Scott.

Hereens.

Here.

Bertrand.

Here.

Rayford.

Here.

Shanner.

Here.

Please stand for a moment of silent prayer followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

Amen.

I collect allegiance.

Interview for the building and housing code board, Todd Hageman.

Todd, come on up and tell us a little bit about yourself and why you want to serve.

Hi, I'm Todd Hageman, applying for the position again.

I've been a part of the building trades for 43 years, so been self-employed for 32.

Just interested in being part of the process.

So I guess that's why I'm here.

This would be the second one, yes.

Questions.

Appreciate your application and your continued interest.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks, Todd.

Civil Service Commission, Andrea Buckley.

Same thing, Andrea.

Tell us a little bit about yourself.

Hi, everybody.

My name is Andrea Buckley.

Most recently I served 11 years with the Sioux Land Community Health Center.

I picked this commission in particular because much of my work with the Sioux Lane Community Health Center was related to their HR policies and procedures and their employment.

Just their general employment, making them a good place to work and to attract employees.

I think so.

I mean, obviously the nonprofit world is different than the public employees.

Thank you.

You got some big shoes to fill.

Are you ready for that?

Um I hope so.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Jacob Wonderside.

What do we got?

Two openings because of elections.

There's only one.

Let me just Rayford's position.

Cindy Hansen got off too.

No, she ended up still on.

Yeah, I was gonna say I think you have a difficult position.

I think you have two really good candidates.

Again, Jacob Wonderscheid.

Oh, here before you spoke, speak.

Sorry.

Um again as an executive director of the the food bank of Sioux Land uh in my role.

Um I do a lot of the things that um I think the civil service commission would do reviewing um job descriptions, looking at and answering those questions about um civil service tests, um uh reviewing those um issues that would come up for for employees.

Um again, one of the biggest things I do at the food bank is want to act with honesty and integrity, and that's what um I could bring to the to the position.

Okay, yeah, you you're correct with it.

This will be a difficult decision because you're both very qualified, more than capable.

That's what's so difficult is having capable interested candidates for these positions and then not being able to address both.

It is a good thing.

Oftentimes, you know, certain commission will sit empty and it's hard to get people to volunteer.

So I hope that either of you know that who members chosen, it's not lack of, it's lack of a second seat.

Yep, yep.

And again, I'd rather you have two good choices than no choices at all.

Absolutely.

And Jacob, you you resigned or your term limited on another committee.

My other one didn't did expire.

Um the um I really enjoyed my time on that committee, but uh a work uh matter uh caused me to have to dial in more often than I felt um comfortable staying on the effective policy um uh committee.

I really liked working with Julie and the uh uh Teresa and the rest of the the staff there, but just with my um food bank um schedule, this this one would work a little bit better.

You know, the effective public policy committee is one put together 20 years ago when I was for and it's it's such an important board.

Yep, and it provides such good input.

So we've got to make sure we've got qualified candidates there too.

Okay, thank you.

We'll have to decide again.

We'll go to the consent agenda, which is three through eleven B today.

You can consider these items passed unanimously unless a separate roll call votes called for by the council.

You want to speak on an item, please come up as I read.

If you want to speak on an item not under the agenda, please come up under citizen concerns.

I'll move the consent agenda.

Second.

Three is a resolution adopting the fourth quarter supplement to the municipal code.

Four is a resolution approving a consulting services agreement with HDR Engineering to complete the bill grant application for the Bacon Creek conduit project.

Can I ask who's here on this item?

Mr.

Pearl.

Gordon, the question I've got is can you help primarily for the three the new uh council members?

Can you help us understand how this consulting agreement and this project ties into the wastewater treatment project as a whole?

Um it doesn't.

It doesn't at all.

No.

This is this is stormwater.

It doesn't tie in at all to the wastewater treatment.

No.

Okay, thank you.

The one we the one we awarded a week or two ago does.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

And that was related to Bacon Creek as well.

Right.

Okay.

Right.

That was the big comes together at the same kind of place.

That's that's what I want to do.

That was to the sanitary sewer that's underneath Bacon Creek channel.

This is for the Bacon Creek conduit that's underneath Gordon Drive, right there in front of Mozak's, uh, that area.

That's the one that's being rebuilt with the DOT for the Gordon Drive Viaduct.

Okay.

Great.

Thank you.

Gordon, I have a question for you.

Uh so uh if this grant isn't awarded to us, is is there a contingency or would this work continue?

I mean, what what would happen with this project?

If we don't award it to these guys, then uh we we could do a couple of things.

We could go out to get another con um consultant to look at it.

Um they're pretty extensive grant applications.

That's why it's no what he's asking is if you don't get the I think the the grant itself, if you don't get it, what's your alternative to replace that conduit?

The city's gonna pay for that.

This is just to help pay for it.

So if we don't get the grant, we're gonna have to find other funds.

And we're trusting this firm because they've had experience in rights for that particular yes.

They've already we've already contracted with them for another um application for another grant for the same project.

They're gonna go out and find the money.

This is the same the the HDR is the same firm that the DOT uses.

So again, the money that we allocated last week is for utilities.

