MAP AND THE RIGHT OF WAY REQUIREMENTS IN CHAPTER 9 ARE CURRENTLY OUTDATED, AND THE INTENT OF THIS WORK IS TO MAINTAIN A CURRENT STREET MAP WITHOUT HAVING TO CHANGE THE CODE FREQUENTLY AND ADOPT THE DOT'S UP TO DATE MAP BY REFERENCE, AND THEN PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY FOR THE CITY AND PROPERTY OWNERS FOR BEST USE OF THE RIGHTS WHEN ADJACENT PRIVATE PROPERTY.

AND I'VE EXPERIENCED THIS A NUMBER OF TIMES IN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, WHERE WE WORKED ON A PROPOSED SITE PLAN WITH A DEVELOPER, AND WHEN WE WERE FLEXIBLE WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY WITH THAT COULD REALLY HELP THEM MAXIMIZE THEIR USE OF THEIR LAND.

AND WE CAN STILL GET WHAT WE NEED FOR A NICE SIDEWALK AND A UTILITY SPACE.

THE NEXT THING I'M GOING TO TOUCH ON IS CLEARING SNOW AND ICE.

SO CURRENTLY, PROPERTY OWNERS ARE TO REMOVE SNOW FROM THE ENTIRE WIDTH OF RESIDENTIAL SIDEWALK AND AT LEAST FIVE FEET FROM A MULTI-USE PUBLIC WALKWAY AND FIVE FEET FROM A COMMERCIAL SIDEWALK. WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AS THE OWNERS PROPERTIES THAT ABOUT THE PRIVATE.

THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK SHALL REMOVE SNOW FROM THE ENTIRE WIDTH OF THE SIDEWALK, AND THEN THE CITY WILL REMOVE SNOW FROM DESIGNATED SHARED USE PATHS OR TRAILS.

THESE ARE GENERALLY TEN FEET OR GREATER IN WIDTH.

AND WHY ARE WE CHANGING THIS? BECAUSE SIDEWALKS CAN BE WIDER THAN FIVE FEET.

DESIGN STANDARDS WILL CHANGE SO THAT WE SEE SIDEWALKS ON MAJOR STREETS THAT ARE NOW SIX FEET.

WE ALSO HAVE SIDEWALKS THAT ARE WIDER THAN FIVE FEET WHEN THEY ABUT A RETAINING WALL, OR SOME OTHER TYPE OF RIGHT OF WAY FEATURE.

AND THIS CAN BE CONFUSING FOR PROPERTY OWNERS.

I'VE TAKEN NUMEROUS CALLS IN THE PAST FOR FOLKS THAT, OH MY, YOU KNOW, YOU GAVE ME A SIX FOOT BLOCK HERE.

YOU KNOW, I ONLY WANT TO SHOVEL FIVE FEET. SO IT'S JUST THE SORT OF THING WE LIKE TO KIND OF WORK THROUGH THE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS.

THERE'S ALSO SOME CONFUSION OVER RESIDENTIAL VERSUS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY TOO.

IS A IS AN APARTMENT COMPLEX RESIDENTIAL OR IS IT COMMERCIAL? SO THIS SORT OF THING, WE TRY TO AVOID SOME OF THE SEMANTICS WITH THAT TYPE OF THING.

MULTI-USE PUBLIC WALKWAY IS NOT DEFINED. AND THEN THE CITY AND OWNER.

WE'VE HAD THIS SITUATION BEFORE TO WHERE THE CITY AND THE AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS SHARED IN SHOVELING SNOW FROM A TEN FOOT TRAIL.

AND THAT DOESN'T WORK WELL AT ALL, BECAUSE NOW YOU GOT WELL, YOU PUSH YOUR SNOW OVER ON MY SIDE AND VICE VERSA.

AND THAT GETS TO BE A PROBLEM. SO THE INTENT HERE IS THAT PROPERTY OWNERS ARE RESPONSIBLE TO REMOVE SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALKS, PERIOD. AND THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE TO REMOVE SNOW FROM THE TRAILS.

AND THIS WOULD NOT AFFECT ANY AGREEMENTS THAT THE CITY HAS WITH SSMIDS OR OTHER DOWNTOWN GROUPS REGARDING MAINTENANCE IN THE CORE NEIGHBORHOODS.

THIS IS THE NEW SECTION. THIS IS FOR UNDERGROUND VAULTS. WE PROVIDE A DEFINITION FOR VAULT, WHICH IS A PRIVATELY OWNED BUILDING EXTENSION LOCATED BELOW THE GROUND LEVEL WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY. THESE ARE TYPICALLY USED FOR BUILDING UTILITY STORAGE OR PARKING.

IN THE PAST, THEY MAY HAVE BEEN USED FOR ICE OR COAL OR OTHER TYPES OF THINGS BACK BEFORE, YOU KNOW, ELECTRICITY AND GAS AND STUFF DOWNTOWN.

SO THE VAULTS ARE PREDOMINANTLY LOCATED IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT.

THERE'S ABOUT 60 OF THEM THERE. AND WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS THAT WHEN THE CITY CONSTRUCTS IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY, WHETHER IT'S THE STREET RECONSTRUCTION OR WE'RE ADDRESSING A VAULT THAT'S IN BAD CONDITION, ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO KEEP OR MAINTAIN THEIR VAULTS EXCEPT AS APPROVED BY THE CITY FOR ACTIVE USES.

AND THERE ARE ACTIVE USES ON SOME OF OUR VAULTS.

SOME OF THEM ARE USED, AS I MENTIONED, FOR PARKING AND BUILDING UTILITIES, SO WE WILL HAVE FLEXIBILITY TO WORK WITH PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ACTIVELY USE THEIR VAULTS AND WORK OUT AN ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT SO THAT IT'S ACTUALLY WE HAVE IT'S OFFICIAL THAT HERE'S YOUR VAULT,

[00:25:06]

YOU'RE GOING TO MAINTAIN IT, YOU'RE GOING TO USE IT.

UNAPPROVED VAULTS WILL BE ABANDONED AND FILLED.

THIS IS THE PROPERTY OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ABANDON THIS OR BE ASSESSED BY THE CITY.

APPROVALS WILL ALSO BE THE PROPERTY OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO REPAIR OR BE ASSESSED BY THE CITY.

AND I WILL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT COST SHARING PROGRAM HERE IN A BIT.

SO HERE'S UNDERGROUND VAULTS IN A NUTSHELL. THE GRAPHIC HERE SHOWS VAULTS THEY EXTEND OUT INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY, OFTEN INTO THE CURB AND GUTTER OF THE STREET, EVEN.

AND THEY'RE BELOW THE SIDEWALK LEVEL. AND A LOT OF TIMES WE DON'T EVEN KNOW THEY'RE THERE.

AN EXAMPLE OF A THIS IS A ONE THAT'S USED FOR PARKING CURRENTLY.

AND THEN WE ALSO THERE'S A TELLTALE SIGN HERE WITH THIS PICTURE OF A IT'S A GRILL WITH A SIDEWALK.

SO THAT CAN GIVE YOU AN INDICATION OF WHETHER THERE'S A VAULT IN THE, IN THE AREA.

