HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-01-19 TranscriptionPage 1
Council Present: Bergus, Mims, Salih, Teague, Taylor, Thomas, Weiner
Staff Present: Fruin, Dilkes, Fruehling, Liston, Sitzman, Havel, Bowers, Kilburg, Monroe,
Bockenstedt, Severs, Hightshoe
Others Present: Longenecker (UISG)
Discuss City Annexation Policy (IP3, IN):
Teague/ I think we'll go ahead and get started with our work session. The first, um, one, wanted to say
hello to everybody. Hope you enjoyed Dr. King's Day yesterday and did something to celebrate
all the great work that he did for our nation. So hopefully everybody had an opportunity to join
in some festivities, and there is more that's happening this week. So just look at our website,
the City of Iowa City website, and you'll see some more opportunities to celebrate Dr. King's
life. All right, we are going to go with our fust item, which is the City annexation policy, and it
is IP3 and 4 from info packet January 14`x', and so I'm going to ask our City Manager to maybe
lead us in this one.
Fruin: Thank you, Mayor and just by way of update for ...for you all and for the public, this was
prompted by the recent annexation application that we had for the Carson Farm property, which
is on the west side of the community. The Council had some discussions about that and you
ultimately deferred that annexation indefmitely, at the applicant's request. Since that last
meeting, the applicant has withdrawn the application, which means that it is no longer kind of
pending your consideration in that indefinite status anymore. If the applicant wishes to bring
that annexation back to the City, they will have to start the whole process over again,
which ... which will place them at the Planning and Zoning Commission before it gets back to
you. That being said, I still think that there's some urgency to ... to get some direction from
Council on any changes to the annexation policy that you wish to see, while we don't have any
other annexation pending at this very moment. As the Council's aware, we've been building
infrastructure to support annexations in other parts of the community and those applications
could... could come forward at any time, and its best that we have some clarity around it. So in
your packet, as IP3, you have the staff memos from 2018, when this policy was created. Those
will show you a little bit of the evolution of the policy from the initial staff proposal to some
suggestions that were offered by the HCDC Commission, and Mayor Throgmorton at the time,
and kind of goes to show how we ended up where we did with that policy. It has only
been ... there's only been one annexation, a smaller annexation off of American Legion Road, that
has fallen subject to that policy. So we don't have a ton of experience with it, but again, if...if
there's going to be changes, it'd be good to ... to get those wheels in motion now. So really this
item was placed on your work session agenda to allow you some discussion, and hopefully you
can discuss whatever process you feel is ... is needed for us to revisit that ... that policy. IN also
has some recommendations from the Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition. So just
wanted to make sure you noted that in your packet as well.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of
January 19, 2021.
Page 2
Teague: Thank you, Geoff. So, Councilors, I think we are ... we're really just talking about the
affordable housing plan, maybe where ... where we want to move forward. The Carson, as Geoff
mentioned, that is off the table for now.
Taylor: I have just a quick question, and maybe I've missed it along the way somewhere. But when it
comes to the 10% requirement for the units in ... in the development, the proposed development,
be affordable. Is that left up to the developer to decide, say maybe they have ... ifs a 20 ... it's 20
units, so two of them have to be affordable. He makes those two, he or she, makes those two,
uh, two-bedroom units. They're smaller and less expensive, so is that up to them or is there
somehow we can have some sort of a clause that says that the affordable units would have to be
comparable to the other. I mean, I ... I know we probably can't tell them what they can build, but
I just had a concern about that.
Fruin: Yeah, that's a ... ifs a very good and legitimate concern and one that's addressed in a lot of
affordable housing policies across the country. You want to make sure that the affordable units
don't... don't stand out in any way when you're building new neighborhoods like that. The
current language reads that ... that the income target shall be consistent with the City's existing
program requirements. I think from a ... a staff standpoint, we would kind of cavy that over into
other ..other requirements. So for example, in the Riverfront Crossings policy, the unit mix has
to be consistent with the... the... the market rate unit mix. So if you're building ... if you're
building has all ... um, has a mix of three and one -bedrooms, we would expect the affordable
units to be a mix of three and one, um, with, you know, with ... with similar type of placement.
You know, we wouldn't in an apartment building, for example, in Riverfront Crossings, we
wouldn't put all the affordable units on one floor. They'd be scattered throughout the building,
again, so that you ... you couldn't really tell which units were affordable, and we ... we would carry
that over to the... the... the annexation policy as well. So we're definitely mindful of that, the
importance of that, and I think the existing... language gives us enough, in my opinion, to ... to
work with that.
Dilkes: I agree with that.
Teague: I think I was ... I want to chime in here. I ... of course was one of the ones that asked for us to
pause a little bit for the affordable housing piece. And I think a lot of that had to do with us
creating a affordable housing plan for our community. And so, of course, it was very nice to see
in writing what the staff submitted, as well as what the Johnson County Affordable Housing
Coalition submitted. Just the history of what happened with, you know, with the decision. Of
course I read that a little bit beforehand. It was kind of nice to reread it again. I saw of course
recommendations from the Affordable Housing Coalition. I guess my bigger question would be
for staff, where are we with the creation of affordable housing group for our plan?
Fruin: Yeah, so in that same information packet, about midway through, would be ... lefs see, its IP...
sorry ...IP7 in that packet. I just have a quick memo update letting you know who that I have
asked to be on that committee. So there's a 12 -member committee that is now gathered, and my
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of
January 19, 2021.
Page 3
next task is to find a date and time that works for all 12 members. Usually scheduling that first
meeting is the ... the most difficult. So we've got some scenarios out to those members to figure
out the best time that'll work. I expect we'll be able to get together in early February, and my
communication to those 12 members is ... is that ... it's my hope to have that plan wrapped up in
September or October, so that if there's any budget considerations, we can get that rolled into
the next fiscal year's budget proposal.
Teague: Thanks for that update, and ... and I know some of the members are very eager to get started on
that. With the knowledge of this going into, you know, September, I think that just becomes a
little bit of a challenge, you know, if we should see anything come across our tables again from
the affordable housing piece, and it may not even be annexation, but it could be something, you
know, local that's already within the city limits and so, you know, I think one of the things that
Geoff asked us to do is to kind of give some direction. And I guess mine was more so of a
pause to try to figure out where, you know, what is the plan for the affordable housing group
that's going to come together to do some recommendations to Council. I certainly didn't have
that information a couple of weeks ago. I knew that it was going to be in the works, and now
we do know that we have a created group that's going to be moving forward. So I don't know
that I really have any directives towards ... to give to staff. I ... I feel that depending on whatever
comes before us, I'm going to have to consider it at that time, um, depending on the size and
scope of the project.
Thomas: My thoughts were (both talking)
Mims: I mean I think that ... I guess to me there's two issues here. One is ... one I think is a really big
process issue and I guess I'm a little bit concerned with the comments you just made, Mayor,
about how with the idea that we're going to be developing a new affordable housing plan. I
guess I'm not sure what you're thinking that ... I would hope that people are not thinking that
we're simply going to put all development that deals with affordable housing on hold until we
have a new affordable housing plan. I mean, typically what ... in the 11 years I've been around
on the City, we have always, I believe and staff can correct me if I'm wrong, but if we have
been working on something and there were plans of some change coming forward, we have
typically always gone with what was in place at the time that process was started. So to even
consider that we might not, um, might not look favorably on a development or might make
decisions based on an upcoming plan, I find frankly quite troublesome. And I guess that was
one of my real big concerns with, you know, the ... the lack of...I guess it was one of my big
concerns with the discussion on the annexation, was that we already had an annexation policy in
place. And it just seemed like the discussion was about, well, let's hold off until we can
change... potentially change that annexation policy. I mean to me that decision on that
annexation should have been simply based on the annexation policy that was in place, and not
delaying things because now we're in the middle of that process and want to change. So I think
we have the whole issue of how does this Council work in terms of process, and I ... I find that
very concerning. The second one is what do we think of the annexation policy itself, and I
think the staff and community and a lot of stakeholders put a lot of time and effort into that
annexation policy two years or...well, two, two and a half years ago, in terms of affordable
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of
January 19, 2021.