We can't pay for utilities out of the road use fund.

So we have to do is we have to go out and find additional funds.

These guys can go out and find the grants.

It's actually working in um in conjunction with uh the DOT.

So this is a good play.

I'm not a big fan, again, for spending money, but this is one of those ones where I just it's part of the process.

There's a way bigger picture that's gonna be unrolled to us um by the DOT and those here in the next you know, six months that it's gonna excite the city and uh with the new council that's gonna push it a different direction.

That but this is the first step, so it's good support.

Thanks for the clarification.

And I do want to um choice a fetch finance director.

I did want to clarify that we do have a grant um services agreement with HDR as well to um to provide the throughout this.

So we'll be just starting here in the next week or so for them to do an analysis for all of our um main projects and whatnot, but this does tie in with that as well.

So you know, thanks.

Five is a resolution opting plans and specs for the central maintenance garage vehicle and C O NO2 project.

Six are appointments to boards, commissions, and committees.

A is a motion reappointing Robert DeSmitt to the Active Transportation Advisory Committee upon due consideration of the circumstances of City Council Ways of policy that no person shall serve more than two consecutive terms.

B is a motion reappointing Jamie Bell to the Art Center Board of Trustees.

C is a motion according Eric Colma to the Building and Housing Code Board.

D is a motion appointing Todd Evans to the Building and Housing Code Board.

E is a motion reappointing Samantha Daly to the environmental advisory board.

Epp is a motion appointing Bob Fitzmeyer to the environmental advisory board.

G is a motion reappointing Steve Warren to to the Gilead Gillian Kosovo Sister City Committee.

H is a motion appointing Tim Clark to the Museum Board of Trustees.

I is a motion appointing Joe Craig to the Parks and Recreation reappointing to the Parks and Rec Board.

J is a motion appointing Brett Myers to the Yamanashi City Sister City Committee.

K is a motion reappointing Nathan Swartz to the Yamanashi City Sister, sister city committee.

Seven reactions relating to grants.

A is a resolution authorizing submission of an airport terminal grant application to the FAA to fund the airport terminal improvement project at the airport.

B is a resolution authorizing execution of an IDOT federal aid agreement for the surface transportation block grant program for Hamilton Boulevard Mill and Overlay Project Phase 2.

Aid or actions related to the process.

Mayor, can I go back quickly?

On projects like 7B, can I just ask that we if there's a map that you can I think we've all got a general sense of where you're describing Hamilton Boulevard 15th Street Attor, but can we get in the materials a map of the area as well?

Would that be possible for all of our projects?

Yes, please.

Certainly.

Thank you.

Aid or actions relating to personnel.

A is a resolution amending the statement of authorized personnel complement by reclassifying one position of administrative assistance risk manager coordinator in the legal department.

B is a resolution amending resolution number 25-0494, which approved the wage reopener of the Sioux City Firefighters Association, Local 7, International Association of Firefighters by approving a memorandum of understanding appendix A.

Salary schedule that includes additional fire bargain classification listing for the fire lieutenants and fire captains.

Move to possess an EMTA and paramedic situation classification.

Can we have somebody come up and talk about this?

Who's here?

Hey, Neil Paulson, 4530 Manor Circle, uh, current president of the local seven firefighters association.

Um since you guys quick email before I came up here, I hope you all got that or don't have access to work email outside of the job.

So um anyway, if you mind would you want me to read what I wrote or please?

Yeah, so um on the subjects of the MOU.

Um it's an agreement for a difference in how the certification pay was calculated for our officers regarding their EMTA and paramedic pay um through the process.

We thought we had come to an agreement on that.

Um we were waiting on the finalization from finance.

We did sign a TA, it was just the signature page from TA on the promise that everything had been changed on the financial end of it.

Um after the fact that that when we finally got the whole copy of it, it came out that it wasn't what we thought we had negotiated on, so we had some more meetings, came up with this MOU to correct that.

It's currently being paid the correct way.

Uh, and this was just the formal process they wanted us to go through to get up here and go through the MOU in front of council.

So that's where I'm standing on that issue.

Well, our two choices are we still considering the improvement for one of them was like 30 some thousand, the other was 55,000.

On the topic of the training office that's a that's a separate item.

Right.

Yeah.

I have a question for by negotiating team.

How could we have this misunderstanding?

I still don't understand it.

And again, misunderstandings happen.

I get it.

But if this takes council action, why have we been paying them?

What if the council were to say no today?

Um, if we want to go back to negotiation, we can talk about really why it was presented the way it was.

Um, our intent on our end was to um clean up the salary schedules.

So right now, each one of those classifications requires a new a different salary schedule.

So instead of having three salary schedules, we had nine salary schedules.

So that was really the goal.

Um now it was once we put it in place.

Um we thought that there was an understanding, they understood how it would be paid.

Unfortunately, um, when you go to pay um and ad pay, it doesn't include that's not included on overtime and deferred compass and calculated with that um with that wage.

Um, however, that is how it was budgeted.

So really um when we went into negotiation, um anything that we did for ad pay would have been a reduction to what was budgeted.

So um we didn't have an implication to the budget.