SO WHY ARE WE PROPOSING THE NEW SECTION? BECAUSE THE VAULTS ARE PRIVATELY OWNED.

THEY ARE PART OF THE BUILDING. THEY'RE NOT CITY OWNED, AND MANY HAVE NOT BEEN SUFFICIENTLY MAINTAINED OR ACTIVELY USED OVER TIME.

AND IF WE KEEP DEFERRING THE MAINTENANCE, WHETHER IT'S US OR PROPERTY OWNERS, THAT CAN BE RISKY. AND HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES HERE OF SOME VAULT DETERIORATIONS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. THE INTENT OF THIS IS THAT PROPERTY OWNERS ARE RESPONSIBLE TO MAINTAIN THEIR VAULTS OR NO LONGER NEEDED, REMOVE THEM. AND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO PROPOSE, AND THIS ISN'T CODIFIED, BUT THIS IS SOMETHING WE WOULD WORK WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS IS A COST SHARING OPPORTUNITY TO INCENTIVIZE THE REMOVAL.

SO SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR. CURRENTLY, PROPERTY OWNERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR.

SIDEWALK DEFECTS ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY STATED IN CHAPTER 9, SO I'VE LISTED AN EXAMPLE OF TYPICAL DEFECTS.

SOMETIMES WE GET CALLS FROM PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, THEY ARGUE ABOUT A CRACK OR A MISSING PANEL.

IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, MY RESPONSIBILITY, THIS SORT OF THING.

SO WE'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE GOT THE TYPICAL DEFECTS AT LEAST LISTED IN THE CODE.

WHY THE CHANGE? BECAUSE WE WANT TO CLARIFY WHAT CONSTITUTES A DEFECT, SO WE CAN TELL PROPERTY OWNERS WHAT NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED, AND IT SOLIDIFIES THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES. SO FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION, WE PRESENTED THIS ORIGINALLY TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE LAST MAY.

WE ALSO GAVE A PRESENTATION ON DOWNTOWN VAULTS AND SIDEWALK REPAIRS TO THE SSMID BOARD IN OCTOBER.

AND WE ARE CURRENTLY DEVELOPING A PROJECT ALONG 2ND STREET BETWEEN 3RD AND 4TH AVENUE.

AND WE'RE WORKING WITH A VAULT OWNER ON A REPAIR PROJECT, AND WE ARE GOING TO BE COST SHARING WITH THEM TO ABANDON THE VAULT.

THEY'RE GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR UTILITY RELOCATION, AND WE'LL TAKE CARE OF THE VAULT, ACTUAL FILLING IT IN. SO THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH PEOPLE AND INCENTIVIZE THESE TO GET ABANDONED ONCE AND FOR ALL.

AND HERE ARE THE NEXT STEPS TODAY IS TO HEARING AND FIRST READING, AND THEN THE SECOND AND POSSIBLE THIRD READING AT THE NEXT MEETING.

AND I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS THANK YOU.

THANK YOU KEN. THIS IS A TIME AND PLACE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER.

DOES ANYONE HERE WISH TO ADDRESS COUNCIL? JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR CITY.

THIS IS ISAAC DAVIS FROM CEDAR RAPIDS. THIS IS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE SIDEWALKS AND THE SNOW REMOVAL.

I WANT TO COMMEND THE CITY FOR MAINTAINING THE COMMITMENT TO MAKING SURE THAT SNOW REMOVAL IS SOMETHING THAT WE PRIORITIZE.

IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE SNOWS THERE.

SO LET'S GET RID OF IT. THIS IS ABOUT ACCESSIBILITY.

THIS IS ABOUT THE PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE. IT'S ABOUT BEING ABLE TO WALK A STORY, NOT JUST WALK, BUT ALSO ROLL A STORY THAT I HAVE THAT, LIKE, REALLY EMPHASIZES THE IMPORTANCE IS A TIME WHEN I SAW A SIDEWALK THAT WAS NOT CLEARED AND I WAS DRIVING ON THE ROAD, AND IT WAS THE EVENING BECAUSE IT'S THE EVENINGS REALLY EARLY, AND THERE WAS SOMEONE WITH A MOBILITY DEVICE WHO WAS IN THE STREET BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ONLY WAY TO TRAVEL. BECAUSE THERE WERE THREE.

THERE WERE SIX INCHES OF SNOW ON THE SIDEWALK.

AND SO BEING ABLE TO REALLY EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE AND THE NECESSITY AND I ALSO WANT TO PUT IN A PLUG FOR THE MY CR APP IF YOU EVER SEE THESE SITUATIONS WHERE, YOU KNOW, OUR NEIGHBORS, ESPECIALLY OUR BUSINESS PARTNERS, OUR LANDOWNING PARTNERS, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE WHO HAS THE RESOURCES IS MAKING USE OF THAT RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE ACCESSIBILITY FOR THE FOR THE SIDEWALKS. SO THE MY CR APP ALLOWS US TO POINT OUT SPECIFIC PROPERTIES AND NOTE LIKE THIS NEEDS THIS NEEDS PLOWED.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE CITY WORKS TO MAKE SURE THAT IT GETS DONE.

AND THE COST SHARING, THE RESPONSIBILITY IS SHARED.

SO I THINK THAT'S A REALLY GOOD SETUP. AS WELL IT'S PRETTY LATE IN THE SEASON, BUT I ALSO WANT TO PLUG THE SNOW BUDDIES PROGRAM.

IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS WHO MAY BE CLEARING THE SIDEWALK IS A CHALLENGE.

THAT'S THE ONE PIECE OF THIS THAT WE DON'T WANT TO PUT BURDEN ON OTHER PEOPLE.

[00:30:03]

THE SNOW BUDDIES PROGRAM IS A GREAT WAY FOR PEOPLE WHO CARE A LOT, OR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO HELP OUT WITH THIS ACCESSIBILITY, WITH THESE THINGS THAT MATTER, TO HELP PLOW THE SNOW, FOR OUR NEIGHBORS TO SHARE OUR COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY.

AND THAT WAY WE CAN AGAIN FOCUS ALL OF OUR RESOURCES ON IMPROVING THE MAINTAINING THE ACCESSIBILITY THAT WE NEED AND MAKING SURE THAT ALL OF OUR PARTNERS HAVE THE RESOURCES TO BE ABLE TO KIND OF UPHOLD THEIR PART OF THE RESPONSIBILITY.

SO THANK YOU FOR EMPHASIZING THIS. THANK YOU FOR THE EXTRA CLARITY IN THE ORDINANCE AND GOOD JOB.

THANKS, ISAAC. DOES ANYONE ELSE HERE WISH TO ADDRESS COUNCIL? ALL RIGHT LET THE RECORD INDICATE A PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN HELD WITH NO OBJECTIONS. FOR THE RECORD, THAT BRINGS US TO COUNCIL COMMENTS. COUNCIL MEMBER OLSON. THANK YOU, MAYOR KEN WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS BECAUSE OF VAULTS AND SOME OF THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE HISTORIC DOWNTOWN, BUT ALSO OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, WE'VE DONE WALKS ONCE A YEAR.

THE PUBLIC WORKS HAS AND WE'VE MARKED SIDEWALKS AND LOTS OF DAMAGE.

