Council Bluffs City Council Meeting - February 9, 2026
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Council Bluffs City Council Meeting - February 9, 2026
The meeting began with the introduction of a new assistant city attorney, Jake Schorlemer. The FY25 audit was presented by Amy Shrek of Forbus Mazars, resulting in a clean opinion and a material weakness regarding CDBG sub-award reporting timelines. The main discussion centered on Phase 5 of the riverfront project, including a playground, dog park, and donor plaza. Council members expressed disappointment that the project details had not been brought to them before and directed that the dog park be relocated to a dry-side location and that the donor plaza be reconsidered due to levee right-of-way concerns. Several consent agenda items and public hearings were addressed, including the North Line senior housing development, which generated significant public comment. The meeting also included a failed rezoning ordinance, a resolution to study ICE coordination, and directives to explore employee leave policy and traffic improvements on Ivy Drive.
Consent Calendar
- UP museum windows – project completion, retainage release.
- Keyesville pedestrian bridge repairs – public hearing to set repairs.
- Mid-America Center Parking Lot Rehab Phase 6 – public hearing set.
- Keyesville Sanitary Sewer Expansion Phase 1 – tap-on fee adopted.
- FY27 CIP General Obligation Bonds – public hearing set.
- MOU for Iowa Racing Board – ex-officio appointment approved.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Amy Shrek (Forbus Mazars) presented the FY25 audit with a clean opinion and noted a material weakness in CDBG sub-award reporting. Management has a corrective action plan.
- Pete Tulipana updated on the riverfront project Phase 5. He noted that the playground and donor plaza were in the original plan but the dog park location was at issue.
- Jeff Shudak (120 Ivy Drive) expressed concerns about traffic and safety if the North Line development proceeds and requested a traffic study.
- Elizabeth Hunter (engineer for North Line) clarified tree removal under a quarter acre.
- Multiple residents (Jennifer Coulter, Diane Story, Wendy Story, Richard Owen, Hunter Bilson, Janelle Miller) spoke against the North Line development citing traffic congestion, narrow bridges, limited egress, and the building height not fitting the neighborhood.
- Jason James (Jilla Development) spoke in favor of the North Line project, emphasizing it meets zoning, provides needed senior housing, and would generate approximately $250,000 in annual tax revenue after TIF payoff.
- Jamie Augustine spoke in favor of rezoning his property to R3, arguing R1 would restrict his ability to build a garage and greenhouse.
- Margaret Nicolini spoke against rezoning to R3, citing potential negative impacts to the neighborhood and stressing that R1 works for the applicant.
Discussion Items
- Audit Report: Unmodified opinion; no material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal controls over financial reporting; clean opinion on federal grant compliance; material weakness for CDBG sub-award reporting (30-day timeline not met).
- Riverfront Phase 5: Playground (destination playground), dog park (3 acres, originally planned on wet side of levee but council opposed), and donor plaza ($600,000 in CIP but not in MOU; location on levee right-of-way). Council indicated they would not approve anything on the wet side of the levee and asked for alternatives.
- North Line Subdivision (Jilla Development): 113-116 units of age-restricted (55+) housing on 5.15 acres at Ivy Drive and North Broadway. Traffic concerns addressed: bridge rated 7/9 on inspections, low accident history, 154 parking spaces provided (exceeds requirement). Council discussion included the need for a traffic study, single exit, and the bridge condition. The development is infill with existing infrastructure.
- Ordinance 6667 (Rezoning at College Road): Applicant sought to rezone from R1 to R3 to allow larger outbuildings. The property is already developed as a single-family home. Motion to rezone to R1 failed 2-2; motion to rezone to R3 failed 2-2. The ordinance died. Mayor noted plans to review zoning codes.
- Resolution 2644 (ICE Coordination): Direction to city attorney to research legal issues regarding federal enforcement activities. Council amended to focus on section 2.1 (declaration of municipal purpose) and section 3.a (notification to local police). Approved.
- Resolution 2650 (Employee Leave Policy): Directive to develop an amended policy. Amended to require comparables from other cities (including Nebraska communities) at the February 23 meeting and a full policy draft at the following meeting. Approved.