Page 4
housing related annexation, and personally I'm comfortable staying with what we currently
have. If...if we are going to entertain something different, I think it's got to be a whole lot more
time and effort than just looking at one memo. I ... I think we really have to bring all these
people back to the table, and I ... I would prefer to stay with what we have. It's pretty new and
we've only had one annexation, and I think it was a big improvement from what we'd had.
Thomas: Well I was ... I was pleased to hear from the Affordable Housing Coalition, which essentially
said that at least with respect to Carson Farms to stay with the existing policy, annexation
policy. They ...they did suggest that we grant the land, some of the other options, you know, that
one could consider were set aside. I think in part because, in my mind, the ... the piece of
property is so large, close to 200 acres, that granting the land to ... to either the city or to ... how
was it worded here? To non-profit, affordable housing developers or...and/or to the City
made ... made a lot of sense to me for core Carson Farm, because it's such a large parcel. It
seems like a great opportunity to consider on-site affordable housing. So with respect to Carson
Farm, I think I would ... I would support their recommendation ... when it ... when it comes back to
the City and goes through the process. In terms of the affordable housing update, you know,
perhaps, if possible, we could look, you know, I look at the issues before that ... that group, that
committee, and see which ones would be the highest priority moving forward. So it may be
possible if, for example, we wanted, you know, given the time sensitivity of the annexation, you
know, affordable housing as it relates to annexation. That's a great opportunity to ... to enter into
the agreement, uh, what we want. If...if it's something that the committee decides to, you know,
in the ... in the big picture to accelerate within that planning process. So we could have it as soon
as possible. That might be one option, but for Carson Farm, I think the idea of following, you
know, supporting basically the suggestion of the Affordable Housing Coalition makes a lot of
sense in this case. And so for me as it ... in terms of the issue that we had before us, which was
Carson Farm, I'm very comfortable with their recommendation.
Bergus: I just want to put a little bit finer point on that. I think the Carson Farms is off the table now,
and the recommendation that we received was to stay with the existing policy and essentially
require one of the three options that the current policy provides. So if that was where we were
going to land, we should have approved the annexation and ... and directed staff to, you know,
do ... do what they could to get the one option chosen over the other two. I don't ... I just have a
little bit of a ... maybe a little bit different process concern, but ... but piggybacking off of what
Susan said, I mean, the majority of this Council approved the existing policy. And I, you know,
again, when when I'm sitting here looking at what might we want to change about the policy, I
appreciate that we've got a new affordable housing group forming to ... to look at new
recommendations, but I don't think it's appropriate for us to defer not ... not just this project,
which is off the table, but to defer indefinitely any other projects that might come before us. I
mean, people ... the, whether it's the landowners or...or residents who are, you know, have an
interest in affordable housing or the non-profit stakeholder groups, like the Affordable Housing
Coalition. Everyone benefits from knowing what the rules are and where we stand now. So as 1
said at the last meeting, I think the current policy is good. It went through a thoughtful process
with a recommendation from HCDC and ... and the Council and the Mayor, and public hearing at
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of
January 19, 2021.
Page 5
the time, so I don't ... I don't really see what it is we need to reevaluate or change. And I think
that's the direction staff's looking for is, is there something we want to change.
Thomas: Well I'm ... I'm not suggesting changing. You know, the ... the recommendation from the
Housing Coalition was to maintain the existing, you know, work within the framework of the
annexation policy as we have it, and of the options they ...they were leaning toward, the option
of acquiring the land, a 10% equivalent, for affordable housing. Of the three options that would
be available. That, as I said, that seemed to me to be, given the size of this property, an option
that I would lean on ... lean toward myself, because it ... it's such a large piece of land, roughly the
size of the Northside neighborhood, that providing affordable housing in the mix, and I think it
was important the ... some of the language in their ...in their letter to us, the question of
integration, and long ... the long term aspects that ... that would follow from such land acquisition.
(mumbled) to me two of the critical aspects of our affordable housing policy, trying to extend
the life of it, and also to integrate it within the community. Both of those don't require a
change, I think, at this point for Carson Farm and, Susan, I'm not suggesting we defer on every
annexation that comes to us, until we have a revised policy. You know, I agree with you,
whatever the policy is at the time of the annexation, that ... that should be what we go with. I
think part of my concern was this is such a large piece of land, and ... and the, you know, this
question of the annexation policy as it relates to affordable housing's so important that ... like the
Mayor said, I ... I was just pausing, wanting to get better, a better understanding, particularly
from the Affordable Housing Coalition, how ...how we might approach this. And I'm satisfied
now, you know, with ... with their ...their letter, how they have framed it. It seems like a very
reasonable approach at this point. So that's... that's basically where I'm at. And I'm not
suggesting that we put all annexation proposals on hold until we have, you know, some revised
policy that came out of the affordable action plan, housing plan.
Weiner: So when I reviewed the annexation policy, I was really struck by the process that ... that Council
and staff went through in arriving at it ,and ... and the ... and the focal points were to allow for
flexibility and addressing the issues presented by any ...any particular annexation, because this is
not itself ..it's different from dealing with land that is already a part of the city. Every
annexation is going to be different. They... they... they wanted to make it consistent with the
programs that existed at the time, um, emphasize types of affordable housing contributions that
would not require a city to monitor income, and with a preference for long term, or long-term
affordability, and to create those parameters so that staff and Council and whomever was
dealing with it once the annexation took place would have a chance to ... to help create whatever
the ... the best model possible, and as we're looking at both the ... the new committee that's being
formed or whatever we want to call it, to look at a new ...a new policy and this. It seems to me
that the focus, if we're going forward, the focus really should be on what is the Iowa City
affordable housing plan going to be, and then later ...later on potentially look at once we have
that in place, look at ... do we want to then change. Is ... are there things, changes that were made
to that that we would want to apply to annexation. So, I mean, I was in favor of...and I remain
in favor of using the existing annexation policy. But it ... but it strikes me that ... that the ... from a
process point of view that working on the City., what we're going to do as a city going forward
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of
January 19, 2021.
Page 6
with the land that we have in the city is what makes sense, and that you ... that leaving our
annexation policy as it exists, until we have that policy in place, also makes sense to me.
Taylor: My decision on ... on that Carson Farms, I know we're not looking particularly at that, but it
wasn't based on let's review the annexation policy cause it was based on what's actually in there
because one of the items is that this annexation, this area of land, won't place an undue burden
on the City and City services, and I just see that it's so far out on the outskirts of town that ... that
it is going to place a burden. And as far as the affordable, uh, affordability of the units, I ... I just
don't think that's the most ideal location in our city to have affordable units, cause currently we
don't have the transit out there and that's what a lot of folks who live in the affordable units need
is City transit. So that's what mine was based on. I ... I based it on actually what the annexation
policy reads.