AND BECAUSE OF THE SSMID CONNECTION, WHEN THEY DID ALL THE BRICK WORK AND STUFF.

SO ARE YOU SAYING NOW THAT ALL SIDEWALK REPAIRS ARE PROPERTY OWNER RESPONSIBILITY OR WHAT BELONGS WITH THE CITY? BECAUSE THE CITY HAS BEEN DOWN IN DIFFERENT TIMES REPAIRING DOWNTOWN SIDEWALKS, CURBS, BRICK, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THAT IS AN ISSUE DOWNTOWN THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.

RIGHT THIS IS SO CLOSELY RELATED TO THIS CODE.

ARE THE CURRENT MOUS THAT WE'RE PREPARED WITH THE WITH SSMID GROUPS.

AND THAT PUTS THE SIDEWALK REPAIR RESPONSIBILITY PRIMARILY ON THE CITY.

NOW THAT WOULD BRING WHAT IT'S GOING TO DO IS IT'S GOING TO BRING THE PROPERTY OWNERS FROM DOWNTOWN INTO THE SIDEWALK REPAIR PROGRAM.

SO WE ARE GOING TO BE WORKING WITH THEM, AND THERE WILL BE THEY CAN DO THEIR OWN WORK AND BE REIMBURSED UP TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT, OR THEY COULD BE ASSESSED. WE HAD A MEETING JUST LAST MONTH WITH THE DOWNTOWN GROUP ABOUT THE SIDEWALK REPAIR PROGRAM COMING OUT.

WE GOT ONE SPECIFICALLY FOR DOWNTOWN TARGETED NEXT YEAR.

AND WE'RE GOING TO BE BUILDING IT IN PHASES TO CONSIDER ALL THE EVENTS AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS AND WORK WITH OWNERS ONE ON ONE ON THAT.

YEAH. AND I THINK THAT'S A POINT OF CONFUSION BECAUSE AGAIN, IF AS A, YOU KNOW, HAVING A BUILDING IN DOWNTOWN, YOU KNOW, I WANTED TO NOT HAVE BROKEN SIDEWALKS AND THINGS LIKE THAT AND YOU MAINTAIN IT, WE HAVE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS THAT, YOU KNOW, JUST LET THEM GO AND AND EVERYBODY THERE'S A FINE LINE.

SO I THINK BY BRINGING ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS TOGETHER AND DEVELOPING A PARTNERSHIP TO ACCOMPLISH THAT, WE'LL GET IT DONE, JUST LIKE WE'RE DOING ON THE VAULTS AND EVERYTHING. AND SO I JUST THAT WAS THE POINT OF, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALWAYS THOUGHT THE CITY HAD TO TAKE CARE OF THOSE DOWNTOWN WALKS, WHICH YOU SAID IS IN AN MOU. AND SO BUT ALSO THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT NEED TO BE MAINTAINED, BECAUSE I'VE SEEN SOME PROPERTY OWNERS GO OUT AND TRY TO PATCH THEIR SIDEWALK WITH TEMPORARY PATCHES THAT ARE ALREADY, YOU KNOW, JUST PEEL UP AND THEY'RE VERY DANGEROUS.

AND SO WE NEED TO HAVE SOME CONTROL OVER WHAT HAPPENS BECAUSE OF SAFETY ISSUE.

SO AND SO THAT WOULD GO THROUGH STANDARD BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS.

SO WE KNOW WHEN SOMEBODY'S OUT THERE. CORRECT. DOING THINGS, OKAY THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER VANORNY. YEAH THANKS, MAYOR. YOU KNOW, ISAAC BROUGHT UP A REALLY GOOD POINT EARLIER.

IT'S PRETTY RARE TO HAVE ANYBODY THANK US FOR ASKING THEM TO DO THEIR SHARE AND PLOW THE SIDEWALKS OR SHOVEL THEM, BUT I APPRECIATE THERE SEEMS TO BE A CONTEST ON MY BLOCK OF WHO'S GOING TO DO THE MOST HOUSES, BECAUSE I THINK A FEW OF US JUST CALLED IT QUITS AND GOT AN ELECTRIC SNOW REMOVER.

THAT BEING SAID, I DO HAVE SOMEBODY ON MY STREET WHO IS DEPENDENT ON SOME ACCESSIBILITY NEEDS.

AND IF HE WASN'T ABLE TO GET HIS CHAIR UP AND DOWN THE BLOCK YOU KNOW, HE CAN'T GO AND GET GROCERIES, WHICH HE APPRECIATES DOING. AND SO, AGAIN, JUST ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY SINCE WE'VE GOT STUDENTS HERE YOU KNOW, I'M SURE YOU HAVE SERVICE HOURS. AND REALLY, ANYBODY MIDDLE SCHOOL AND UP IS PRETTY ABLE BODIED TO BE ABLE TO HELP WITH THIS.

AND IT'S A GREAT OPPORTUNITY. THERE'S PLENTY OF SCHOOLS.

COLLEGE COMMUNITY IS REALLY BIG ON GETTING CORDS, FOR EXAMPLE.

SO IF YOU'RE DOING THOSE SERVICE HOURS, YOU DON'T NEED TO BE A SCOUT OF ANY KIND.

BUT IT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT OPPORTUNITY TO ONE GET TO KNOW YOUR NEIGHBORS.

BUT ALSO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NEVER A DEADLINE PASSED IN TERMS OF WE'LL ALWAYS TAKE MORE SNOW BUDDIES.

I SAW A LOT OF PEOPLE ON THE CHATS THIS WEEKEND SAYING, CAN ANYBODY HELP ME? RIGHT. IF YOU KNOW THAT THERE'S SOMEBODY WHO WORKS LATE SHIFTS, RIGHT? IN THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY ALSO PUBLIC WORKS. THERE'S PEOPLE WHO ARE OUT, YOU KNOW, PLOWING OUR STREETS SO THEIRS MIGHT NOT BE THERE.

SO IF YOU KNOW SOMEBODY WHO'S GOT SMALL KIDS OR MAYBE HAS AN INJURY OR JUST HAS A LOT GOING ON, EVERY LITTLE BIT HELPS IN US LOOKING OUT FOR ONE ANOTHER AND BUILDING THAT COMMUNITY.

AND SO JUST REALLY ENCOURAGE ALL OF YOU ALSO TO TALK WITH YOUR OWN FAMILIES AND SEE IF THERE'S SOMETHING OR SOMEBODY IN YOUR COMMUNITY AS WELL THAT YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO ASSIST WITH SO THANKS. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER POE.

THANK YOU THANK YOU MAYOR. ONE OF THE THINGS, KEN, THAT I'VE COME ACROSS AS SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SIDEWALKS AND SNOW REMOVAL

[00:35:08]

IS THAT WHEN THE PLOWS AFTER A SNOW EVENT LIKE WE'VE HAD THEY GO AROUND A CORNER AND AT AN INTERSECTION WHERE THE SIDEWALK COMES INTO THE STREET AND I WALK IN THE WINTER WHEN I CAN.

AND THOSE AREAS WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IS IT IS AT THE CORNER? IS IT THE LAND OWNER OF THAT CORNER TO GO OUT AND CLEAR WHERE THE PLOW HAS COME THROUGH AND CREATED BASICALLY A DAM WHERE YOU CAN'T GET ACROSS THE SIDEWALK BECAUSE THE SNOW IS SO PILED UP AND I'VE SLIPPED ON THEM.