- Other Resolutions: Fiber optic right-of-way agreement (2646), recycling position change (2647), North Line PR plan (2649), Spin Lofts amendment (2652), conflict of interest waiver (2653) withdrawn as moot.
- Council Discussion: Request to explore a traffic light on Ivy Drive/Locust Lodge due to congestion and ambulance access. Mayor to work with staff. Discussion about moving building division under fire marshal; Mayor noted divisional restructuring is planned.
Key Outcomes
- FY25 Audit: Accepted; clean opinion with one material weakness noted.
- Riverfront Phase 5: Dog park to be relocated to dry side of levee; donor plaza location and funding to be reconsidered; council will vote on next agenda on whether to include playground and donor plaza in the core application.
- North Line Subdivision (PR plan and final plat): Approved (roll call: Sandow aye, Button aye, DeSalvo aye, Gorman aye, Rue abstain for prior planning commission involvement).
- Keyesville Sanitary Sewer Tap-on Fee: Ordinance adopted.
- Ordinance 6667 (Rezoning): Failed (both amendments failed 2-2); applicant to restart process with potential code changes.
- Resolution 2644 (ICE): Approved as amended (declaration of cooperation and notification).
- Resolution 2650 (Leave Policy): Approved with amended timeline for comparables and policy draft.
- Fiber Optic Agreement: Approved.
- Recycling Position Change: Approved.
- Workforce Housing Tax Credit Support: Approved.
- Spin Lofts Amendments: Approved.
- Traffic Study: Mayor to coordinate with staff to evaluate traffic light and parking issues on Ivy Drive/Locust Lodge.
Meeting Transcript
Go ahead and get going. We have a few items on the study session for today. So I'm gonna start. Danielle, would you like to introduce our first guests? Oh, sorry. Apologies. We're actually gonna jump ahead. And Mimi, would you like to introduce our new member of our staff? Sure. Um, Jake, do you want to come up to this podium over here and introduce yourself? This is George Jake Schorlemer, our new attorney. Awesome. All right, yeah. Um Jake Shoilamer, as she correctly pronounced. Um, so I'm the new assistant city attorney. Um I was working at legal aid for the past year, and before here in Council Bluffs, and before that, I lived in Grinnell, Iowa. I went to law school in New York, Syracuse, and um undergrad at the University of Arkansas. Not sure what else I need to say, but welcome. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Now, Danielle, would you like to introduce our first guest? Sure. Um, I have the honor of introducing um Amy Shrek with Forvus Mazars. This is um our opportunity to kind of present to you our FY25 um audit. You all have a copy of in front of you. Um kind of go over what the audit entails, why it's important, and then any significant findings or anything that she deems necessary to discuss with you guys today. Um, with that, I will turn it over to Amy. These are ours, we can mark these up, right? Yep. Good afternoon. As Danielle said, my name is Amy Shrek. I'm a partner with Forbus Mazars from the Omaha office, 1120 South 101st Street, Omaha, Nebraska, 68124. And I'm here to present the results of the fiscal year 2025 audit with you. The audit is kind of like eating vegetables. It's not very fun, it's not very exciting, but it's necessary, it's important. It helps to demonstrate financial transparency and accountability to taxpayers, to granting agencies and others. It's required for compliance with state statutes or state code, and it's also required for the federal grants that the city receives. So it's very important that it is done and that it's done timely in accordance with all of the standards. We do provide perform these audits under a number of standards, and I thought you know you have a short meeting today, so we'll go through this document page by page. I'm joking. I will give you the summary. If you do have questions, happy to answer those as we go through. The first portion is the opinion on the financial statement. So we look at these financial statements, we audit them under generally accepted auditing standards, and the takeaway from that is that we issued an unmodified or clean opinion on the financial statements. That means they are fairly stated in all material respects in accordance with accounting standards in the United States for local governments. That's the result that you want to see. These numbers are as you would want them presented under those standards. We also present or audit the financial statements under government accounting standards. Government auditing standards, I apologize.
openpublica.com