OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Council Bluffs City Council Study Session and Regular Meeting - July 13, 2026

City Council — Monday, July 13, 2026
BodyCouncil Bluffs, Iowa
SessionCity Council
DateMonday, July 13, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
Meeting Thumbnail
⇩ GET FROM SOURCE

STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE

Transcript — Verbatim
0:01

Good afternoon, everybody.

0:06

All right.

0:06

We have just two things on our study session.

0:11

The first is to review the agenda.

0:15

So is there any questions from the consent agenda?

0:23

I just had one question on 4E.

0:26

Be more of a public works question, I think, for Matt, maybe or Mark.

0:31

You know, that project that Carly did on state orchard, and I remember seeing it in planning.

0:36

We stopped it at Cedar Lane.

0:38

And we didn't go up to the other, I'll call the other Cedar Lane.

0:42

Is that called Cedar Lane as well?

0:46

Was there any is there any plan to finish that or would we just we're just gonna hold off on that completely?

1:00

Right now there isn't a plan to move forward with that.

1:04

We're stopping where we're at for now.

1:06

Okay.

1:07

Um we're always looking at the CIP though.

1:10

Understood.

1:11

Okay, thank you.

1:15

Any other questions on the consent agenda?

1:19

Okay, we're gonna have uh one public hearing tonight.

1:23

5A this to uh approve the additional concrete uh construction at the council boss recycling center.

1:42

Um as we spoke last time, we just have been putting it in the operating budget to continue paving down there so we can improve the the facility, make it uh a little more user-friendly for all the people that visit there and and just make it easier for us to maintain long term.

2:01

Okay.

2:02

Any questions?

2:03

All right, six A and B.

2:07

Whitney, I believe these are yours.

2:13

They are mine, and they are one or the other.

2:15

So you do not want to do both.

2:17

Um, you want to do one or the other.

2:18

So really um the main distinction, and I know that I provided a sort of lengthy council communication to outline the changes to the law.

2:26

Um, the legislature decided that it wanted to make significant changes to the Civil Rights Act in the state of Iowa.

2:34

Some of those changes we need to implement, some of them the Civil Rights Commission is asking that you not implement.

2:42

And so the big distinction between the two different versions of the ordinance is taking out the word gender identity.

2:47

Gender identity has been a protected class in the council bluffs municipal code since 2008, um, which was previously allowed because the civil rights um state level law had been a floor and not a ceiling.

3:00

And this year they decided to change that and make it a ceiling so that no city or uh municipal government could offer additional classes of protection other than those allowed by state law.

3:10

And so they passed a law, I believe it was in March, the date is in your information, basically saying that we couldn't enact any further legislation saying that you know we would have any other provisions going forward, and then they changed it the last session to say enact or enforce.

3:27

So we had already met as a civil rights commission prior to that time, and the civil rights commissioners, given how long it has been part of our ordinance, and in hopes that the spirit of the legislature would change going forward in a desire to protect as many citizens as possible, um, via protected classes wish to keep gender identity in.

3:49

So I am in a position as the director of the civil rights commission to say that it is their wish that you continue to have gender identity in the ordinance.

3:56

However, as an attorney in your city attorney's office, I think that that um has the potential to create confusion because we are not allowed to enforce that.

4:05

And so our ordinance would then be doing something that lawfully it would say that we're protecting gender identity, even though we could not enforce it.

4:12

So it's still tricky because usually when they say that you're not gonna be able to enforce something, they say that you have to remove it from the law, right?

4:19

And they didn't do that, so we can leave it there as a dormant unenforceable provision, but again, typically the city attorney's office would not recommend that because it creates confusion and it is keeping our ordinance in a manner that is not actually enforceable.

4:34

But I said I would pass on the wishes of the commission.

4:38

I understand where they are coming from.

4:39

They're hoping if the law then changed again and they made it a floor instead of a ceiling, that that would go right back into effect without the need for further passing of ordinances, and that was their wishes.

4:48

So obviously, more sections need to be changed if we're taking out gender identity, and that's why there's significantly more sections to amend in the second version.

4:56

So any questions?

5:22

And so they did after the law passed, they sent to every local civil rights commission.

5:26

They sent a letter saying, please you know, turn over any cases you have that are more than 12 months old.

5:31

We didn't have any.

5:32

So we just wrote back and said we don't have any.

5:34

And in meeting with other commissions in the state, they didn't have any either.

5:37

So if we can't force it, your recommendations to remove it.

5:44

As a directory, as you're sitting right here.

5:47

No, as a city attorney.