I HAVE FRIENDS WHO HAVE SLIPPED ON THEM. I'VE SEEN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO NAVIGATE.

IF YOU HAVE MOBILITY ISSUES, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET THROUGH THAT, THAT DAM OF SNOW.

SO WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IS THAT FOR CLEARING THAT OFF THE SIDEWALK IN THAT INTERSECTION OR AT THAT INTERSECTION? I'M GOING TO TRY TO SPEAK FOR OPERATIONS ON THIS ONE, AND MANY TIMES IT'S GOING TO BE A PROPERTY OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY.

BUT I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE CASES WHERE WE HAVE RECURRING ISSUES, WHERE WE HAVE SIDEWALKS THAT ARE REALLY CLOSE TO THE ROAD, AND THINGS WHERE THEY TEND TO GET PILED UP MORE OFTEN THAN OTHERS, AND WHERE I BELIEVE OPERATIONS WILL GO OUT AND HELP GET THOSE CLEARED OFF.

THANK YOU I SEE THAT AS A AS A CONTINUING ISSUE, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE HAVE AS MUCH SNOW AS WE'VE HAD.

SO I'D LIKE TO SEE IF WE COULD FOLLOW UP ON THAT AND GET SOME KIND OF ANSWER ON THAT THANK YOU.

AND DIRECTOR FALL HAS ANSWERED SOME QUESTIONS ON THAT TOO, SO MAYBE WE CAN CONNECT WITH HER AFTER FOR CLARIFICATION.

DOES ANYONE ELSE ON COUNCIL? COUNCIL MEMBER MAIER. THANK YOU MAYOR.

QUICK QUESTION. WILL THE ORDINANCE ADDRESS WHETHER THE FILLING OF THE VAULT NEEDS TO BE CONCRETE OR CEMENT, OR CAN IT BE STONE AND THEN THEREFORE POROUS? I THINK THERE'S SOME REQUIREMENTS IF IT'S IN A FLOOD CONTROL ZONE.

SO I'D BE CURIOUS IF THAT WILL BE ADDRESSED IN THE ORDINANCE? THE CODE ISN'T GOING TO GO INTO LIKE THE DESIGN STANDARD PART OF THAT.

THAT WOULD BE MORE WITHIN THE DESIGN STANDARDS.

BUT WE ANTICIPATE MORE OFTEN THAN NOT IT'S GOING TO BE GRANULAR THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT THERE'S NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

THE APPROVAL OF THIS ORDINANCE ON ITS FIRST READING HAS BEEN MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER SCOTT OLSON, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER TODD.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO.

AND THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU COUNCIL. ITEM NUMBER 2 IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO.

[2 - 5: Public hearings will be held to consider the proposed Amendment No. 1 to the Urban Renewal Plan for the Big Cedar East #1 Urban Renewal Area (formerly known as Big Cedar East) along 76th Avenue SW; and to consider the Urban Renewal Plans for the proposed Big Cedar East #2, Big Cedar East #3 and Big Cedar East #4 Urban Renewal Areas. CIP/DID #TIF-0003-2024]

01, TO THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE BIG CEDAR EAST #1 URBAN RENEWAL AREA FORMERLY KNOWN AS BIG CEDAR EAST ALONG 76TH AVENUE SOUTHWEST.

SCOTT MATHER IS HERE. SCOTT, I'LL RECOGNIZE YOU.

THANK YOU MAYOR, COUNCIL, SCOTT MATHER WITH THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE.

I'D LIKE TO REQUEST TO COMBINE ITEMS 2 THROUGH 5 AS THEY ARE RELATED.

ABSOLUTELY THANK YOU ON NOVEMBER 4TH, WE HAD RESOLUTIONS INITIATING AMENDMENT NO.

1 TO THE BIG CEDAR EAST #1 AND ESTABLISHING BIG CEDAR EAST #2 THROUGH 4 AND ASSOCIATED TIF DISTRICTS.

JUST TO CLARIFY A PORTION OF THE LAND IN THE EXISTING BIG CEDAR EAST #1 IS BEING REMOVED, WHICH WILL CREATE BIG CEDAR EAST 2 THROUGH 4.

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION WAS HELD ON NOVEMBER 6TH REGARDING BIG CEDAR EAST #2 THROUGH 4 WITH NO OBJECTIONS.

CONSULTATION WITH TAXING ENTITIES OCCURRED ON NOVEMBER 17TH WITH NO COMMENTS OR OBJECTIONS.

SO TODAY WE'RE HERE TO HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER RESOLUTIONS TO APPROVE THE URBAN RENEWAL PLANS AND THE FIRST TIF ORDINANCE READINGS.

SO JUST TO CLARIFY THE PURPOSE OF THESE ADDITIONAL URBAN RENEWAL AREAS.

THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE WITH QTS, LLC REQUIRES THE CITY TO PROVIDE 20 ANNUAL PAYMENTS PER PROJECT PHASE.

SO CREATING FOUR SEPARATE EAST URBAN RENEWAL AREAS WILL ENSURE THAT THE CITY MEETS THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REQUIREMENTS.

IN THE EVENT THAT THE PROJECT PHASES ARE COMPLETED IN SEPARATE YEARS.

SO HERE'S A MAP SHOWING HOW IT CURRENTLY SITS WITH BIG CEDAR EAST #1 AND THIS ONCE AMENDED WOULD.

THIS WOULD BE THE AMENDED URA FOR CEDAR EAST #1 AND THEN 2, 3 AND 4.

AND I WILL SAY 2, 3 AND 4 MATCH THE FINAL PLAT FOR EACH OF THOSE PARCELS.

SO IN TERMS OF RECOMMENDATIONS, AGENDA ITEM 2 LOOKING TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT NO.

1 TO THE BIG CEDAR EAST URA AND THE RELATED TIF ORDINANCE READINGS.

AND THEN ITEMS 3 THROUGH 5 WOULD BE TO AUTHORIZE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF BIG CEDAR EAST #2, 03, AND 4. AND THEY'RE RELATED TO ORDINANCES. WITH THAT, I'LL RETURN IT BACK TO YOU, MAYOR.

ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, SCOTT. THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER.

[00:40:01]

DOES ANYONE HERE WISH TO ADDRESS COUNCIL? ALL RIGHT LET THE RECORD SHOW A PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN HELD WITH NO OBJECTIONS FOR THE RECORD.

COUNCIL? ALL RIGHT SEEING NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

THE ADOPTION OF THIS RESOLUTION HAS BEEN MOVED BY TODD, SECONDED BY VANORNY.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO.

AND ITEM NUMBER 2 CARRIES. LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 3.

THIS IS THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR PROPOSED BIG CEDAR EAST NUMBER 2.

THIS IS A TIME AND PLACE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS. DOES ANYONE WISH TO ADDRESS COUNCIL? LET THE RECORD SHOW A PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN HELD WITH NO OBJECTIONS FOR THE RECORD, COUNCIL? COUNCIL MEMBER OLSON.