Salih: I really think the affordable housing, you know, needs and the crisis, it is really ...the affordable
housing needs in this community is overdue, and we ... we ... I understand that we have new
annexations policy that has been done, and thank you for everybody who really, you know, was
part of that from the previous Council or the current Council, thank you. It is ... this for me is
really step to move forward. Is not like really great. I don't want to say it's not great deal, but it
is ... ifs good base to start with, but we can even build on it to make it even better. We talked
about this during ... we have 17 items that we created for Black Life ... after Black Life Matter
movement. One of them is affordable housing. And I think this is really a neat, and even
though we have something in place. But after this movement, all of us agree that, you know, we
need this affordable housing. So we need to change the current policy that we have to make it
even better. So it can fulfill the need of the community and especially black people and people
of color who are really, really in need of affordable housing. You know, I ... I just believe that,
you know, yes, this is ... this item for the farm is not on the table right now. They already
withdraw their application. But if they ...the, I will agree with the recommendation of the
Affordable Housing Coalition if those people would have comeback sooner. If like just starting
doing this and they come back so we can go with that. But still we ... as Geoff said, we already
have the...created the committee for the affordable housing. I will agree with the Mayor on
bringing ... like that those people also review this, but just in case if it take lot of time and
the ... this plan come again to the table and they ...they want to put their application back, we can
use our recommendation by the Affordable Housing Coalition. I think it's really great
recommendation. I agree with it. And ... but, you know, we have to keep in mind that this is
something that we need to change it. Affordable housing is like a critical need for a lot people
in this community who are suffering. Myself as one of the people who really was looking for
houses for a long time and I know how it feel. I know a lot people who couldn't afford the
house and they, a lot of people live in a two-bedroom and when they need a three-bedroom and
four-bedroom. Speaking about making more affordable housing in that side, we need that.
Even though we don't have (mumbled) as Pauline said, you know, that is not excuse not to have
affordable housing there and make the city segregation, you know, segregated by economy
(mumbled) you know, we can ... we are the City. We are the one who do transportation. Why we
don't add a line for those people, if that the reason, I think we are the City. Whenever we do
affordable housing for the people and we know those low income people, we have to provide a
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of
January 19, 2021.
Page 7
means of transportation for them. They are a taxpayer and they should ... we should (mumbled)
them. I ... I really right now, even though this is not on the table, but I ... I will go with the
recommendation for the Affordable Housing Coalition... from the Affordable Housing Coalition.
Otherwise we should wait for the Affordable Housing Committee to come up with a solid plan
for affordable housing in general. Thank you.
Mims: Can I ask staff a question, just to clarify for Council and for any public who might be listening,
a little bit on the process and kind of the order of things. So we do the annexation, and we have
an annexation policy and the developer has to agree to abide by that annexation policy. At what
point do they have to present and negotiate with Council or how does .... or with staff, etc., on
exactly how they plan to comply with that. In other words, fee in lieu of, number of units, you
know, land, etc. Can you help clarify that for us please?
Dilkes: Essentially what they have to do is there has to be an affordable housing agreement in place
before they can get their building permit.
Mims: So if they do the annexation, and I'm just talking in general, so if we have a voluntary
annexation, and we ... we annex it under this current policy, which right now it sounds like the
majority of Council is fine with at least for right now, then we have ... we ... do ... we have another
zo... we have to have another zoning then because they're going to come in as interim,
particularly in this area. We had to redo the comp plan and all of that. And we could, please
tell me if I'm wrong, as part of that rezoning have conditions on that rezoning that would help
lead us towards the kind of affordable plan that we wanted for that area. Is that a reasonable
assumption?
Dilkes: No, you would want those conditions to be done at the time of annexation, because you're
already with respect to annexation is ... is ... is broader than it is with zoning. I think the current
annexation plan gave you all the authority you needed to impose those conditions at the time of
annexation. I think it was not clear from the conversation by Council as to what the issue was,
was it with the 10% in 20 years, or was it with the type of mechanism that you wanted to see be
used. If it was the type of mechanism, we had that flexibility in the annexation policy, and we
could have ... had the Council wanted to add a detail to that or directed Council... or directed staff
to have those requirements included at the time of the affordable housing agreement being
executed.
Mims: Okay, maybe I ... maybe I wasn't clear with my question, and I ... I ... sorry to take the time, but I
think this process and the steps and timing are really important, because I think that's impacting
how Council Members are looking maybe at this differently from one another, in terms of what
kinds of things they want clarified, at what point, and I think it's ... I think it's important that
we're all on the same page. understanding how far down that process staff and Council has input
on how certain things are done. So ... when I read the language of the annexation policy, there
are lots of options in there and lots of flexibility in there about how the developer can fulfill the
affordable housing obligation. Correct?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of
January 19, 2021.
Page 8
Dilkes: Correct.
Mims: Okay, so we could potentially... not have a signed agreement with the developer on how they're
going to fulfill that obligation, up until the point they start pulling building permits, is that
correct?
Dilkes: Correct.
Mims: But could we ... use the rezoning process to ... conditions with the rezoning process to move us
toward what we wanted in terms of that affordable housing?
Dilkes: No, I think you would do that at the annexation stage. It ... look at it, you know, here's a good
example. With the ... we do ... when we do a rezoning to Riverfront Crossings, we include a
condition that essentially says they have to execute an affordable housing agreement, showing
how they're going to comply with the Riverfront Crossings exclusionary zoning ordinance
before they get their building permit. Now that ordinance, as you know, has very specific
requirements. There's only certain things that the City can insist on. There's a lot of option
available to be ... to the developer. Because we're at the annexation stage, we have more
authority at the time we execute that affordable housing agreement to say we're not interested in
doing, you know. This we want to ... we want to talk to you about doing this particular
mechanism, what serves.... how... how can we reach agreement ,what serves you, what serves
the City best, etc. And that would be done at that stage. But you're ... we would have a lot more
authority because it was done at the annexation. It was a condition of annexation, and its a
different condition than it is in a rezoning underneath the Riverfront Crossings exclusionary
housing ordinance. Does that make sense?
Mims: Yeah, but the full thing doesn't have to be executed until they get ready to pull building permit.
Dilkes: Right!
Mims: Okay. So it sounds to me, if I'm understanding this right, that where this process fell apart ... is
that at least at the Council level, we didn't really have any discussion of conditions we wanted
to put in place at the time of annexation, regarding how they fulfilled the affordable housing
requirement. Is...
Dilkes: Well, but I think that you didn't ... you don't nes ... you didn't necessarily have to do that because
the policy itself, which is that incorporated into the annexation agreement. provides that
flexibility...
Mims: Right.
Dilkes: ... for a later determination, at the point when the developer has much better idea of what the
plans are, etc., etc.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of
January 19, 2021.
Page 9
Mims: Right.
Dilkes: For ...for making that decision. I mean...