5:48

Yes.

5:48

I think that I mean I it's a good thing.

5:50

Because we we take direction from you.

5:58

Even though on a personal level, I understand where they are coming from, and as the director of the Civil Rights Commission, also wish to have it in place in the event that the law would change so that no further action is required from a city attorney's perspective.

6:11

That is it is problematic.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Procedural█████████████████████21%
Personnel Matters███████████████████19%
Public Safety███████████████████19%
Public Engagement██████████10%
Engineering And Infrastructure█████5%
Economic Development█████5%
Community Engagement█████5%
Environmental Protection████4%
City Council Dress Code███3%
Summary of Proceedings

Council Bluffs City Council Study Session and Regular Meeting - July 13, 2026

The Council Bluffs City Council held a study session and regular meeting on July 13, 2026, addressing a wide range of topics including civil rights ordinance changes, police and fire supervisory wages, data center regulations, and various administrative items. Key discussions centered on maintaining the pay gap for police supervisors, a 90-day zoning audit for data centers, and amendments to city council rules.

Consent Calendar

  • Consent agenda approved unanimously after a question about the State Orchard project (stopped at Cedar Lane; no current plans to continue).

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Dallas Lapsley (3525 9th Ave) thanked staff for help cleaning up a neighboring property and urged the council to address high weeds/grass and junk vehicles via 311. Staff noted a third phase of 311 is coming to add more categories.
  • Shauna Koi (21327 Ashwood Lane) expressed concerns about a potential Google data center expansion on Wabash Avenue, citing traffic, noise, environmental impacts, and lack of community notification. She questioned why a moratorium was voted down.
  • Grace Fox (122 Hunter Ave) complained about blocked sidewalks, dog waste, and code enforcement issues; she has been trying to resolve property disputes for years. Staff committed to meeting with her.
  • Jeff Ballinger (12606 Graystone Ct) questioned the tax incentives for data centers (80% reduction first 5 years, 70% next 5), argued they don't create long-term jobs, and urged the council to reject future data centers. He supported the mayor's proposed moratorium.
  • Roger Williams (10605 Wabash Ave) reported that Google/Jay Dunn Construction have not addressed foundation damage to his home despite promises. He opposed annexation for data centers and noted out-of-state workers sending money home.
  • Shauna Anderson (1937 340th St, county) highlighted water usage concerns from data centers, nitrate issues, and well depletion; she noted infrastructure strain and pollution risks.
  • Michelle Shu (22400 Barrie Lane) raised concerns about loss of farmland, energy/water usage, light pollution from existing data centers, and noise impacts on rural quiet.
  • During the regular meeting, Diane Williams spoke in support of higher police pay, recalling her husband's experience as an underpaid officer.

Discussion Items

  • Civil Rights Ordinance (6A & 6B): City Attorney Whitney discussed two versions of an ordinance to comply with state law changes making the Iowa Civil Rights Act a ceiling. Version A retains gender identity as a protected class; Version B removes it. The Civil Rights Commission wishes to keep gender identity in hopes future law changes, but the City Attorney recommended Version B to avoid confusion and false hope since enforcement is prohibited. Council consensus favored Version B.
  • Police Supervisory Wage Increase (8B): Chief Davis explained supervisory overtime dynamics, the importance of sergeants as line-level supervisors, and the need to maintain the pay gap between highest-paid officers and lowest-paid sergeants to incentivize promotions. Council discussed the gap (currently about 11%, highest in state) and whether 2.5% or 3.5% is appropriate. An amendment to set the increase at 3.5% (matching the union officers' raise) was adopted, with additional discussion on future monitoring of the gap.
  • Fire Supervisory Wage Increase (8A): Deferred until the fire union arbitration is complete; council will receive a timeline update at the next meeting.
  • Data Center Zoning Audit (Resolution 26-243): Council debated a resolution directing Community Development to conduct a 90-day study of zoning and permitting options regarding data centers, following a failed moratorium proposal. Staff will research other communities' approaches and report back. The resolution passed 5-0.
  • City Council Rules & Procedures: Changes discussed include moving study session start time to 3:00 p.m. (effective August), dress code (business casual, gentlemen's agreement), public participation (name required, address optional, no virtual attendance except ADA accommodations), and amendments to conform with state law on special meetings and open meetings training.
  • Closed Session: The council entered closed session under Iowa Code Chapter 21.5(1)(c) to discuss litigation strategy.