YEAH TO BE TO BE A OKAY BEFORE WE VOTE ON THAT FIRST ORDINANCE WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE VOTING ON THE FIRST READING, WHICH IS THE ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE COLLECTION OF TAX INCREMENTS FOR BIG CEDAR EAST 1.

THANK YOU COUNCIL. IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS ON THIS, THE APPROVAL OF THIS ORDINANCE WILL BE MOVED BY TODD, SECONDED BY VANORNY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. THANK YOU COUNCIL. THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO.

ALL RIGHT, WE'LL MOVE ON. SAME WITH NUMBER 3.

SO THIS IS THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR BIG CEDAR EAST NUMBER 2.

ANYONE WISH TO ADDRESS COUNCIL? ALL RIGHT LET THE RECORD SHOW PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN HELD WITH NO OBJECTIONS FOR THE RECORD, COUNCIL? ALL RIGHT IF THERE'S NO FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THAT, THE ADOPTION OF THAT RESOLUTION HAS BEEN MOVED BY VANORNY, SECONDED BY POE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE.

THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO. AND THE MOTION CARRIES BEFORE WE VOTE ON THE ORDINANCE.

DOES COUNCIL HAVE ANY COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT SEEING NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, THE APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE ON ITS FIRST READING HAS BEEN MOVED BY POE SECONDED BY OVERLAND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO.

AND THAT MOTION CARRIES. ITEM NUMBER 4 IS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR PROPOSED BIG CEDAR EAST NUMBER 3 URBAN RENEWAL AREA.

THIS IS A TIME AND A PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS.

DOES ANYONE WISH TO ADDRESS COUNCIL? LET THE RECORD SHOW A PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN HELD WITH NO OBJECTIONS FOR THE RECORD, COUNCIL? ALL RIGHT SEEING NONE THE ADOPTION OF THIS RESOLUTION HAS BEEN MOVED BY OVERLAND, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER TYLER OLSON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO. AND THIS MOTION CARRIES BEFORE WE VOTE ON THE ORDINANCE.

DOES ANYONE HERE ON COUNCIL HAVE ANY COMMENTS? QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT SEEING NONE, THE APPROVAL OF THIS ORDINANCE ON ITS FIRST READING HAS BEEN MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER TYLER OLSON, SECONDED BY HOEGER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO. AND THIS MOTION CARRIES.

AND NOW ITEM NUMBER 5 IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR PROPOSED BIG CEDAR EAST NUMBER 4.

THIS IS A TIME AND A PLACE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT. DOES ANYONE WISH TO ADDRESS COUNCIL? LET THE RECORD SHOW PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN HELD WITH NO OBJECTIONS FOR THE RECORD, COUNCIL? SEEING NONE THE ADOPTION OF THIS RESOLUTION HAS BEEN MOVED BY HOEGER, SECONDED BY MAIER.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO.

AND THIS MOTION CARRIES. AND BEFORE WE VOTE ON THE ORDINANCE, DOES COUNCIL HAVE ANY COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, THE APPROVAL OF THIS FIRST READING HAS BEEN MOVED BY MAIER, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER SCOTT OLSON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO. AND THIS MOTION CARRIES.

THANK YOU COUNCIL. NOW ON TO ITEM NUMBER 6, WHICH IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH QTS CEDAR RAPIDS I LLC

[6. A public hearing will be held to consider an Amended and Restated Development Agreement with QTS Cedar Rapids I, LLC and related property owners for a data center campus along 76th Avenue SW (Scott Mather). (Council Priority) CIP/DID #TIF-0003-2024]

SCOTT, I'LL RECOGNIZE YOU AGAIN. THANK YOU. SO AS STATED, THIS IS REGARDING THE AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

THE MINIMUM INVESTMENT FOR THIS PROJECT HAS NOT CHANGED.

IT STILL REMAINS AT $750 MILLION. THE ANTICIPATED TOTAL INVESTMENT IS $1.75 BILLION.

AGAIN, WE BELIEVE THAT WILL BE MORE THAN THAT.

THE PROJECT INVOLVES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DATA CENTER CAMPUS WITH UP TO 7 PHASES.

PRIOR IT STATED IT WAS TWO OR MORE PHASES. SO THIS CLARIFIES IT CAN BE UP TO 7, A MINIMUM OF 300,000 SQUARE FOOT DATA CENTER PER PROJECT PHASE.

THAT REMAINS THE SAME WITH THE $250 MILLION INVESTMENT PER PHASE.

THE MAJOR CHANGE AND REASON FOR THE AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT AS IS THAT IT ADDS RELATED PROPERTY OWNERS AS PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT, IN ADDITION TO QTS CEDAR RAPIDS I LLC. AND THAT'S REALLY DUE TO QTS ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE.

SO EACH BUILDING WILL HAVE ITS OWN PROPERTY OWNER.

AND SO AS SUCH, THEY NEEDED TO BE ADDED TO THE AGREEMENT.

THE EMPLOYMENT, THE MINIMUM OF 15 JOBS PER PHASE, WHICH ALL ARE AT OR ABOVE THE HIGH QUALITY JOBS THRESHOLD.

AND JUST A REMINDER THAT CONSERVATIVELY ESTIMATING 1200 JOBS CONSTRUCTION JOBS CREATED AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT.

[00:45:05]

SO THE FINANCIAL INCENTIVES CONTINUE TO BE A 20 YEAR, 70% REBATE PER PROJECT PHASE.

WE HAVE INCREASED IT INCREASED THE ESTIMATE, THE PROJECTED ESTIMATE OF $2 BILLION IN TOTAL PROPERTY TAXES OVER THOSE THE APPLICABLE REBATE PERIODS, WITH A MAXIMUM OF $1 BILLION REBATED BACK TO THE COMPANY.

THIS REALLY HAS TO DO WITH JUST KNOWING MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE SIZE OF THESE BUILDINGS AND THE NUMBER OF BUILDINGS, AND SO WE INCREASED OUR PROJECTION THERE. THE 20 YEAR, 75% ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REBATE OF FRANCHISE FEES COLLECTED BY THE CITY CONTINUES THE SAME AS BEFORE, AS DOES THE COMMUNITY BETTERMENT PAYMENT, OUR COMMUNITY BETTERMENT FUND, WHICH CALLS FOR THE COMMUNITY TO PROVIDE ANNUAL BETTERMENT PAYMENTS TO THE CITY TO INCREASE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES, GROWTH OF AMENITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE.

CONTINUES TO BE $300,000 PER PROJECT, FACE UP TO FOR 20 YEARS, MAXIMUM OF $6 MILLION PER PHASE AND A TOTAL OF $18 MILLION.

JUST A MAP SHOWING THE PROJECT LOCATION ALONG 76TH AVENUE.

AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH QTS AND RELATED PROPERTY OWNERS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW DATA CENTER CAMPUS.

WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT BACK TO YOU, MAYOR, FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANKS, SCOTT.

THIS IS A TIME AND A PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER. DOES ANYONE WISH TO ADDRESS COUNCIL? ALL RIGHT, LET THE RECORD SHOW A PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN HELD WITH NO OBJECTIONS FOR THE RECORD, COUNCIL? ALL RIGHT SEEING NONE THE ADOPTION OF THIS RESOLUTION HAS BEEN MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER SCOTT OLSON, SECONDED BY TODD. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO. AND THE MOTION CARRIES THANK YOU.

