North Sioux City council answers questions about upcoming election
NORTH SIOUX CITY, S.D. (KCAU) — North Sioux City is just over three weeks away from its municipal election.
Absentee voting for the April 8 election begins next Monday, March 24 at 8 a.m. It will take place at the North Sioux City city hall. The absentee voting period ends at 5 p.m. on April 7.
Sioux City council votes to amend Marina Dredging Project agreement
There are 10 candidates, two each in the five open positions for the new commissioner form of government. A candidate town hall is set for March 24 from 7 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the council chambers at city hall.
Council members discussed the frequently-asked questions for this election during Monday's meeting.
'The FAQs is for people to kind of see what the election's about, how it will unfold, where to vote and all that stuff,' city administrator Jeff Dooley said. 'And it's basically questions that have been asked of us over time from different constituents, and so we just kind of compiled it all into a FAQs so people can look at and see what other people have asked and what the answers are.'
Council members also appointed three election judges for the April 8 election, which is required by state law. Debra Livermore is the precinct superintendent, while David Layhee and Sherry Caba are the precinct deputies.
Iowa bill requiring parental consent for minors using tanning beds passed by House
'We have three election judges for every election that we have, and they sit there from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. to make sure things go right and then help us count the votes at the end,' Dooley said. 'We're very thankful for the help they give us because without them we can't… it's hard to have an election, so they do a good job for us and we really appreciate it. '
The municipal election will take place at the North Sioux City Community Center on April 8 from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
31 minutes ago
- CBS News
Colorado Congressman Joe Neguse pushes back against plan to sell millions of acres of public land
Republicans in the U.S. Senate have introduced a proposal to sell millions of acres of federal land in eleven western states, including Colorado. The proposal is part of President Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" and would require the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service to auction off 2.2 - 3.3 million acres of land. Colorado has more than 24 million acres of federal land, which is about 36% of the state's total area. The BLM manages 8.3 million acres, and the Forest Service manages 16 million acres. Under the proposal, the two federal agencies would publish a list of parcels for sale every sixty days. They would give priority to land identified by state or local governments that is near existing development and infrastructure. National parks, monuments and recreation or wilderness areas would be excluded, and the land could only be used to develop housing. Colorado Democratic Congressman Joe Neguse managed to kill a similar proposal in the House. The Senate version is far more expansive, and he says it should concern anyone who cares about public lands, "In my view, this is a five-alarm fire for hunters, for ranchers, for fishermen, for recreationists, for conservationists," said Neguse. Secretary of Interior Doug Burgum says the federal government owns about 640 million acres and the proposal would leave 99% of the land untouched. "This is not about our most sacred and beautiful places. This is often about barren land next to highways with existing billboards that have no recreational value," Burgum said. Burgum says the public will be allowed to weigh in on the sales, but the final decision on what land is privatized will be up to the federal agencies. Neguse says public lands belong to everyone and should be held in trust for future generations, "Some of my most meaningful memories as a kid growing up in Colorado, camping with my parents, hiking with my dad. And to think that we may not be able to make the same commitment and promise to our children, our children's children, if these same lands are ultimately auctioned off, I think it should deeply concern every Coloradan." Republican Congresswoman Lauren Boebert supports the proposal, saying, "It promotes coordination, respects state and local priorities, and reflects a more sustainable approach to land management. The outrage from the far left is not only unwarranted, it's out of touch with the real challenges facing rural America." Colorado's other Republican members of Congress, Gabe Evans, Jeff Hurd and Jeff Crank, haven't said where they stand on the Senate proposal. Hurd opposed the House version. All of Colorado's Democratic members of Congress oppose the plan, saying it will also hurt Colorado's $17 billion outdoor recreation industry. The land sales are expected to generate $5 - $10 billion over the next ten years, with most of the money going to reduce the deficit.
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What threat does Israel-Iran conflict pose in Middle East?
Israel and Iran have attacked each other, raising concerns about the conflict spreading throughout the Middle East. Retired Brig. Gen. John Teichert joins 'The Hill' to break down the military presence in the region as U.S. personnel assist Israeli defense. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
an hour ago
Why thousands of NCAA athletes might wait over a year for share of $2.8 billion settlement
The attorney who negotiated the $2.8 billion legal settlement for the NCAA said Friday that thousands of former athletes due to receive damages could have to wait months or maybe more than a year to get paid while appeals play out. Rakesh Kilaru, who served as the NCAA's lead counsel for the House settlement that was approved last week, told The Associated Press an appeal on Title IX grounds filed this week will hold up payments due to around 390,000 athletes who signed on to the class-action settlement. He said he has seen appeals take up to 18 months in the California-based federal court where this case is playing out, though that isn't necessarily what he expects. 'I will say that we, and I'm sure the plaintiffs, are going to push,' Kilaru said. A schedule filed this week calls for briefs related to the appeal to be filed by Oct. 3. Kilaru doesn't expect anyone on the defendant or plaintiff side to file for extensions in the case 'because every day the appeal goes on is a day damages don't go to the student-athletes.' He said while the appeal is ongoing, the NCAA will pay the money into a fund that will be ready to go when needed. The other critical parts of the settlement -- the part that allows each school to share up to $20.5 million in revenue with current players and set up an enforcement arm to regulate it -- are in effect regardless of appeals. 'I think everyone thought it was important and good for this new structure to start working because it does have a lot of benefits for students,' Kilaru said. 'But it's very common for damages to be delayed in this way for the simple reason that you don't want to make payments to people that you can't recover' if the appeal is successful. A group of eight female athletes filed the appeal. Their attorney, Ashlyn Hare, said they supported settlement of the case 'but not an inaccurate one that violates federal law.' "The calculation of past damages is based on an error that ignores Title IX and deprives female athletes of $1.1 billion,' Hare said. Kilaru agreed with plaintiff attorneys who have argued that Title IX violations are outside the scope of the lawsuit. Other objections to the settlement came from athletes who said they were damaged by roster limits set by the terms. One attorney representing a group of those objectors, Steven Molo, said they were reviewing Wilken's decision and exploring options.