Um, and I mean Janelle can speak on the MOU and why it's coming back to council.

Um, but from our standpoint, really our intent um going into was to clean up the salary schedules um with an unintended consequence that um calculating with an ad pay would not include um overtime, that wage wouldn't be included in overtime or in um the deferred comp calculation.

So that really wasn't the intent.

Um and I thought I at that time, you know, I thought we had an understanding that they understood that that how it would be calculated, but clearly that wasn't the case.

So that's what happened during the negotiation now.

Why it the MOU has to come back to council, that's something Janelle can say.

Well, no, I won't.

I mean, so we didn't budget for this, so we had a we did budget, we budgeted because the way that we're currently this the MOU states right now is how we're currently paying in and has always paid in.

We have always paid it that way, that's how it was budgeted.

When we went into negotiation, we we I'll just take responsibility.

I had the grand idea of cleaning up the salary schedules, so that was the goal.

Um, but in that case, the way it would have been would have been calculated under an ad pay, it would have actually been a reduction to the budget because we would not have had um that pay on overtime or deferred comp.

Okay, I'm just so it's not an increase in the budget.

I just don't understand how we're even here today.

I don't get it.

I don't know how you can negotiate and think you got an agreement, and two sides can back later and I think we went through that and um we talked about asking more questions if there really isn't an understanding or being more clear, but when we when we presented it to them, we thought they understood that it was like a different type of pay that they received, but that's not what they they understood.

So in the spirit of the negotiation, the intent was not to not pay them on the here we got a vote yes today.

Well so it's budget neutral and what you'll be presenting us on the operating budget couple weeks already reflects this as well.

And it's always been calculated that way.

This would have been a change to the to the current calculation.

That's what I don't get.

You think you thought you had a contract, and so why didn't you change the way you were paying it if you got it?

Well, we did.

Um, and um at the time that we determined that that again the understanding wasn't there, we were notified that they didn't that's not how they understood it to be, so we've corrected it.

Again, because the I'll go back to my first qua second question then if this takes council approval and you thought you had a contract, why are you paying it until council approves it?

Mainly because I asked them to bring forward an MOU so the council had a full understanding of what was occurring instead of amending the full contract, we did it as a memorandum of understanding so there would be no future misunderstandings.

Is that okay right?

Less now thanks to the So is this a I mean is it a classification change?

So it's is not no, it's really just a change in the salary schedule.

So it's now going back and reverting back to how we've always calculated it.

Um during the negotiation, we were going to change the calculation to what we call an ad pay.

Um now it they will have all of those different salary schedules.

So for example, there'll be a Janelle Bertrand human resources director, there'll be a lieutenant, a lieutenant EMTA, and a lieutenant paramedic.

Three for just lieutenant, and there'll be three for captain.

We were trying to eliminate six and just have two.

No questions.

Thank you.

See as a resolution amending the authorized personnel complement, the position classification manual and the safety schedule by adding the position titles and job descriptions, EMS training officer, the EMS lead medic and reclassifying one position of the emergency medical technician, lead medic training officer to EMS training officer and reclassifying three positions of emergency medical technical lead medic training order to EMS lead medicine authorized said positions in the fire department.

This is the one you had a question.

Yeah, this is the one.

Sure.

You go first.

Neil Paulson, Lupus 7 president.

With this uh change, first off, thank you, and congrats to you guys for getting up here.

Uh look forward to working with you.

Um in regards to action item 8C, um, we would like to support the alternative option for that.

Uh we feel that the proposed uh proposed conversion of the existing position for primarily pay reasons is not addressing the deficiencies, need or opportunities of the EMS uh training officer position.

Locking this position into a single role provider position will continue to hamper the position's potential to benefit the department's training and capabilities.

The benefits far outweigh the negatives by bringing this position in line with our existing department hierarchy and promotional processes.

Um we encourage you to ask the following questions to our chief in regard to the position.

Um not only got that.

So one is if uh do you feel it would be more beneficial for this position to be a fire deputy training officer versus an EMS only training officer?

And the fire deputy officer will have EMS.

It will be a brand new position, though.

Right, but they'll have both EMS and FIRE.

Correct.

So in the position currently, you'd be required to, and I believe it's on that job description there.

Um, you know, have your your uh EMS instructor, paramedic, ACLS, PALs, all our advanced certifications, and able to instruct those.

Uh in addition to that, it you'll have to have your fire instructor one, um, any other certifications that are required.

So you'll do all the duties that were listed in that job description, plus you'd be able to transition and work with the fire on that side doing our suppression training.

Um, you already have a training officer?

We have one training officer currently.

Yeah, so on the fire side, it will be an additional.

We'll be able we we are definitely in need of a third.

Um, but in addition to that, the EMS training officer can't cross over right now if it's a single role.

Because they're not fire.

They're not a firefighter.

So by having that position in there, um, it will counter some of our overtime pay that we currently pay some of our uh instructors to come in off duty.

So there are ways that this will pay for itself over time over the course of the year by negating some overtime and my members might be upset.

So Neil, that's the question I got on that.

So on the on the overtime side of it, so the you're looking at the difference between a 30,000 and 52.