ITEM NUMBER 7 IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF A 0.04-ACRE PERMANENT WATER MAIN EASEMENT WITHIN THE A AVENUE NORTHWEST RIGHT OF WAY.

[7 - 9: Public hearings will be held to consider the vacation of three permanent water main easements within and south of the A Avenue NW right of way. CIP/DID #3311200-00]

ROB DAVIS IS HERE. ROB I'LL RECOGNIZE YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, ROB DAVIS WITH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.

YOUR HONOR, IF I MAY COMBINE A PRESENTATION FOR ITEM 7, 8 AND 9, PLEASE.

SURE THANK YOU. THESE ARE THIS IS ALL ONE PROJECT TO RELOCATE A 36-INCH WATER MAIN THAT SERVES A MAJOR PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST SIDE. IT'S ONE WATER MAIN THAT WAS RELOCATED FOR THE FLOOD CONTROL SYSTEM.

IT PREVIOUSLY WAS ON THE SOUTH AND EAST SIDE OF THE INTERSTATE HERE.

THIS MAP SHOWS ITEM 7 0.04-ACRE 0.01-ACRE FOR ITEM 8 AND ABOUT 0.19 ACRE FOR ITEM 9.

BUT IT'S ALL ONE WATER MAIN. THAT WATER MAIN HAS SINCE BEEN RELOCATED OUT OF THE EASEMENT AND INTO THE NORTH AND WEST SIDE OF INTERSTATE 380, WHERE A NEW EASEMENT EXISTS. WITH THAT, WE NO LONGER NEED THE EXISTING EASEMENTS AND WOULD RECOMMEND THEY BE VACATED.

ALL RIGHT THANK YOU SO MUCH, ROB. THIS IS A TIME AND PLACE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS.

DOES ANYONE WISH TO ADDRESS COUNCIL? LET THE RECORD SHOW A PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN HELD WITH NO OBJECTIONS FOR THE RECORD, COUNCIL? ALL RIGHT. OH, COUNCIL MEMBER. THANK YOU MAYOR I NEED TO RECUSE MYSELF FROM CONSIDERATIONS.

CONSIDERATION OF AGENDA ITEMS 7, 8 AND 9 THANKS.

THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER OLSON. ANY AND COUNCIL HAVE COMMENTS? QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, THE ADOPTION OF THIS RESOLUTION HAS BEEN MOVED BY TODD, SECONDED BY VANORNY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO. AND THAT MOTION CARRIES.

FOR ITEM NUMBER 8, THIS IS A TIME AND PLACE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER.

DOES ANYONE WISH TO ADDRESS COUNCIL? LET THE RECORD INDICATE A PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN HELD WITH NO OBJECTIONS.

COUNCIL? SEEING NONE THE ADOPTION OF THIS RESOLUTION HAS BEEN MOVED BY VANORNY SECONDED BY POE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO.

AND THE MOTION CARRIES. NOW FOR ITEM NUMBER 9 THIS IS A TIME AND A PLACE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER.

DOES ANYONE WISH TO ADDRESS COUNCIL? ALL RIGHT LET THE RECORD INDICATE A PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN HELD WITH NO OBJECTIONS.

COUNCIL? ALL RIGHT IF THERE'S NOTHING FURTHER, THE ADOPTION OF THIS RESOLUTION HAS BEEN MOVED BY POE SECONDED BY OVERLAND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO.

AND THIS MOTION CARRIES THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER 10 IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED PLANS,

[10. A public hearing will be held to consider the proposed plans, specifications, form of contract and estimated cost for the Ellis Road NW at Rawson Lane Sanitary Sewer Improvements project (estimated cost is $750,000) (Ben Worrell). CIP/DID #6550136-01]

SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT AND ESTIMATED COST FOR THE ELLIS ROAD NORTHWEST AT RAWSON LANE SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT.

WITH AN ESTIMATED COST OF $750,000. BEN WORRELL IS HERE.

BEN, I'LL RECOGNIZE YOU. THANK YOU, MAYOR BEN WORRELL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.

THIS PROJECT WILL REPLACE A LINE DAMAGED SANITARY SEWER IN THE AREA OF ELLIS ROAD AND RAWSON LANE.

THE DAMAGE IS CAUSED BY A COMBINATION OF GENERAL AGING, BUT ALSO SOME SULFIDE DISCHARGE FROM THE CITY OF PALO.

THEY HAVE SINCE GOTTEN THAT UNDER CONTROL. PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES EXTENSION OF EIGHT INCH SANITARY SEWER ACROSS ELLIS ROAD FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.

[00:50:07]

WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT WITH TRENCHLESS CONSTRUCTION METHODS SO THE ROAD WILL STAY OPEN.

AND THE CITY OF PALO ALSO REQUESTED THAT THIS PROJECT INCLUDE A FLOW METERING MANHOLE AS WELL.

AND ALL OF THIS IS GOING TO BE A COST SHARE WITH CITY OF PALO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PREVIOUS 28E AGREEMENT.

ENGINEER'S OPINION AND PROBABLE COST IS $750,000.

BUILDING IS SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 10TH. CONSTRUCTION IS EXPECTED FEBRUARY THROUGH MAY WITH MINIMAL TRAFFIC IMPACTS.

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU BEN.

THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER. DOES ANYONE WISH TO ADDRESS COUNCIL? LET THE RECORD SHOW PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN HELD WITH NO OBJECTIONS FOR THE RECORD, COUNCIL? ALL RIGHT SEEING NOTHING FURTHER, THE ADOPTION OF THIS RESOLUTION HAS BEEN MOVED BY OVERLAND, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER TYLER OLSON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO. AND THE MOTION CARRIES HERE IN THE CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS, WE HAVE TWO PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS.

[PUBLIC COMMENT]

THE FIRST IS A CHANCE FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ANY SUBJECT PERTAINING.

SO IF WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS SIGNED UP, WE DO A SECOND PUBLIC INPUT PERIOD WILL COME AT THE END OF THE MEETING.

THANK YOU. FOR RESIDENTS AND BUSINESS OWNERS TO SPEAK ON ISSUES THAT ARE GERMANE TO THE CITY, BUT NOT NECESSARILY ON THE AGENDA TODAY. COUNCIL MEMBERS AND CITY STAFF MAKE THEMSELVES AVAILABLE BY PHONE OR EMAIL, BUT AT THIS TIME, DURING PUBLIC COMMENT, WE ARE HERE TO LISTEN AND PLEASE REMEMBER ALL THE MATTERS I ADDRESSED PRIOR TO THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING TODAY.

APPLY TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS TOO. REMAIN AT THE LECTERN IF YOU HAVE DOCUMENTS, GIVE THEM TO THE OFFICER.

COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES. YELLOW LIGHT ONE MINUTE RED LIGHT TAKE YOUR SEAT.

IF YOU'VE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, JUST APPROACH THE MICROPHONE WHEN CALLED UPON.

AND OUR SPEAKER, OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS JEFF NIEMEYER HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 30.

MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THIS MORNING I RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM THE CITY EXPLAINING WHY MY PROPERTY AT 5051 WILLIAMS BOULEVARD WAS PLACED INSIDE THE TRACTOR SUPPLY URBAN RENEWAL AREA. THE EXPLANATION WAS THAT MY PARCEL WAS INCLUDED BECAUSE OF THE UNCERTAINTY AROUND FUNDING FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE RIGHT OF WAY ON MY PROPERTY.

I APPRECIATE THE COMMUNICATIONS, BUT THE EXPLANATION DOES NOT MATCH THE CITY'S ACTIONS.

I WAS NEVER NOTIFIED, CONSULTED, OR INCLUDED IN THE URA DISCUSSION.

I WAS NOT INFORMED THAT MY LAND WOULD BE PLACED IN THE TRACTOR SUPPLY.

URA. I WAS NOT ASKED FOR ANY INPUT. I WAS NOT INCLUDED IN ANY PLANNING CONVERSATIONS.

YET THE DEVELOPERS SURROUNDING ME WERE ENGAGED.

THEY WERE COORDINATED WITH AND POSITIONED TO RECEIVE INCENTIVES LONG BEFORE THE CITY EVEN ACKNOWLEDGED THE ISSUE SURROUNDING MY RIGHT OF WAY.

SO TRANSPARENCY IS NOT A COURTESY. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT.

THE CITY SAYS THE URA IS TO FUND IMPROVEMENTS ON MY PROPERTY, BUT ALL PLANNING HAS BEEN DONE FOR SURROUNDING DEVELOPERS.

THE HALL AND HALL ENGINEERING TRAFFIC STUDY WAS PREPARED BY GREEN ACRE GROVES FIRST EDITION SOUTH OF ME AND NOW TO THE NORTH THE TRACTOR SUPPLY URA INCLUDES COMMERCIAL ZONED LOTS, A FRONTAGE ROAD SYSTEM AND NEW PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC.

I'VE NEVER BEEN SHOWN THE TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THE PLANS FOR THE NORTH, YET BOTH DEVELOPMENTS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH OF ME RELY ON WILLIAMS BOULEVARD ACCESS POINTS TO CARRY SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC. THAT ACCESS IS TREATED AS IF THE CITY OWNS IT ALREADY.

THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE CITY PLANNING TRAFFIC AND INFRASTRUCTURE AROUND A PROPERTY IT DOES NOT OWN, WHILE OFFERING INCENTIVES TO THE PRIVATE DEVELOPERS WHO BENEFIT FROM IT.

DEVELOPMENT PLANNING SHOULD NOT COME BEFORE RESOLVING NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER.

THE CITY HAS MOVED AHEAD WITH ZONING ACTIONS, ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS, TRAFFIC MODELING, AND URBAN RENEWAL FINANCING ALL BASED ON MY RIGHT OF WAY WHILE NEGOTIATIONS WITH ME REMAIN UNRESOLVED.

I HAVE ASKED, YOU KNOW, HOW CAN THE CITY JUSTIFY BUILDING A TRAFFIC NETWORK AND URBAN RENEWAL AREA AROUND MY DRIVEWAY BEFORE IT IS BEFORE WHETHER IT HAS LEGAL ACCESS TO THAT DRIVEWAY? THIS IS BACKWARDS PLANNING AND CREATES UNNECESSARY CONFLICT.

MY RIGHT OF WAY IS ESSENTIAL TO THE CITY'S TRAFFIC PLAN, YET I HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM EVERY STAGE OF PLANNING.

THOUSANDS OF NEW DAILY TRIPS FROM BOTH DEVELOPMENTS DEPEND ON ACCESS TO WILLIAMS BOULEVARD.

MY PROPERTY IS THAT GATEWAY. IT WILL CARRY SIGNIFICANT PEAK HOUR FLOWS OF TRAFFIC.

YET I WASN'T CONSULTED. I HAVEN'T RECEIVED TRAFFIC STUDIES FOR THE NORTH.

I'VE NOT BEEN OFFERED ANY INCENTIVES. I WAS NOT NOTIFIED WHEN MY LAND WAS PLACED IN THE TRACTOR SUPPLY URBAN RENEWAL AREA.

THE CITY CANNOT KEEP EXPANDING AND PLANNING INCENTIVES AROUND MY PARCEL WHILE LEAVING THE CORE PROPERTY RIGHTS ISSUE UNRESOLVED.

[00:55:04]

MY REQUEST TO THE CITY COUNCIL IS SIMPLE. I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT THE COUNCIL SHELVE THE SECOND AND THIRD READINGS OF THE TRACTOR SUPPLY URBAN RENEWAL AREA UNTIL NEGOTIATIONS OF THE RIGHT OF WAY AND MY PROPERTY HAVE BEEN COMPLETED.

THIS ISN'T AN OBSTRUCTION. THIS IS A REASONABLE STEP AND A FAIR ONE.

IF THE CITY INTENDS TO ACT IN GOOD FAITH, IT SHOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD.

WHILE THE URBAN RENEWAL AREA THAT DEPENDS ON MY PROPERTY.

WHILE THAT VERY PROPERTY IS A SUBJECT OF ACTIVE NEGOTIATIONS AND POTENTIAL EMINENT DOMAIN THANK YOU.

THANK YOU AND THAT IS GOING TO CLOSE OUT OUR FIRST PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.

CITY MANAGER POMERANZ, DO YOU HAVE ANY CHANGES TO THE AGENDA? NO CHANGES, YOUR HONOR

[MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA]

ITEMS? ALL RIGHT, THAT'LL BRING US FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA.

THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA HAS BEEN MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER TYLER OLSON, SECONDED BY HOEGER.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE, THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO.

AND THE MOTION CARRIES. THAT BRINGS US TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.

[CONSENT AGENDA]

THE APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA HAS BEEN MOVED BY HOEGER, SECONDED BY MAIER.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO.

THANK YOU COUNCIL. MOVING ON TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA.

FOR ITEM NUMBER 27, WHICH IS A REPORT ON BIDS FOR THE FY 2026 TREE AND VEGETATION REMOVAL PROJECT,

[27. Report on bids for the FY 2026 Tree and Vegetation Removal project (estimated cost is $120,000) (Ben Worrell). CIP/DID #301990-33]

WITH AN ESTIMATED COST OF $120,000. BEN WORRELL IS HERE.

BEN, I'LL RECOGNIZE YOU. THANK YOU. THIS PROJECT IS AN ANNUAL PROJECT THAT THE CITY DOES TO REMOVE TREES AHEAD OF VARIOUS PROJECTS AROUND TOWN.

WE DO THIS BECAUSE THE TREES MUST BE CUT BY MARCH 31ST IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH US FISH AND WILDLIFE REGULATIONS.

PROTECTION OF THE NORTHERN LONG EARED BAT, WHICH HAS A POTENTIAL HABITAT RANGE THAT INCLUDES IOWA AND IN ORDER TO AVOID POTENTIALLY DISTURBING SUMMER ROOSTING HABITAT, THOSE TREES GET CUT IN THE WINTER. PROJECT INCLUDES RESEEDING OF DISTURBED AREAS.

HERE'S A MAP SHOWING THIS YEAR'S LOCATIONS. THERE'S SEVEN OF THEM.