Fruin: If I ... maybe I can help. Part of the benefit of letting the process play out a little bit more in this
case is ... is that there... there's a ton of other variables that just need to ... need to catchup. So
if...if we're to put this condition on the annexation up front, you're basically saying 10% of the
units have to be publicly owned or in the hands of a non-profit. And then you can think of,
well, the City's going to come back and say, well, we'd like ... we'd like parkland too and we
could use land for a fire station. Oh, and guess what, the School District would like a ... a ... a
spot out there. And then we get through the planning process and we say, well, this is really the
most logical place for a regional stormwater detention. And all of a sudden, there's not a whole
lot of land left over for development, and it just ... it just doesn't start to click as one. So that's
why we like to let that planning process play out a little bit more, allow some of those
discussions to evolve, cause it may be that one or more of those variables have to be kind of
sacrificed or we have to explore some ... some other options. So the more requirements you put
up front, just limits your flexibility with all those other variables down ... down the road. And
that's why we as staff were hesitant to say this is how it must be done at this really early stage in
the process.
Mims: Thank you. Discussion's been very helpful.
Teague: It doesn't sound like Council has any recommendations ... at this time, or directives toward staff
for affordable housing. I ... I do think the conversation has been helpful, and of course, I'm sure
we could all give more comments. Personally, I won't. Are there any more comments on this
item?
Salih: I just want to ask Geoff if there is anything that you think is going to come soon for annexation,
or did you hear about anything else that would have come soon?
Fruin: No, I'm not aware of any pending application processes. But, you know, just thinking about our
infrastructure improvements over the last couple years, whether it's McCollister extension or the
sewer project that ... that's recently been in front of Council. We ... those improvements will make
that land much more ready for annexation and development. So we kind of anticipate that
they'll come, but whether that's six weeks, six months, or six years, we really don't know.
Salih: Uh huh ... thank you.
Review City tax rates (05):
Teague: Anything else on this item? All right, the next item is review City tax rates and this is IP5 from
info packet for January 14th as well. And I know .... do we have Dennis with us? Hello!
Bockenstedt: Hello.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of
January 19, 2021.
Page 10
Teague: I know that you gave us information in the info packet.
Bockenstedt: I did. And in that memo, you know, the Council's discussion was whether or not to keep
the property tax rate at its current level, versus the ... the recommended lowering of 10 -cents. So
this memo is just kind of a ... a, little bit of analysis as far as the different components of the
property tax rate and the levies that are set in there for specific purposes. And I can share my
screen here and kind of go through that memo, if you ... if you'd like.
Teague: Sure!
Bockenstedt: Okay. And so take a look at it. The FY21 rate, property tax rate for the City (both
talking)
Frain: Dennis, your ...your memo cut off there on your screen sharing.
Bockenstedt: Oh, okay! Oh ... can ... can you ... can you see the memo?
Frain: No.
Bockenstedt: No. Okay. All right. Um, lefs... let's try (several talking)
Weiner: ... could at first.
Salih: It was and it disappear.
Bockenstedt: How about now?
Frain: Looks good!
Salih: Yes.
Bockenstedt: Interesting. I just moved it on my...on my monitor is all I did (laughs) So, um, so take a
look at the FY21 property tax rate is currently what is being levied and ... and this is the City's
portion of the property tax rate. Not to be confused with, you know, the County or the School
District or other... other portions of the property tax rate, and this (mumbled) ability to levy
taxes comes off Chapter 384 of the Iowa Code, and it lays out the different levies that the City
can utilize to ... to levy property taxes, and then those specific purposes for each of those
particular levies. Uh, now not all the levies in that Iowa Code pertain to us, and some of those
require a referendum to be utilized, and then some, such as the debt service levy, may have a
mix of referendum versus, you know, the City's authority to just levy yet. So I ... what I laid out
is ... is each of the current levies that the City has and then the total, and then proposed, and right
now the proposal is to reduce the City's debt service levy rate by 10 -cents, from 257 to 247,
which would lower the overall rate from 15.77 to 15.67. And the reason we're proposing that is
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session
January 19, 2021.
Page I I
because, you know, when we lay out our CII' and our debt planning, and we issue those bonds,
we look at our debt requirements on an annual basis to see what we need to levy for property
taxes, to make that payment. And for FY22, we have the ability to lower that property tax rate,
uh, by 10 -cents and still achieve the overall are planning for the capital improvement program,
as well as meeting our FY22 bond and principal interest payments. And so why that ... that's
why that reduction is currently being proposed. And to break that down a little bit fiuther, I put
in there ... a little bit fiuther in the memo, talk about where the levy is currently set at for each
particular levy, and also what limits are in the Iowa Code, as far as what ... what we are allowed
to levy at. So, for instance, the City's regular general levy has a limit in the code of $8.10 and
our levy rate is 100% of that is what is available. The transit levy, which is used for operation
and maintenance of the public transit system, has a State limit of 95 -cents, and we are levying
the full 95 -cents. The self-insurance and insurance programs, we are levying 29 -cents and that's
based on eligible expenditures, and so we are levying for 100% of our eligible expenditures.
The emergency levy, uh, has an eligible rate of 27 -cents and we are only levying 24 -cents of
that. And the reason that is, is ... is the Council was targeting about a million dollars for carbon
emission reduction and that 24 -cents a month amounts to approximately $1 million of revenue.
Aside from that directed purpose from the Council, it's really eligible for any general fund
purpose for that emergency levy. The employee benefits levy actually is a combination of
several levies for police and fire pension, other benefits, and then FICA, IPERS, and that is for
the retirement insurance benefits for employees, and right now we are levying at $3.34.4. We
could levy up to $3.61 and that's based on eligib ... eligible expenditures in our budget. One
other levy that as I was reviewing them that has potential that the City might be able to utilize is
the Civic Center levy, you know, the ... the complex in the City, all police, fire, um, the parking,
has long been known as the Civic Center. There is a 13.5 -cent levy for Civic Center operation
and maintenance, and the City does not levy this and ... and I could not see that we ever have, or
if we have it's been a while since we have. So if the City Council wanted to maintain the
current levy rate at 15.77 instead of lowering it, essentially the rates ... the places that they would
be able to do it would be the emergency levy would have 3 -cents. The employee benefits could
have up to almost 27 -cents, and the Civic Center could potentially have about 13.5 -cents, and so
depending on, you know, how you wanted to use that 10 -cents, you know, since it's not going to
debt service, if you wanted to use it for paying for the Civic Center operations or for offsetting
employee benefits or, you know, part of the emergency levy, that is where we would be able to
shift that 10 -cent levy to and then raise it back up to the 15.77, and hopefully that made sense
(laughs) So ... and then I detail a little bit further about how many ...how many dollars that would
generate for each of those particular levies if...if you exercise that option to do so. So that kind
of lays out really what ... what your options are and ... and it kind of depends on how you would
want to utilize those dollars or expend those dollars, and where we would apply the additional
10 -cent levy too. (both talking)
Salih: I have a question here before you go further. For the operation of the maintaining the ... the Civic
Center, like currently how you maintain that if there is none here, or we have (mumbled)
because you says the limit at 13, but we don't ... we don't have any, right?
Bockenstedt: Yeah, um, the City is not currently utilizing that levy.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of
January 19, 2021.
Page 12
Salih: And how we maintain it, like how do we maintain...
Bockenstedt: So (both talking)
Salih: (both talking) ...using our general fund or how?
Bockenstedt: Yes, that ... that is correct. So those expenditures that are just being incurred are being paid
for out of the general fund, which would be coming out of this ... the regular levy, that $8.10, and
then other eligible revenues in the general fund, uh, that could be used for general purposes.
Salih: Okay. Sound good. Thank you.