So you're really asking a 22,000 difference to extend the role.

But with the extended role, it could you is it it's going to basically whack why uh wipe out the overtime opportunities that you were spending on the other role.

Is it I mean is it?

Yeah, and just the few we pointed out.

I think we can eat up that 22 with the eight negated of overtime.

And is this part of the process which you guys did?

I was paying attention, Chief, when we sat of the when you guys moved the EMS over, uh, was it like 15 employees or something like that?

Is it walk us through that again as this part of that process?

Ryan Collins Fire Chief.

So in 2017, when we when we implemented the EMS transport service, part of that was establishing four lead medic positions.

Three of them were assigned to the operations division, meaning that they were the ones going out and responding to calls.

The other one was assigned to our training division, and they're responsible for managing uh the EMS certifications, developing training protocols, CQI, a host of list of uh other roles and responsibilities that were completely separate from the from the operations lead medics.

The problem is all four were lumped into one just job description, even though they had completely separate roles and responsibilities and work schedules.

The operations personnel were working 2448s, meaning that they were working 2,912 hours a year.

Excuse me.

The the lead medic who was in the training was only working 2,080 hours a year, a standard 40-hour work week.

When FLSA comes into play, um EMS personnel are were required to pay them overtime for anything over 40 hours per week.

So what happens then is now we have four lead medics, three of them are making 32 percent more than the one in the training division.

That EMS training officer position is now vacant.

The person that would held that position since 2017 has left, and now we're having recruitment issues.

We can't find anybody that would fill that position because they're gonna take a significant pay cut.

So that's that's why we're here.

That's why we separated the the job classifications out so that the roles and responsibilities are clearly delineated between the two, and then we can adjust the pay scale to bring into parity with the other lead medics based on that hourly range, wage.

Does that make sense?

Chief kind of where we're at.

Do I remember correctly?

The overtime component is in the collective bargaining agreement as well.

Yes.

So because the EMS or the lead medic on the operation side, because they work at fifty an average of 56 hours per week, by law, we have to pay them 16 hours overtime per week.

That's their guarantee, the 56 hours.

Yeah, it's it's when you say guaranteed, it's not guaranteed because if they take a sick leave or a vacation date, they're not making up those 40 hours a week.

So they so they're not receiving that.

But if they work 40 hour week and they get to 56, that's the same.

If they work that full week, they will receive that 16 hours or time.

Right.

Well, the workload was also brought to my attention that the fire training officer, that captain, um, handles about 30,000 hours of training that he's accountable for.

That's correct.

As of the number of firefighters.

They have 30,000 hours of training, and he manages that process to make sure every firefighter has the training, has signed it up for it, completed it, it's documented, et cetera.

And the EMS TO on the EMS side, that training personnel handles around 2,000 to 2500 hours.

So where does this fit in with having the cross training that we've been working towards?

We wanted firefighters who are EMS so that they can do both.

Right.

So that's the goal, right?

So in 2024, due to recruitment challenges, we couldn't get enough paramedics to apply.

So we we separated out, we we um we designated 15 positions for fire personnel.

So right now, every single day we do have fire personnel that are assigned to an ambulance.

So we are cross servicing the community, making sure that we have enough staffing to run ambulances at least a minimum staffing level.

Um from a training perspective, the the fire training officer will deal with the fire training, the EMS officer deals with the CQI, the the EMS training, the licensure management.

Um it's it's not something that's the same.

Sorry?

For the entire department.

That's what I'm saying.

He's already cross-training.

The well when you say EMS training officer?

No.

The MS training officer, does he train firefighters?

No.

For for EMS related training, yes.

Yeah, that's yes, he does.

But not he's not a firefighter, is what I'm saying.

But he doesn't he doesn't provide firefighter or technical rescue training.

Firefighters are gonna train firefighters for firefighting.

Right.

EMS are gonna train whoever a firefighter or an EMS paramedic, whatever.

Right.

They're gonna train.

That's correct.

You guys will never be happy until they're all firefighters.

I get that.

We see an opportunity to make this position better.

Yeah, but we do you know what that's what it but it always costs money.

That's my problem.

We did what we you asked us to do and got rid of a bunch of EMTs and paramedics, and now here we are.

And then what really bothers me more than anything about this is that's really not as much to do with this position.

Is other departments have to wait till the budget process, but by gala, we're gonna do this today.

This this is a vacant position that we cannot fill.

And we have legal obligations.

We have to have an EMS training officer in order for us to continue our but it just depends on whose ox is being gored around City Hall, who gets to replace these ahead of time ahead of the budget process.

We have a budget process for a reason.

And that always bothers me that we pick and choose winners outside of that process.

I don't think that's right.

Well, we did let I can just speak to that a little bit.

So we did meet as hiring justification on replacements.

So we met and heard the the obligations that this current position has.

So I instructed them to put it on an agenda ahead of the budget process just because of the responsibility.

Only because of this position.

I understand all that, but we're still we get to pick winners and losers here today, and that bothers the heck of the code.

Mayor Scott to clarify, we did not eliminate any positions.

We added the fire capability to 15 of those positions.

They are still EMTs and paramedics working those animals.