Key Outcomes

  • Ordinance 6692 (removing gender identity from civil rights ordinance) passed on second reading.
  • Resolution 26-216 (Police Supervisory Wages): Amended to 3.5% increase for fiscal year 2026-27, then passed as amended.
  • Resolution 26-215 (Fire Supervisory Wages): Tabled until completion of fire union arbitration; update requested for July 27 meeting.
  • Resolution 26-243 (Data Center Zoning Audit): Passed 5-0, directing a 90-day review.
  • Resolution 26-238 (SRO with Lewis Central): Approved; school district will fully reimburse the city.
  • Resolution 26-241 (Leaseback with Norm's): Approved.
  • Resolution 26-242 (CBA with CWA): Approved (2.5% increase first year, reopen second year).
  • Resolution 26-244 & 26-245 (Public Works positions): Approved, including cost-saving conversion of traffic engineer to technician.
  • Resolution 26-247 (Lobbyist Eden Walton): Approved; council asked staff to explore shared cost with county and Iowa Western.
  • Resolution 26-251 (Cornerstone TIF amendment): Approved (Councilman Rue abstained).
  • Appointments: Michelle Houston confirmed as HR Director; Rodney Schultz confirmed as Chief Building Official.
  • Citizen concerns about data centers and code enforcement were noted; staff will follow up on individual cases.

Meeting Transcript

Good afternoon, everybody. All right. We have just two things on our study session. The first is to review the agenda. So is there any questions from the consent agenda? I just had one question on 4E. Be more of a public works question, I think, for Matt, maybe or Mark. You know, that project that Carly did on state orchard, and I remember seeing it in planning. We stopped it at Cedar Lane. And we didn't go up to the other, I'll call the other Cedar Lane. Is that called Cedar Lane as well? Was there any is there any plan to finish that or would we just we're just gonna hold off on that completely? Right now there isn't a plan to move forward with that. We're stopping where we're at for now. Okay. Um we're always looking at the CIP though. Understood. Okay, thank you. Any other questions on the consent agenda? Okay, we're gonna have uh one public hearing tonight. 5A this to uh approve the additional concrete uh construction at the council boss recycling center. Um as we spoke last time, we just have been putting it in the operating budget to continue paving down there so we can improve the the facility, make it uh a little more user-friendly for all the people that visit there and and just make it easier for us to maintain long term. Okay. Any questions? All right, six A and B. Whitney, I believe these are yours. They are mine, and they are one or the other. So you do not want to do both. Um, you want to do one or the other. So really um the main distinction, and I know that I provided a sort of lengthy council communication to outline the changes to the law. Um, the legislature decided that it wanted to make significant changes to the Civil Rights Act in the state of Iowa. Some of those changes we need to implement, some of them the Civil Rights Commission is asking that you not implement. And so the big distinction between the two different versions of the ordinance is taking out the word gender identity. Gender identity has been a protected class in the council bluffs municipal code since 2008, um, which was previously allowed because the civil rights um state level law had been a floor and not a ceiling. And this year they decided to change that and make it a ceiling so that no city or uh municipal government could offer additional classes of protection other than those allowed by state law. And so they passed a law, I believe it was in March, the date is in your information, basically saying that we couldn't enact any further legislation saying that you know we would have any other provisions going forward, and then they changed it the last session to say enact or enforce. So we had already met as a civil rights commission prior to that time, and the civil rights commissioners, given how long it has been part of our ordinance, and in hopes that the spirit of the legislature would change going forward in a desire to protect as many citizens as possible, um, via protected classes wish to keep gender identity in. So I am in a position as the director of the civil rights commission to say that it is their wish that you continue to have gender identity in the ordinance. However, as an attorney in your city attorney's office, I think that that um has the potential to create confusion because we are not allowed to enforce that. And so our ordinance would then be doing something that lawfully it would say that we're protecting gender identity, even though we could not enforce it. So it's still tricky because usually when they say that you're not gonna be able to enforce something, they say that you have to remove it from the law, right? And they didn't do that, so we can leave it there as a dormant unenforceable provision, but again, typically the city attorney's office would not recommend that because it creates confusion and it is keeping our ordinance in a manner that is not actually enforceable. But I said I would pass on the wishes of the commission. I understand where they are coming from. They're hoping if the law then changed again and they made it a floor instead of a ceiling, that that would go right back into effect without the need for further passing of ordinances, and that was their wishes. So obviously, more sections need to be changed if we're taking out gender identity, and that's why there's significantly more sections to amend in the second version. So any questions? And so they did after the law passed, they sent to every local civil rights commission. They sent a letter saying, please you know, turn over any cases you have that are more than 12 months old. We didn't have any.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com