Bockenstedt: So I guess the question for the budget would be is, um, whether or not you want to ... stay
with the recommended 10% reduction, or raise that levy up, back up to 15.77 or somewhere
between, and do that through utilizing one of these levies that we have capacity to ... to use, and
like I say really kind of depends on ... on what you want to do with those additional dollars that
are being levied.
Fruin: If I could just add on to that. I really encourage the Council to focus on ... on just that. Where do
you want to spend additional dollars, and then we can help you find that path forward. I've
mentioned to you that the ... the FY22 budget as proposed does have $120,000 surplus. So, you
know, if you're looking to add roughly that amount to a particular expenditure line, that would
be the logical place to start, where you could take those funds, uh, bolster our spending in a
particular area of interest that you have, and not really manipulate the ... the tax rates, um,
as ... as ... as Dennis just described. If you're looking to ... to add expenditures greater than that
surplus amount, then again, I'd urge you just to kind of let us know where ... where you think that
expenditure would be, where you'd like to add that funding, and ... and really that's when Dennis
can come back and say, here's the best way that I would recommend that you fund it, and ... and
we can give you that .... give you that recommendation.
Teague: Thank you, Dennis, and thank you, Geoff; and Council, it's our opportunity to just have a
discussion.
Bergus: Well, Mayor, I'll ... I'll jump in. I, you know, we've gone through our however many hours of
budget work session so far, and looked at all the different revenue sources and proposed
expenditures, and I came out of that process without having any particular thing that ... that I'm
requesting we increase expenditures beyond what's in the proposed budget. So I, personally,
you know, I think ifs ... I think it's good with the property tax cliff that we know is coming to
build in as much capacity as we can in ... in the actual levy system, and I think if we relieve some
of that pressure now, it gives us more for the future. I guess, Dennis, if you think that's
incorrect (laughs) or if there's a different way you would frame that, can you ... can you say so,
cause I understand, you know, the proposal's with the debt service levy so that's where
we're ... that's where we are building in the capacities. Is that right?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of
January 19, 2021.
Page ]3
Bockenstedt: Yeah, I think what you want to leave open is the flexibility to use that property tax rate
where you want to in the future. So as you determine how to use that spending in the fixture,
you could address that property tax rate at that time, versus making that determination now.
Bergus: Okay, thank you. So that ... that's where I'm at, Mayor.
Salih: I really think, you know, we need really to stay ...we don't need to increase the tax. We don't need
to reduce it, and leave it as it is, and that's why. Like for the past three years that I was in the
Council, each time we come up with something, we don't have money, and that was a...that was
a problem, because we tried to take from this, you know, budget and this (garbled) they say no,
you cannot use this for this and you cannot use that for that. I really, you know, seeing that
there is many, many thing that happening right now during this COVID-19 and ... and the crisis
that we have. We just was not even giving people (mumbled) for the water, and because they
cannot even do it, and because we don't have money! So each time we say something that we
say we don't have money. I think we... 10 -cent is not going to really benefit somebody like
homeowner like me that much, but you will benefit a lot of people who are low-income in this
city to be benefit out of this. I think for the Civic Center the ... the Civic Center operations, that
we don't have anything, we can add 10 -cent there or even add 5 -cent here and add 5 -cent
(mumbled) We can play around and free some like (mumbled) what it called, the general fund
that we can use it anything, even if we don't have anything right now, even though I know we
are planning to do like affordable housing plan, and we don't have ... we have 1 million. I
understand that. Geoff said we can add (mumbled) with there is many option that we can do.
But at the end of the day will be 100,000 and I don't think that enough. Affordable housing
need a lot (garbled) that something is still I'm going to say is still overdue. We need to really
think seriously and since we going to have this committee for the affordable housing and they
will come up with a plan, and we need really to ... to be ready for that. We can ... there is many,
many options we can do it. We don't have even to assign it to specific program right now. We
can put it on the reserve. And whenever we need it, we can use it from the reserve. But I think
this is like good amount of money that we can save, if we add this 10 -cent to the Civic, and we
can free some like general fund money to the Civic Center operation, and we come free some
general fund money that we can use it in anything else, uh, in the future. Just, uh, the people
will be very happy that, you know, we are not increasing the tax. We are leaving it at the same.
So I think that people will feel better than increasing it like another, if we compare us with the
other cities. I know that we always being reducing it, and that's something good too, but we
need money. Our priority is not reducing the tax levy. Our priority is to do service for the City
and to help the people who are in need in this city, that they are taxpayer.
Mims: I tend to agree with Councilor Bergus and I ... I'll make a couple of things. I think the ... the, you
know, the cliff that we have talked about for 2024 is incredibly significant when the taxation on
the multi -unit housing drops from whatever it's at that point down to ... to the same as regular
houses, single-family homes. I mean, that could be, you know, going from 65% or whatever,
down to the 55 or 50 depending upon what the State's rollback is ... is at that point in time. That
could be a significant drop in our tax revenues. I think building in or trying to continue to have
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of
January 19, 2021.
Page 14
that flexibility in our levy is really, really important. I would respectfully disagree with the
Mayor Pro Tem that we haven't been able to find money. We have, over the last few years, we
have gone from a very limited amount of money for affordable housing, up to a million dollar
line item budget now annually for affordable housing. We've taken Aid to Agencies from 2 to
300,000, I think up over 700,000 now as a line item, and there's... and those are just a couple of
really quick examples that are very significant dollar changes, and address ... help to address
some of those significant needs in our community. As I've said before, we talk about
sustainability. We've put in a climate action plan. We have to make sure that our budget is
sustainable. If we don't have a sustainable financial plan, then nothing else in the city is going
to matter because you're not going to be able to afford to do it. And that is also really, really
important when it comes to the AAA bond rating for Moody's and the money that that saves us
when we do go out and borrow money. So I agree with Council Bergus. I think the proposal
that staff has given us is a good, fair proposal and keeps that flexibility when we hit that cliff in
a couple years.
Taylor:I agree, uh, Councilor Bergus had said that looking at the budget there wasn't anything that
really stood out that ... that she felt a big need for that needed to be there, although the one thing
that ... that I've always been concerned about is our transit budget and ... (mumbled) but there's a
lot in this current budget, uh, money going towards that. So ... so that's good. That was one
thing that I'd always been concerned about and, uh, Councilor Mims, you always... you've had
me gain an appreciation for the AAA, Moody's AAA rating. And I think that says a lot for our
Finance department, and there was also something in our ...in our IP packet about a Certificate of
Achievement for Excellence in financial reporting that they achieved in June of 19, and that
says a lot about our Finance department. I mean they didn't just randomly say, oh, let's do the
10 -cents. I ... I admire Dennis and his department. I think they gave a lot of thought to this
and ... and I'm ... I'm fine with ... with going with their recommendation.
Thomas: Well I guess my...my thoughts at the moment were in part driven I think by the ... the sense that
we are still dealing with the uncertainties and volatility of the, you know, the COVID crisis and
the associated economic crisis. So having a little bit more access to funding to deal with those
issues whether it may be shelter, you know, food, whatever... whatever essentials may be driven
by the, you know, the ... the events that we ... we're uncertain about, uh, it seemed to me to be
important to ... to have that funding readily accessible. I will also mention another project. I
don't know that it affects how we budget for this particular year, but, you know, last week I
noticed that a project had been deleted from our capital improvement program. The reversion
of Jefferson and Market from one-way to two-way was no longer in the plan. And so I ... I
would ... I would like that, personally, back in the plan. And if, you know, if that had any
budgetary consequences at this moment, I just wanted to bring that up as well. So, you know,
I'm .... I'm inclined to have, given... given the uncertainties and complexities and volatilities of
what we're dealing with a little bit more budget flexibility, at...at this ... at this point to try to
address whatever un, you know, unforeseen circumstances we may find ourselves in. You
know, in terms of where it might be drawn from, it seems the Civic Center and emergency
funds, those levies seem like possibilities. You know, I think the employee benefits, I'm a little
bit reluctant there because that too is kind of a levy where there may be some volatility. So I ... I
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of
January 19, 2021.
