Council Bluffs City Council Meeting Summary - January 12, 2026
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Council Bluffs City Council Meeting - January 12, 2026
The Council Bluffs City Council met on January 12, 2026, for a regular meeting. The agenda included approval of the consent agenda, three public hearings, ordinances on first and second reading, four resolutions, and citizen requests. Key discussions centered on a proposed rezoning of a College Road property, amendments to the alarm system ordinance, and a $600,000 contract for a comprehensive plan and downtown master plan. The meeting concluded with public comments on a deteriorating downtown building and a pedestrian bridge project.
Consent Calendar
- After discussion, the council approved the consent agenda, which included the rezoning of two parcels at College Road from R1 to R3 to allow a single-family homeowner to build a detached accessory structure. Council members expressed concerns about setting a precedent for similar requests in R1 districts, but ultimately accepted the staff recommendation for uniform zoning (R3) across the combined lot.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Christine Reiser (104 Happy Hollow Boulevard) expressed frustration about a deteriorating building at the intersection of Pearl Street and Main Street (former First National Bank), calling it a "slum quality property" with broken windows and crumbling brickwork. She urged the city to take action. Council members acknowledged the issue and stated it is on their radar, noting complications due to the floodplain and FEMA regulations.
- A second citizen (name not provided) inquired about the status of the pedestrian bridge over Dodge Park. Council members responded that the structure will not cross the river; it will be an outlook with benches, classroom space, and nature viewing areas, expected to open in spring.
Discussion Items
- College Road Rezoning (Consent Agenda Item): Council debated whether to rezone a sliver of land from R1 to R3 to match an adjacent R3-zoned lot where the homeowner's house sits. Some members argued that the ability to build a detached structure should be allowed regardless of zoning, and suggested using a conditional use permit instead of rezoning. Staff clarified that under R1, a principal structure must exist first; under R3, the homeowner gains flexibility for future development (e.g., additional dwellings). The council agreed to proceed with R3 rezoning as part of the consent agenda.
- Ordinance 6668 (Alarm Systems): Council discussed amendments to the alarm system ordinance to eliminate false alarm fees, which were administered by a third-party company. Council members cited widespread frustration with the program—difficulty registering, inability to pay online, and fear of fees deterring residents from calling police. The ordinance also waives the $25 registration fee for residents who participate in the police department's camera database program. The council strongly supported the change, noting the police department's analysis that the program did not deter false alarms. The ordinance passed on first reading.
- Resolution 26-13 (Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Master Plan): A motion was made to table the resolution authorizing a contract with Shockey Consulting for up to $600,000 to prepare the 2050 Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Master Plan. Council members raised concerns about the cost, the fluidity of previous plans, and the absence of a permanent Community Development Director. Some favored waiting for a director to be hired, while others argued that the plan is legally required for urban renewal and grant funding, and that starting early ensures preparation. Staff clarified that the plan requires extensive public engagement and will evaluate zoning codes, housing codes, and more. After debate, the council voted to table the resolution until the January 26, 2026 meeting to allow for further information and legal analysis.
- Other Actions: The council approved ordinances on first and second reading, including amendments to sewer tap-on fees (Ordinance 6663, with waived third reading). They also approved resolutions for a sewer rehabilitation bid (Resolution 26-09), amending financial transaction authorities (Resolution 26-10), and appointing Jake Shimonek-Lemmer as Assistant City Attorney (Resolution 26-11). Four liquor license permits were approved.
Key Outcomes
- Consent Agenda: Approved unanimously.
- Public Hearings (3): All approved unanimously:
- Resolution 26-06 (Indian Creek Levy Free Board Maintenance Project)
- Resolution 26-07 (Vacate and dispose of alleys and street section at 15th Street, Flaming & Davis Edition)
- Resolution 26-08 (Vacate and dispose of alley abutting 717/719 S. 7th Avenue)
- Ordinance 6668 (Alarm Systems): Passed first reading (unanimous).
- Ordinance 6663 (Sewer Tap-on Fees): Passed second reading and waiver of third reading (unanimous).
- Resolution 26-09 (Sewer Bid): Approved.
- Resolution 26-10 (Financial Transactions): Approved.
- Resolution 26-11 (Appointment): Approved.
- Resolution 26-13 (Comprehensive Plan Contract): Tabled to January 26, 2026, by a unanimous vote (motion and second; all in favor).
- Liquor Licenses (8A1–4): Approved.
Meeting Transcript
Thank you again to senior district court judge uh Judge Stenlin and thanks Jody for arranging all of that for us. I appreciate it. Um, right after our study session, if any friends or family would like to stick around and take pictures, um, we'll be invite anybody to come up into the gallery at that point in time. And there are cookies for anybody who wants one. And there are cookies on the way up. So fantastic. Um, next on the um agenda for today is to review our agenda for tonight. Um is there any questions on the consent agenda. Yes. Um College Road. That seems crazy to me. So right now he has two parcels. His house, it's on one parcel on R3. He owns a separate track that right now is zoned R one. He wants to build a detached structure on that separate track of land. Um in an R1 district, you can't have an accessory structure without there being a principal structure on the same lot. And so he has to have those two properties combined together so that the house on the same lot as the garage that he wants to build. As part of doing that, we spoke to Jamie, who's the applicant. It makes sense, and if you're going to join these two properties together to have it as one consistent zoning, so that from here in perpetuity, you're working on one set of rules for it. And there's really two options. The one that the lot that the house sits on right now is zoned R3, and that's low density, multi-family. And when he built it, it shouldn't, which is zoned wrong. Right? It should be R1. It's a single family house. Well, I mean, the zoning was in place before he bought it. And if you look to the west, you already have an existing multifamily development. So I think the zoning is right, and in an R3 district, you can have a single family detached structure. It's just that if you're going to combine these lots, you want to give some consistency. And so we met with Jamie. There was kind of two options proposed an R3 or the R1. He already built his house to conform with R3 district standards. So the thought and rationale was well, we'll just rezone this other sliver to R3 just to make it all consistent. Um it could certainly be rezoned to R1 as well, and the house would still comply. The only thing that it would change is that it wouldn't give him as much flexibility development-wise in the future if he goes to an R1. So under the R3, he can develop more of that property than he would an R1, meaning that an R3 you can have 45% lot coverage, and an R1, you're capped at 35%. In an R3 district, um, he could have multiple dwellings on there. So hypothetically, I'm not thinking it's gonna happen, but just hypothetically, maybe one of his children want to build a home on that land. They would be able to do that without having to go through a subdivision action, whereas in an R1 district, you're allowed to have one one dwelling, and that would be it. So it does give him some flexibility. At planning commission, he was certainly open to rezoning it to R1. It was just proposed as R3 just to make that small lot consistent with the same lot where his house is at. So either way, he'll come out ahead. It's just that if we go R1, it does have different setback regulations, building heights as compared to an R3. But he seemed open to either option. I just think then multiple houses on bigger lots in town would just want to rezone to R3. Does that make sense? Like I would. If I can put an extra house, an extra structure. Yeah, but his house is already on R three.
openpublica.com