I didn't say you did.

I said you wanted extra people being firefighters, and we voted for that.

I remember it was just a reclassification of job positions.

The same number of people still do those jobs.

I I'm not arguing any of that.

And with our current recruitment issues, it I'm glad we did what we did when we did, because we're have the same problem, if not worse right now.

So, Chief, does this affect certification and is there a period of time where you've got uh concern that so right now our fire training officer uh has assumed all the roles and responsibilities of the of the former EM officer?

Um so a lot he's had to really prioritize a lot of the things that he's doing.

Um so um you know getting him the relief that he needs as soon as possible.

Um I know would be uh much appreciated.

Um I'll do I will say that um statewide uh we looked at many of the other fire departments uh and specifically their training divisions, and on average um there are about one training officer per 56 personnel.

Uh if we only look at fire, we're at one training officer per 120 firefighters.

Uh so the the ratio we're we're a little bit uh lean in the training division office.

Um and it's hard to compare apples to apples because we're very unique in the state in where that we have an EMS division where it's that we have civilian personnel, uh, where a lot of the other departments that are fire-based EMS are are pretty much all firefighters.

So we're a little bit unique.

So the staff recommendation is to replace based on the the position review committee's recommendation is to replace it with an EMS training officer that comes from the EMS division.

So do we think that um there be any ripple effects, you know, with other departments or are there you know?

I don't see that being ripple effects with other departments, um, but this could this could we could be coming back again and again based on in the future if we have any recruitment and retention challenges within the position and really part of the question becomes if we permit this today and we start visiting with you in the next two or three weeks on the operating budget, which will include this position.

Is it going to affect your ability to recruit over the next couple of weeks?

If not, the the financial impact is irrelevant until you hire the position.

Right.

Yeah, this is this is just the first step.

Um we still need to uh get our proof to the civil service commission, still have to develop testing procedures, uh, and then we have to get qualified applicants.

Has this been put out there, the job opening yet?

No, this is the first step.

We we have to do this.

We had to separate the two in order to wage up uh increase that wage uh so that we can bring parity with the other lead medics to entice people to apply.

So to the mayor's comment.

The request right now has virtually no impact.

We'll deal with it when we meet with you later in the month on the operating budget, and then it'll have an impact.

Because what Bob is saying is why is this coming out of the normal course of the budget cycle?

Effectively it will.

Yes, yes, and and I will say that we do have legal obligations to fill this position from a state um EMS continuum education standards.

We have to have a dedicated EMS training officer on staff, or someone that's capable of providing that type of training.

If the alternative is chosen with the deputy training officer, that position could be filled tomorrow.

We have an applic our promotional list in place, there's qualified applicants on that list, so this could be done tomorrow.

But then the alternative is then that increase, right?

Of 22,000.

Yeah, 2,000.

Yeah, you guys are timing is always great on these issues.

It's right before the old smokers.

So then if you vote no today, you you really look good when you go to that smoking.

Which we look forward to hosting you all on Wednesday and Thursday.

I don't think I'll be coming, but go ahead and well.

Chief question.

Surely miss.

Yes, sir.

I guess the question is is that as we start as a new council, the question we need to ask on every issue is what are the taxpayers get for this?

I know it's very simple.

What does the guy get that's having the heart of tackle in the middle of Alice Street?

Does this make it say does it does it help him?

How does it help?

How does it help the taxpayers?

22 grand is what we're talking about.

And it probably won't be tacked on until the next budget anyway.

So but the position is being filled because obligation, it's a transition.

So what do what's the what's the citizen get for this?

What's the difference if we hire one of the other?

So this uh department for you guys.

Um what are the other that they're both going to provide um a level of training to ensure that anybody that's right in an ambulance or anybody that's responding to that cardiac arrest call is fully competent uh to do the to the critical tasks that are necessary?

Um to President Paulson's point, uh, if that alternative selected, uh then that just offers um a little bit more flexibility and capacity within the training division because they're able to assist with the fire side as well.

Uh but that costs more but by what about alleviating that overtime though?

That go towards how do you measure that?

Because we've never been able to make sure over time in the fire department.

Difficult to measure that there is live fire training, there is hazmat training special that would we often have to bring in overtime to fill.

Um it's I can't give you an accurate number on that, how much money that would save in overtime.

That that was my question as well.

Do you have a sense of what kind of overtime cost reductions would apply?

Uh we do approximately I mean it's about ten thousand dollars just in the live fire trainings alone.

If that one person, that one position offsets an adjunct instructor that's brought in on overtime, just that one offset is 10 grand, just with our live fire.

Now there's all sorts of specialty trainings that we do, uh, rope rescues, hazmat, um that those also have hours where overtime is brought in to instruct those courses where this could be used to offset those hours.

And the firefighters require that many more hours of certification every year and training.

Wow.

Because that is a huge difference, 30,000 hours that one person is responsible for tracking, scheduling, making sure it's complete.

But isn't that because you have many because there's so many more of them?

There's a there's 120 fire suppression.

We're talking I understand that, but still I'm just talking workflows.

One person is a good thing.

Right.

268 hours a year is whatever.