Page 15
would like to maintain some cushion there. But it does seem within ... what Geoff said we
already have in place and the emergency levy and the Civic Center levy, I think we should be
able to bridge that gap that would bring us back where, you know, that ... bring the 10 -cents back
roughly.
Frain: If I might offer just a couple of clarifications based on some comments. One, it's really
important ... it's hard ... it's hard to remember this, but because ... just because we're lowering the
rate does not mean we're lowering property taxes. Matter of fact, you know, we should be clear
that we're not lowering property taxes. Um, you have so many other variables that go into a
property tax bill, including the rollback rate, which is increasing. So that's going to be more of
your home is now taxable than it was last year, um, as well as the assessed value on your home.
And so when we say we've ... we've dropped the property tax rate for 10 years, that's... that's
accurate. But that does not mean that our property owners, be it residential, commercial,
industrial, are paying less taxes to the City. Overall, our levy, which is the actual dollar amount
that we collect, has gone up over those years. So rates go down, but the levy goes up. We just
need to be clear, make sure that we're clear when we're talking about that, that with this 10 -
pe ... 10 -cent proposal, we're not lowering tax. We're not lowering someone's taxes. We are
reducing that rate at which they pay taxes. It's a bit confusing, but ... but that's... that's important.
And then regards to, you know, again, I kind of really try to focus on what you want to spend
that money for. If you're looking to respond to one-time types of issues, like ... like COVID
relief is a good one. If you want to spend more on COVID relief, I really ...my recommendation
and Dennis can ... can offer a counter one if he ... if he wishes, would be, you know, use your
reserves, use your emergency levy to be able to do that. Because you're not ... we don't anticipate
it to be a recurring expense every... every year. And again, you want your rates to be fairly
stable from year to year. So you don't want to see that ... you don't want to see those rates go up
and down based on one-time expenditures in one year and not the next year. You have an
emergency reserve. You have general fund reserves, and if you felt like there were some gaps
in COVID relief that aren't covered by existing programs, then ... then I would suggest you use
those for those one-time expenditures. If you're looking at more of a permanent line item,
something that you ... you don't expect to go away. You want to hire staff or you want to expand
a service or a contribution to Aid to Agencies, whatever it may be. That's when we'll probably
start to look at that levy option a little bit more, because you want that to be sustainable from
year to year, and of course it's not sustainable to ... to tap those reserves year after year.
Teague: I ... I did want to just chime in a little bit. So I heard... thanks, Geoff. You just mentioned we
can tap into the reserves or the emergency fund levy, should there be something that we want to
do for some projects, and I'm happy that our emergency fund levy does give us quite a bit of
flexibility in what we can utilize those funds for is any governmental purpose. I do see some
value, of course, to having some .... it would be more income that we'll have for the City, but I
also hear that if we needed something, wanted to fund a program specifically, we could try to
figure that out. What that program is and try to figure out where the money is coming from.
Right now I'm not hearing anything specific. Of course, affordable housing, the climate action
are very important things that I know that we want to continue to have reserves for or funds
readily available, when they... when... when the need should arise for something, and so right
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of
January 19, 2021.
Page 16
now I don't have anything that I'm hearing that we can utilize the funds for. I ... I've been
through budget now three times, and I know at the end of the budget somebody might make a
recommendation of something that they want, you know, the, you know, to be a part of the
budget. I think if that should happen in this pa ... you know, during this time, we'll be able to
find some funds within... within... within something. And so right now I'm comfortable with the
staff recommendation with the ... with the levy staying as it is. Again, if there is something
specific that we want to fund, especially if it's something ongoing, we have opportunity. Um, if
it's not within this time, um, in August. August comes around so quickly (laughs) We'll be able
to, you know, make that a priority for the staff to put it in the budget for next time. So I don't
feel like we're missing out if we don't do anything right now, personally. All right, so it doesn't
sound like we're going ... I think I heard the majority of Council (both talking)
Salih: (both talking) ...last comment please. Uh, I know it's not going the way it's going, but I really
want to just mention that interestingly, soon we're going to talk about sales tax option, which is
like really interesting that we are lowering, you know, the tax here and we ... we are thinking of
adding a sales tax option. I just want to lay that out there. Thanks.
Discuss Public Input Opportunities for the Preliminary Police Plan:
Teague: Okay. All right, so it doesn't sound like we're going to make any changes to the staff
recommended tax levy. We are going to move to the next item unless anybody has any final
comments. We're going to discuss public input opportunities for the (mumbled) preliminary
police plan. I can say it! Preliminary police plan.
Fruin: Thanks, Mayor. I'll take the lead on this one and be interested to hear your feedback. So we...
we talked a little bit, and as a reminder, Councilor Bergus and Mayor Pro Tem Salih, Councilor
Weiner were asked to ... to collaborate with me and just briefly discuss this. Unfortunately, we
didn't have a chance to align schedules with Councilor Weiner, so just Councilor Bergus and
Mayor Pro Tem Salih and I met and, you know, we talked through the various ways. Obviously,
you know, we're going to do the traditional ways which... which are currently available. But I
think we all acknowledge that those are insufficient for ...for something like this, and we really
tried to focus our discussion on how do we get this plan in front of people who otherwise
normally wouldn't participate, who have barriers to participation in some way, shape, or form,
be it language, be it work schedules, be it just a myriad of other things that are ... that are in
someone's life. And so, um, we even, you know, talked through the listening post concept
and... and didn't feel like those would... would... would reach far enough. So one idea that we
floated was to really look to connect with people that are... are well connected themselves within
some targeted communities, particularly BIPOC communities, and... and contract with them to
solicit public input on the plan. So for example, we would look to find somebody in ... in the
immigrant and refugee community, uh, that we know that ... that has the trust of that community,
that has some... some good translation language skills, and actually contract with them to do
the ... do the preliminary plan outreach for us. And that's a non-traditional approach, but if you
think about it, lot of times when we do master plans we hire consultants and they coordinate
our ...they coordinate our public input as part of the drafting of that ... of that master plan, like the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of
January 19, 2021.
Page 17
bike plan or the parks plan. So this would be actually paying somebody as an independent
contractor that has particular expertise in their connectedness with these communities, to ... to
take this plan, really learn it themselves, ask whatever questions they need to to really
understand that plan, and then letting them go out and ... and bring the feedback back to us. So
it's not staff going and asking for that feedback. It's not the Council doing the listening posts.
It's us contracting and compensating somebody to get that feedback and bring it back to us and
present it ultimately to you, unfiltered through through my lens or through a Council Member's
lens. I don't have a proposal for you on who that is, or what it looks like. I would continue to
work with the three Councilors to ... to best determine who that would be or what ... or co...it
doesn't necessarily have to be an individual, could be an organization too. We would kind of
have to think about who ... who that would be. We ... we'd probably spend a few thousand dollars
to ... to do that, and ultimately bring you back again .... again that feedback. So before we went
too far down that path, because it is a little bit non-traditional, we wanted to ... we wanted to get
the full Council's feedback on that.