PROJECT BID ON NOVEMBER 19TH, WE RECEIVED FOUR RESPONSIVE BIDS, RANGING FROM $102,867.00 TO $120,500.00. LOW BIDDER WAS BOOMERANG CORPORATION.

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION THANK YOU.

THANKS, BEN. COUNCIL ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT SEEING NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, THE ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION HAS BEEN MOVED BY MAIER, SECONDED BY TODD. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO. AND THE MOTION CARRIES.

28 IS A REPORT ON BIDS FOR 3RD STREET SOUTHEAST WATER MAIN EXTENSION PROJECT, WITH AN ESTIMATED COST OF $310,000.

[28. Report on bids for the 3rd Street SE Water Main Extension project (estimated cost is $310,000) (Brandon Jennings). CIP/DID #3317510-14]

BRANDON JENNINGS IS HERE. BRANDON, I'LL RECOGNIZE YOU.

THANK YOU MAYOR, BRANDON JENNINGS WITH THE UTILITIES DEPARTMENT. THIS PROJECT WILL EXTEND APPROXIMATELY 1,200 LINEAR FEET OF NEW WATER MAIN TO THE HORIZONTAL COLLECTOR WELL #7 TO PROVIDE FIRE PROTECTION TO THE SITE, WHICH IS A FIRE CODE REQUIREMENT TO OBTAIN THE BUILDING OCCUPANCY PERMIT.

THE ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST WAS $310,000.

11 BIDS WERE RECEIVED FOR THIS PROJECT ON NOVEMBER 19TH.

THE BIDS RANGED FROM $173,775.93 TO $310,822.15.

CONSTRUCTION WILL BE COMPLETED IN THE SPRING OF 2026.

THE UTILITIES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDS AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR THIS PROJECT.

OH. AND I SHOULD HAVE SAID B.G. BRECKE WAS THE LOW BIDDER FOR THIS PROJECT.

THE UTILITIES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDS AWARDING THE CONTRACT.

WITH THAT I'LL TURN IT BACK TO YOU, MAYOR. ALL RIGHT THANKS SO MUCH, BRANDON.

COUNCIL ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCIL MEMBER MAIER. THANK YOU, MAYOR BRANDON, CAN YOU JUST PROVIDE SOME INSIGHT AS TO WHY THE BIDS WERE SO MUCH LOWER THAN THE ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE? SURE. WE THINK THAT THERE COULD BE A NUMBER OF FACTORS.

ONE IS THAT THIS WAS A PRETTY COMPETITIVE BID.

WE RECEIVED 11 BIDS. SO IT INDICATES THAT, YOU KNOW, WORK MIGHT BE SLOW FOR A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT CONTRACTORS IN THE AREA, MIGHT HAVE PUSHED BIDS DOWN A LITTLE BIT. THE OTHER IS THAT THIS ALLOWS FOR SOME WINTER WORK WHICH IS GENERALLY WHEN CONSTRUCTION IS A LITTLE BIT SLOWER.

SO YOU GET BETTER PRICING THAT WAY. AND IT'S A FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD PROJECT.

IT'S INSTALLING WATER MAIN THROUGH WHAT, WHAT IS EFFECTIVELY AN OPEN FIELD.

SO NOT A LOT OF COMPLICATION OR RISK AS WELL.

SO ALL OF THOSE FACTORS LIKELY PUSHED THE BIDS DOWN A LITTLE BIT LOWER THAN WHAT THE ESTIMATE WAS.

THANK YOU ALL RIGHT IF THERE'S NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, THE ADOPTION OF THIS RESOLUTION HAS BEEN MOVED BY VANORNY, SECONDED BY POE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE.

THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO. AND THIS MOTION CARRIES.

NOW TO ITEM ANOTHER ORDINANCES RATHER WE HAVE A SECOND AND THIRD READINGS.

[29. Ordinance vacating Stone Glen Drive SW right of way as requested by Midwest Development Co. CIP/DID #ROWV-000057-2025]

[01:00:04]

ITEM NUMBER 29 IS AN ORDINANCE VACATING STONE GLEN DRIVE SOUTHWEST RIGHT OF WAY, AS REQUESTED BY MIDWEST DEVELOPMENT CO.

THE APPROVAL OF THIS ORDINANCE ON ITS SECOND READING HAS BEEN MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER OVERLAND, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER TYLER OLSON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO. THANK YOU COUNCIL.

COUNCIL MEMBER POE. THANK YOU MAYOR I MOVE THE RULE REQUIRING THREE READINGS ON THREE DIFFERENT DAYS, BE SUSPENDED, AND THE ORDINANCE BE ADOPTED ON ITS THIRD AND FINAL READING.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER POE, BEFORE WE VOTE ON THE RESOLUTION, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT. IF THERE'S NOTHING FURTHER, THE ADOPTION OF THIS RESOLUTION HAS BEEN MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HOEGER, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MAIER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO. AND THIS MOTION CARRIES.

30 IS THE ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE COLLECTION OF TAX INCREMENTS WITHIN THE TRACTOR SUPPLY URBAN RENEWAL AREA ALONG WILLIAMS BOULEVARD SOUTHWEST.

YES OKAY. WE'VE ALREADY DONE, OKAY. WELL, FOR ITEM NUMBER 29, WE DID THE RESOLUTION.

YOUR HONOR, YOU JUST HAVE TO FINISH THE VOTE FOR THE THIRD READING, SO POE.

OH COUNCIL MEMBER POE. YEAH YOU DID THAT ALREADY? I DID THAT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? OPPOSED. SAY NO.

OKAY THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO 30 AGAIN. ANY QUESTIONS ON ITEM NUMBER 30?

[30. Ordinance relating to the collection of tax increments within the Tractor Supply Urban Renewal Area along Williams Boulevard SW. (Council Priority) CIP/DID #TIF-0017-2025]

THIS IS THE ORDINANCE RELATING TO TAX INCREMENTS.

MAYOR I. YES. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, A REQUEST THAT.

YES. WE JUST DO THE SECOND READING AND GIVE TWO MORE WEEKS FOR NEGOTIATIONS TO BE COMPLETED AND GIVES THEM SOME TIME TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES.

AND IF THEY CAN'T, THEN WE LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE AGAIN IN TWO WEEKS OKAY SECOND THANKS, COUNCIL MEMBER TODD. THEN THE APPROVAL OF THIS ORDINANCE ON ITS SECOND READING HAS BEEN MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER OLSON, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER TODD. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO. AND THE MOTION CARRIES.

THANK YOU COUNCIL. AND THAT WILL CLOSE OUT OUR FORMAL BUSINESS TODAY AND BRING US TO OUR FINAL PUBLIC INPUT PERIOD.

DO WE HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP? WE DO NOT TODAY.

SO THAT WILL CLOSE OUT OUR SECOND PUBLIC INPUT PERIOD.

CITY MANAGER POMERANZ, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMUNICATIONS TODAY?

[CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS]

ONE ONE COMMUNICATION MAYOR, I JUST WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE REALLY THE GREAT WORK OF OUR CITY TEAM AND THE SNOW REMOVAL EFFORT.

AND I KNOW A NUMBER OF YOU HAVE ALREADY COMMENTED AS WELL.