Right.

So your captain is not only managing that 30,000 hours of training, he's also now managing in the interim the 2500 right.

And at the end of the day, we still have a compliance and a regulation issue, right?

And that and that's the main thing.

That's why I kind of like the alternative because maybe we can resolve this sooner without falling out of compliance and putting anyone at risk.

Well, last comment for me is is I think that um it helps the conversion, I guess, to what you guys are trying to accomplish.

But I think from uh you know, get something, take something away.

I can probably say that my my focus is going to be is when we enter into the budget process is that we're just gonna look for 22,000 somewhere else in that budget.

If you want to shift your budget around, great.

Um if it makes sense to make the department more efficient and what you want to do, great.

But I think that just come with an open mind and expectations that we're that my goal is probably to find that 22 somewhere else in the budget as we review it and and uh to smooth it off if that makes sense from a fiscal standpoint.

We're I'm here to not grow government, but to make it more efficient.

If you're telling me it's more efficient, let's do it.

If it's part of the you know, again, uh you don't need a EMT until you're leaning the road.

And uh it's a it's very very important to this community, and uh but that's kind of where my focus is we'll find in the budget on the back side on unless you want to make a motion, Julie.

Well, can we make a motion to pull out 8C and bring it back next week?

Do what?

Pull it out and bring it back.

Do whatever you want to do.

So that we can consider the alternative because I don't think we're gonna make it over read or knew anything about the alternative.

Yeah, we didn't get your email because we were tied up in uh right.

So I feel like I'm gonna move that we pull 8C and bring it back next week.

So if I may ask a question, um if you're moving to defer, it would come back as current as a person.

That's true.

Is there a direction to staff to bring it back with both alternatives?

Move it to accept it as a firefighter position rather than an EMT position.

Well, the alternative, that's what that is.

And the alternative is in the proposal, so I don't know.

But you don't know the alternative is in the it's not yes, it's not in the RCA.

If you want to move it, make it a fire fire, do you have to move that as an amendment?

And the resolution is currently not drafted to incorporate that.

So what is in front of the council today would need to be altered?

Okay.

Is anybody here from EMS to weigh in?

Janelle Burtrand Human Resources Director.

If we defer this, I think it's only fair that we give the AFSME PATS union representative an opportunity to come to present information as well.

So for purposes of having it be cleaner, um, perhaps a deletion, and then um bringing it back with both of them and options specified.

Do we bring two RCAs then and let them vote down one and vote the other one up?

Um potentially, or we can just have one on the agenda with the alternate already drafted as an attachment to the RCA, so the council could just move to swap that out.

Okay, I'll move I'll second that.

Bernstein.

I Bertrand.

Aye.

Rayford.

I.

Scott.

No, I'm ready to vote today.

D is a resolution.

Amending the authorized personnel.

Position classification manual and salary schedule by adding the position title and job description of transcript transcription and redaction specialists and reclassifying two positions of the word processor to transcription and redaction specialists and reclassifying one part-time position of word processor to transcription and redaction specialists and the authorizing said positions in the police department.

Nine are purchasing A is a resolution awarding a purchase order to converge one for the extreme network switches.

B is a resolution awarding a purchase order to Faro Technologies for Faro Focus Corps, laser scanner for the police department.

C is a resolution awarding a purchase order to Woodhouse, Ford Chrysler for one Chevrolet Trailblazer, tenor applications for liquor and licenses, 11 or beer commission and committee minutes.

Anyone to be heard on any of those items?

On the consent agenda, you would vote electronically using that.

Did you vote?

Who didn't?

Everybody voted.

Oh, I'm sorry, past five-zero.

Twelve is a hearing resolution approving plans and specs for the Isabella Square and Lyons Park area HMA resurfacing project.

I'll move that.

Second.

Public hearings now open.

Anyone to be heard?

Seeing none, the hearing is closed.

Remember to state your name for the record.

Brett Watchhorn, uh, Morningside Network, need your address?

I never know.

Nope, you don't need it.

Cool.

Well, uh, I I forgot that last time I wanted to uh start all of my uh any time I'm up here with, I don't remember the uh first amendment having a three-minute time limit, but you know, that just happens.

Uh other than that, um I'd like to welcome the new council members.

I from what I've seen today, I'm pleased so far with your uh candor.

Um I will also like to um uh lay a request at the uh council, uh the same one I did at the outgoing council, actually.

Um I would like to see uh revisiting of the uh meeting time.

Uh I'm soon not going to be able to make these meetings, and the uh city attorney and manager have said that they have no interest in trying to gain any kind of uh community interaction through the YouTube broadcast.

So I would just like to see that revisited, and I hope the new members would like to uh see that as well.

I just want to see more interaction up here.

And uh when it comes to the YouTube thing, I thought about it again, and I realize the only argument the uh city attorney has against comments on YouTube is that they're afraid of a lawsuit for blocking someone.

And I realized well, there's an easy solution to that.

You don't block anybody.

The first amendment is the right of all of us, and we have the right to be heard.

That's why their lawsuit would exist if they block someone.

Uh that's all I got.

Thanks, y'all.

Once again, welcome.