Mims: I think it's a really interesting concept. I think the idea of, you know, we've talked about the
importance of trying to meet people where they are ... as much as possible in environments
where they are comfortable, and as you say, using people who have the language skills to
interact with various populations. So I ... I think it's a really kind of unique idea, and it certainly
doesn't close off any, you know, any other avenues that we have for people to give input, but is
simply an addition. So I think it sounds interesting.
Teague: Yeah, I would agree that it ... taking ... taking it to where people are is important, and so I would
be supportive of this oppor...you know, opportunity. I think it will be key to make sure that
whoever is that individual that is going out is not biased in their approach with being very
neutral.
Weiner: I like the idea and I would say that I would think that the meetings should also... whatever
meetings they have, ought to be with ... with communities ought to be open, so that if a couple of
Council Members or others want to sit in and listen, that everyone would have that opportunity
as well, but it would again be going... going to the people.
Thomas: Sounds good to me too.
Teague: So it sound like..okay. All right. So sound like everybody's on board, so great. Geoff, do you
need or Councilor Bergus, Weiner, or Mayor Pro Tem, do you all need anything else from us?
All right.
Fruin: I think just.. just a chance to set time frame expectations here, because it's going to take us
probably a few weeks to identify somebody and then we have to, you know, formally contract
with them. We'll have to draft up an agreement of sorts, like we would a consultant or anybody
else, and then it's obviously not a ... not a small document to digest. So the person is going to
have to...or the organization is going to have to really invest some time, which they'd be
compensated for in learning the plan. I'm thinking you just might not hear back for a couple of
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session
January 19, 2021.
Page 18
months on that. So it could be early spring by the time that feedback returns to you. I think it's
well worth that time, but I just want to make sure that you know this isn't going to be a quick
turnaround.
Teague: The Councilors (both talking) meeting. Oh, go right ahead!
Salih: No, go ahead, Mayor!
Teague: No, I was just making sure that the Councilors would still be meeting with Geoff during...
during this process and discussing, you know, who you might be looking for, time frame even.
So I'm comfortable if you all are just having that conversation, personally.
Salih: I just want to just say something that ... last time we talked about maybe translating some of the
documents and not the whole thing. I really ...when I ... I'm changing my mind on that, after I
look at it. I think is very good to translate the whole document and at least be able to have copy
from it because it is a reference. Whenever I talk like ... look at the recommendation outside and
you go back and say exactly, I read what it means. I just believe that we need to translate the
whole documents. It costs us money. But we do have money, and we can figure out money all
the time. So, there is no problem on this and it deserve, uh, to put some money for the people to
understand this issue.
Fruin: I can offer, uh, we did get an initial set of quotes for translation and we got two scenarios. One
was just the two-page recommendation for ...for translation into three languages, and it's ... it's
fairly inexpensive. It's about $1,000, and then we said, what about just the chapter that has the
recommendation. So, not ... not the chapter about the staff, you know, the department and some
of the introductory, like the CPRB and all that kind of stuff, but just the chapter that has the
narrative on the 36 recommendations, and that'll... that'll come in, uh, at least ... or the initial
quote was (both talking) Yeah, about ... yeah, about 40 pages worth. That ... that's about $9,000,
so about 3,000 per language.
Mims: I would encourage that we do that 40 pages or whatever because I think it does help put things
in perspective for people. It'd be nice to be able to do the whole thing, but I don't ... I don't think
it's necessarily worth the cost of doing the whole thing, cause I don't think many people are
going to read the whole thing, I think ... I think if they can see the recommendations and see the
context of those recommendations, it would seem to me that that's the most important thing and,
yeah, for $9,000 I would say definitely.
Taylor: I agree, and I think that is ... goes along with our ...our strategic plan of the social justice and
equity. I ... I think that's very important. And I think it's well worth that money.
Salih: Just to qualify something here, when I said the whole thing, I don't mean the whole document. I
meant the 40 pages for the recommendations to be clear here, because that's the most important
thing we need the people to know about.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of
January 19, 2021.
Page 19
Weiner: Yeah, and it's definitely... valuable to hire qualified translators.
Salih: Just to give that credit to Geoff, He is the one who said that. I really like love it and, you know,
I would have not come with a better idea than this. Thank you, Geoff.
Teague: Yeah, I would be supportive of -of the 40 pages. Sound like the majority of Councilors
shaking their head that supportive of it, so we'll go with that. All right. Anything else, and I'm
happy to know that you all continue to meet, and I think we'll just kind of have updates along
the way. All right, we're going to discuss a miscellaneous council meeting and communication
items. The first thing is moving meeting times one hour earlier, and just wanted to get people
kind of fast, quick, final thoughts on that.
Discuss Miscellaneous Council Meeting and Communication Items:
Salih: Real quick, I agree (laughs)
Teague: All right.
Mims: I'm fine either way.
Bergus: I am as well and I haven't heard (both talking)
Thomas: (both talking) ...as well.
Bergus: (both talking) ...haven't gotten any feedback. I don't know if others have ... o it.
Taylor: Same here, I agree.
Teague: All right, what about public comment sign -in procedures. And I can remind Councilors what
that was. So this was having something in the foyer ...when we're back in person, that people
would sign up for an agenda item and then that will be handed to the Mayor. Um, to read their
names and to present them. Um, so they'll be signing up early.
Mims: I personally don't like that. I ... I think it's too restrictive to the public, and I think we ... over the
years we've had lots of people who've come to the podium, said, oh, I ... didn't come planning to
talk. I just came to listen. But I heard such and such and I really want to comment on it. And I
think that's restrictive. I don't ... I don't feel like we lose that much time when people come up. I
think in the last couple of years we've really seen the vast majority of people have gotten a slip
and signed ahead of time so they could just put their little sticker down. So I'm really
comfortable continuing the way it is. I ... the one addition I do like and we talked about it before
is ... is knowing whether people are Iowa City residents or not. And I would have one question,
when are we talking about changing the time of meetings?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of
January 19, 2021.
Page 20
Salih: I just want you to just tell us exactly what you mean by, you know, signing in. Do you know like
public comment or you mean like during the public hearing?
Teague: I think ... well, my thought ... I think when ... when the School District does it, I think they sign up
for each item. Or do they only have public comment? I think any item that they open up ... but if
it's just public comment, we can certainly, you know, do whatever we want. It ... I just think that
it could be beneficial for people to sign up ahead of time, and also we can have ... it is on the slip
that people need to give their address or their ...the city where they live. I think it's the fall
address. And so we'll be able to capture that, um, ahead of time. The first name the last name,
what you ask from people, as well as their address, and I know our City Clerk is on here.
Salih: For public comment?
Teague: For...and it could be for public comment or even for any ...any agenda item. It could get
confusing for any agenda item. I can see that, because we have every agenda item!
Dilkes: Yeah, I think I asked that question last time, Mayor, and my recollection is that we were just
talking about (both talking)
Salih: (both talking) ...I really, I agree that for the public comment it will be an easy thing. I saw it at
the School (garbled)
Teague: I think there's a delay with Mayor Pro Tem (laughs) Sorry about that. Mayor Pro Tem, I think
there's a lag in communication, um, potentially.
Salih: Yes. I think the .... tell me that the internet connection is weak.
Teague: Yep, yep.
