Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Landfill Easement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sioux City approves permanent easement for closed landfill monitoring; council continues farm-lease hearing to March 24
Summary
Council approved a purchase agreement accepting a permanent easement for monitoring wells at the closed Sioux City landfill and continued the public hearing on a related 15-year farm lease to March 24 while staff pursues written guidance from the Iowa DNR and related court materials.
Get email alerts on the Landfill Easement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sioux City Council on March 10 approved a purchase agreement and accepted a permanent easement from Capital Management for monitoring wells at the city’s closed landfill, and then continued a public hearing on a proposed 15-year farm lease related to the same property until March 24.
The permanent easement — described by staff as a 35.5‑acre strip needed to meet Iowa Department of Natural Resources monitoring requirements for the closed landfill — was accepted as part of a purchase agreement that the council approved earlier in the meeting. The council later opened a separate public hearing on a 15‑year farm lease for adjacent property, heard extended public comment and legal explanation from staff, and voted to defer further action until March 24 to allow staff to provide additional documents requested by council members.
The easement was presented by city staff as necessary to comply with IDNR requirements for permanent access to monitoring wells. Amber Hegarty, assistant city attorney, told the council that the city’s legal review concluded the matter did not meet the statute’s definition of a “public improvement,” and therefore the city could not pursue condemnation under eminent domain for additional property if the owner would not agree. “The definition isn’t by public purpose; it’s by a public improvement,” Hegarty said, adding the legal department’s view that the lease/easement arrangement did not meet the statutory standard to support eminent domain.
At the public hearing, resident Rick Bertrand urged the council to exclude a 51‑acre parcel from the proposed lease and instead put that acreage up for public sale or acquire it outright, saying the land had long been used under a series of informal agreements and that selling the parcel would return the property to the tax rolls. “If you want to cut the 51 out and put it up for bid, do it. Put it to a public procurement process,” Bertrand told the council, arguing the city would come out financially neutral or better if it purchased access or the land outright.
City staff said the proposed permanent easement covers roughly 35.5 acres for monitoring and that the broader farm lease under consideration would include additional acres used historically for grazing. Staff also said the lease would be terminable if the city later needed the land for a public purpose. A council member noted that the city had already obtained a purchase agreement (item 16 on the agenda) and that Capital Management could delay executing the easement pending the outcome of the farm-lease hearing.
Council action: The council approved the purchase agreement and acceptance of the permanent easement (item 16) by recorded action earlier in the meeting. The farm-lease resolution (item 17) was opened for public hearing and then deferred: the council voted to continue the hearing to March 24 and asked staff to attempt to provide a written IDNR statement showing the regulatory requirement for a permanent easement and to locate the district-court case their consultant had cited.
Council members and several residents pressed for more documentation about the legal basis for condemning property, practical consequences of fencing off monitoring wells and the specific acreage included in the proposed lease. Staff said the IDNR had granted multiple extensions to the city and that the city must complete the work required by the DNR (staff said the current deadline is in June) or risk noncompliance. Staff also said fencing would be needed to protect monitoring wells from livestock.
The council’s decision to defer the farm-lease hearing gives staff time to supply the requested written materials and for additional council discussion. The council did not adopt the farm lease on March 10; final action will await the continued hearing on March 24.
Votes and formal actions referenced in this article appear on the council’s agenda as items 16 (purchase agreement and permanent easement) and 17 (farm lease).