Thank you.

Anyone else be heard being none?

We'll go to council concerns, Mr.

Bertran.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

First council concerns, not really concerns, just uh, I was told this at the time with were uh with the city manager if we wanted to add things to the agenda or something next week.

Um kind of as we as people have asked for more transparency and more public debate at these things at these meetings.

Um I'm gonna ask um our city manager to start adding some things to the agenda, just some standing discussions.

If that makes first, I'd like to ask uh Mike to add Chief Mueller um to the weekly agenda simply because I know the day after the um election that you guys formed a homeless tax fork um that is being implemented.

And we would love to have just a real-time update basically on the task force, really talking about hot spots, um, the communication that's out there, um, um uh that's that's the progress of the task force on a weekly basis just because from a priority standpoint, I think this is not just a uh a community concern, but it's an economic concern.

So would love to hear from the chief every week.

Just give us an update on where we're at, if that's okay.

Um and it can be as brief as it is.

Just an opportunity for us to ask questions and interact with you on a weekly basis would be fantastic on that end of it.

Second of all, um, I'd also ask Mr.

City Manager to ask um our permitting department.

Um I don't want to hear from Daryl.

I would rather hear from Brian and from Henry.

I would like to hear um the permits that were submitted for the week.

I would also like to hear what permits are sitting in the queue, how long they've been sitting in the queue, um, what's holding them up, and an opportunity to interact with them and a dialogue on what's going on there.

Um so I would ask that that uh that would come from Henry and from Brian on a weekly basis that we can interact with them.

Also, I'd like to have them provide an update on their communication with the economic development team, Mr.

Meyer, and those Marty Doherty's department, and as they receive these permits, are they actually reaching out to the economic development team?

And we can we're gonna we're gonna we're gonna close that bridge between permitting and what's available in economic development, and that gives us an opportunity as a council to start having those discussions on a weekly basis.

Also, I'd like to have Mike set up a process for uh business and for public uh retaliation complaints coming out of uh anywhere within the city.

Um I think right now when things come in, we kind of dismiss a lot of this, especially from the business community.

I want an opportunity because when we when when complaints come in from the business opportunity, I don't care if it's uh excessive uh harassment on job sites or anything, that I want to be able to put documentation in place that if we see a pattern start to emerge that we can address this.

The era of retaliation from this uh economic department, or I shouldn't say from this perm from the permitting and from the uh engineering department stops today.

Um retaliation in the city city of Sioux City is over when it comes to our building community.

We're going to bring our builders back.

If not, we're gonna find people that will.

Um also then I'd like to move forward and ask for uh Mike, if you line up with Theresa, um Theresa did a really nice, where's Theresa?

Did a really nice presentation of uh let's re-educate the public on what the levy, what property taxes mean when it comes to our city portion of it, if that makes sense.

She did a great presentation explaining what portion of our budget, a total budget comes from the levy, what can we control, and how easy or how hard it will be for this council to buy it down because uh the goal of this council uh is to buy it down now or in three years with a new council.

So I think Teresa, we'd love to have an update just for the council itself, but also that we can share with the public on what really is collected from the city from our levy and what we can control up here from these desks, please.

Um also would like to see um it's gonna be a couple of long meetings, guys, but this is kind of where we're at at the beginning.

I'd also like to see Mike, you line up with Tom.

Tom, are you still in here?

They're here.

Um wastewater treatment is a huge issue right now.

Are we overbuilding?

Are we underbuilding?

Uh, is the people involved where are we at?

I just like to have an update for this council on where we at with the design budget.

Are we on budget?

Are they pushing dollars past into the into the build phase?

We want to make sure we don't end up in the same situation that they had in San Antonio with the same firm.

Um we want to get it get get our hands around this um uh this wastewater treatment plant before it gets away from us and falls eventually back on the hands of the the laps of the taxpayers.

So would love to have some straight talk there to give us an opportunity to ask some questions directly with you in there.

Love it.

You're doing a great you're doing a good job.

Uh you when I made my rounds, I thought you were very, very upfront and and and candid with me, and I appreciated that.

I look forward um uh to pulling this project.

This council looks forward to pulling that project through.

Um also uh almost done, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh, I'd like to see us pull.

I know I was talking to, I think it was Jill, uh, right after the election, they'd heard some of the rhetoric.

Um I I know they're in the process of putting a list together for all of the public-owned properties.

That's the loose lots.

That is everything that is owned, receiving a lease, anything from the public.

We want to get a hard look at that list.

The public needs to get a harder look at what is the process to either get rid of this property, put it back on the tax rolls.

Um it's time.

Uh we're not landlords.

Um, and and and we've got some discussion we can we can use with the county when it comes to those lots also.

Um so please, Mike, on that.

Um, and then uh really lastly on this this part of it is I'd like to get in the one person that I I purposely did not meet with, and I'm going to is parks and rec Matt.

Um is Matt in here.

I don't think he is.

Um I'd love I love for us to Matt to come in and give not just the the council but the public an update.

Uh they've got some great data on how many parks we have, how dated our park system is, how parks relate to economic development and low-income housing and affordable housing.

It's time for us to think different as a community.

It's time for us to think big, not get upset when we start to make these kind of changes.

And I believe the parks department is part of a new uh boom in economic development and affordable housing within our industry.

We have an outdated park system, so I'd love to have uh Matt come in and give us an update and allow this council to interact.

Other than that, Mr.

Mayor, it's been a great first meeting.

I wish I would have been part of the last seven weeks when you guys were able to push through and spend millions of dollars on a lame duck session, but I was not available.

We were not available for that, so I guess we're gonna move forward with uh some resolutions and some simple things until we jump in.

So thank you.

And uh I look forward to 2026.

Greg.

Um very quickly, I appreciate Rick some of your summary.

It's the the agenda that you outlined is is really pretty consistent with what I think Ike and Rick and I learned on the campaign trail, and I think we look forward to dealing with those issues, getting more information and more updates and moving forward um with the concerns that were shared with us during the process.

I do want the one I want to pull out in particular is the homelessness and the transient population issue.

Um, I think it's fair to say that throughout the last three or four months when Ike and Rick and the other candidates were part of the process of the campaigning process, we consistently heard that issue.

And I know I had a nice opportunity to visit with Rex.

I think he's still there, is um and so I think I I would really like to better understand what process and what timeline and how we're gonna bring the stakeholders together to better understand how we can manage this issue.

Um so if we could get something, Mike, in the relatively near future, I would appreciate that.

Um Brent, I wanted to comment on your comments.

Um I I think I can speak for the whole council when I say we would appreciate and um welcome more participation at these meetings.

As a matter of fact, the mayor, when we were sworn in on on Friday, made a plea to a packed standing room only crowd requesting that we get more participation and more attendance on these meetings.

I do believe, and Mike, maybe you can correct me.

I do believe that we talked in the past about adjusting the timing and the availability of these meetings, and I would certainly encourage that discussion.

I'm not sure that it works.

I think four o'clock tends to on Mondays tends to be the most available time for the citizenry, but I'm certainly happy to revisit it if there are opportunities as well.

Um that's it.

Thank you, Mayor.

Mike.

Oh, thank you.

Um, I you know, echo what I've heard.

Uh first and foremost, I do want to thank the city staff, Mike and such for uh the the wonderful orientation uh that we received over the last few weeks.

Uh it's been uh a lot to to learn and and so can and so thank uh each department head and everyone for for that.

And uh I I would just you know echo that it would love to see more uh citizen uh concerns and and those things so we can uh definitely be responsive uh to those issues and those things.

Uh but other than that, uh I am just happy to be here and uh and to listen and be responsive to the the concerns and needs of our city.

Um welcome to our new members.

Um it's refreshing to hear and see your energy.

Um I agree with Rick on the housing for sure.

Um when you reference Jill, you're right.

We do have some inventory that needs to be put out there and made available.

We're just coming off the tail end of making that happen with all of our non-conforming lots in Sioux City, and that's kind of been the hurdle.

Is that those are non-conforming lots?

They're not 5,000 square feet.

We don't have room for a 25-foot setback, etc.

But we've already made the changes ahead of time.

Uh Jill is just wrapping up, getting all of these properties um appraised.

We've acquired some from the county that are within the city limits that we'd like to see developed on.

We've already changed minimum square footage.

So if we want some small cottages as small as 400 square feet, which we've heard the public ask us for, those zoning changes have already been made.

They don't have to be 25 foot setbacks, they don't have to be a 5,000 square foot lot.

We're ready for this.

So we're just following the laws and getting these lots assessed or appraised so that we know how we can offer them up to small developers who do want to conduct some info.

Uh parks and rec has given us some land that they were not using that we're going to be introducing to this mix as well.

So I agree wholeheartedly, we have too many parks in the city, and I hate to say that because I don't mean it in a bad way, but we are paying for maintenance of 60 parks in a city of 87,000, and that's a lot of parks.

And so many times when we're gonna uh bulldoze a building, or for example, the LEC over here, the county's gonna take it down or have it taken down.

And I saw uh quite a few comments of people saying green space, let's make a park.

And a park doesn't bring revenue, it doesn't help with increasing tax dollars so that we don't have to increase our level.

We put something there that's going to bring revenue, bring some tax dollars, that's what makes a difference.

So on the housing piece, on the low-income housing, the affordable housing, I think we just have to realize we need it, and we can't say that we can't do it.

We we have been increasing that, and we are just on a such a great trajectory towards making a difference on both affordable and attainable workforce housing and above.

So it's all levels.

There's no magic number for affordable housing, it's accessible housing to everyone, is how I really feel about that.

Related to that, Julie, can I ask a quick question?

Uh maybe you know this answer.

What was the timeline on the traffic study for the Libra development?

I don't think it's said sometime in January.

Yep.

I knew it wasn't done.

I just didn't know when they said that they were gonna why wouldn't you pass it before the track?

Why wouldn't you pass it before the traffic studies done?

Okay, thank you.

Should have waited.

Move we adjourn.

Whoops.

Aye.

Rayford.

Aye, Shannard.

Scott?

We'll work on these items.

Thank you.

Yep, yeah.