Salih: That's why I feel like I'm jumping (laughs) I don't know.
Teague: Yep. So why don't we have, uh, Attorney Dilkes go ahead and give your comments.
Dilkes: Well I ... I just ... I remember asking that question last time about whether it was going to be all
items or just public comment, items not on the agenda, and I thought it was the latter, just for
public comment of items not on the agenda. There's some issues, I think, with doing it for
everything.
Teague: Yes. And ... and I think now that I'm remembering it was only for public comment. We went
through that the last time. So it was only for public comment and not for every agenda item.
Salih: Yes. Do you hear me now?
Teague: Yes.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of
January 19, 2021.
Page 21
Salih: Yeah. I ... I was really thinking that for public comment, it could be (mumbled) so it is very
effectively during the School Board, where people will come and hand out some like small
paper ahead of time, writing their name. I just like it, and also the thing is, why the public
comment is going on is still people can like say, for example, somebody talk about something
and someone else was sitting there and never want to talk. They can still write something and
go and give it to the, you know, again, they can submit it while the people are doing the public
comment. I ... I like it for the public comment.
Bergus: Yeah, I think maybe what Mayor Pro Tem is suggesting is sort of a hybrid of what we have
now, Mayor. You identified the benefit of having, you know, the ... kind of the queue that you
could see, I think on zoom, which is helpful. So if people could sign up at the beginning or, you
know, right before the meeting, and you would have that list, but also give people the
opportunity to come up, you know, on ... at the moment. I mean, if that's workable, that seems
like that might get us where we're trying to go.
Weiner: Because then you have it ... you have an initial list of people, initial queue of people who want
to speak at public comment, and then you may have a few more, as Councilor Bergus just said,
add on at the ... at the end, but it could make the ... most of it move fairly quickly.
Thomas: I think, you know, that sounds fine. I ... I've never really felt this was a major snag in our
process but, you know, what you were just describing, Laura, I think would be fine. But yeah,
its not something that really jumped out at me as an issue that we needed to revise in any
(mumbled) you know, major way.
Taylor: I ... I agree. I think it ... the current process has worked well for us, and I think, uh, previous
mayor, if there was a room full of people, he would ask ahead of time for folks to raise their
hand if they were planning to speak. That way he knew that, you know, there were two or there
were 20, and that would make a difference on how ...how long they were able to speak. I know
it works really well for the School District and ... and as Mayor Pro Tem said, they do have that
option of adding their name throughout the meeting if all of a sudden they decide, oh, I want to
say something. I ... I've worked this through my head and I've got something to say, they can still
add their name. They could pass ... pass their name up to say Kellie and she could get it to the
Mayor. If...if there was time, if it was within our time frame of the public comment time.
Mims: One other thing I would offer and I'm not sure Eleanor's response to this. In the past ... we have
never offered public comment on the consent agenda. That's been something relatively recent.
Usually when an agenda is put together, a consent agenda is, you know, stuff that should be
very non- controversial. It's, you know, accepting minutes, it's accepting correspondence, it's,
you know, that sort of thing. I don't believe in all the early years on my Council that we ever
offered the opportunity for the public to comment, correct me if I'm wrong, Eleanor, on the
consent, and ... and we don't have people that often, but it's just a thought potentially of just even
eliminating that.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of
January 19, 2021.
Page 22
Teague: Your mic isn't on, Eleanor.
Dilkes: You certainly don't have any legal obligation to allow public comment on anything except for
public hearings. But with respect to the consent calendar, I think we have allowed public
comment on ... on those items Um, sometimes even though they're routine, you want to get them
separate... separated so you only have to have them have one vote, but there might be an item
someone wants to comment on. That ... I'm not recalling that we've ever not allowed comment.
Teague: So it does sound ... (both talking) Yes?
Salih: You know my internet is really terrible today. But I just want to add another thing, another
benefit that I can see here is for the Mayor and ... and me when we taking time, for example, if
we knew how many people ahead of time. For example, say 15 people would like to speak and
we know that public comment go only until 8:00, maybe instead we're saying three to five
minutes, and if we think that will make them like go more than that, we can say, okay, since we
have a lot people today, we're going to give everybody three minute instead of like three to five
minutes. I just feel like some benefit to it during especially the public comment.
Teague: It did seem, and correct me if I'm wrong, that there was a majority that was in ... in agreement to
the hybrid model ... of the public comment. Is that fair? Yes. Okay. All right. So we will move
forward with that. And then Council emails and correspondence. I know that Eleanor had
given us an update about that.
Dilkes: Sure, um, Mayor, just ... before we get to that one, I think there was also some interest in having
a timer.
Teague: There was interest in having a timer.
Dilkes: (both talking) ...where that went.
Teague: Yep! So there's a couple of things, there's an interest in having a timer, as well as an online
option for individuals. So, and then I know Councilor Mims also mentioned, um, let's see, oh,
when would we start at least the one hour early. And so why don't we tackle the start one hour
early, maybe people have had an opportunity to think about that. And I don't know from a ... I
would ... I would think that we would do it from a ... public notification point of view. How much
time would it take for the public to be notified and adjust. I guess I will throw out a proposal.
April, the first meeting in April, that would give two months opportunity to kind of -share it
publicly and then hopefully only a few months and then we'll be back in person (laughs) So it
may get people used to that. So I'm seeing some nodding of heads as the first meeting in April.
Okay. And then let's talk about the ... maybe the online version option might be the easiest right
now. Will we want staff to try to bring us back a recommendation or just do a little quick study
on how would that look and then give us a report back on what would that look like if we had
in-person, along with the online option. I'm seeing some shaking of heads. So, Geoff, if you
can report back to the Council on that option. And then the last thing is the timer. What are
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of
January 19, 2021.
Page 23
people thoughts there, were it's something visible, um, I guess it will be visible in Council
Chambers, but it could also be visible, potentially, for those individuals that are online. I'm not
totally seeing shaking of heads (laughs) just a few. Okay. All right. All right. So if you can
find out what the option is from staff to make that possible that'll... that'll be great. Last item
that we're going to talk about in this section is the Council emails and correspondence. All
right.
Dilkes: There were ... there were two issues there. That's when emails to Council, the council@iowa-
city.org come to you, whether that's as it is now in the next packet or in real-time, and then the
second issue was whether you want all communication to Council to be included as it is now on
the Council agenda ... on the consent calendar.
Mims: I like the idea of getting the emails in real-time.
Teague: I would agree, emails in real-time. As far as the consent agenda, it seemed like some items...
sometimes I personally don't think it's appropriate to be there. I wonder if it's ... if there's any
way to have an option .... if people want to include it.
Dilkes: I think one thing we talked about was obviously if it's a consent... if it's a, um ... agenda item, it
will be included under that item, but ... but not just any correspondence. If a ... if a Council
Member wanted to talk about a particular piece of correspondence, you could let us know and
then we would put that on the Council agenda.
Teague: I think I personally like that approach.
Dilkes: And then with respect to getting the ... the emails in real-time, I think what we talked about was
forwarding them to your individual email addresses, just as a kind of reminder that you're not
supposed to be `replying all' to these things.
Teague: Seem like you have a majority of (garbled) We're in agreement! (garbled)
Dilkes: Okay, great! Thanks.
Clarification of Agenda Items:
Teague: I think it was unanimous! Shocking! (laughs) All right, we're going to move on. Uh,
clarification of agenda items for our 7:00 RM ... meeting agenda today. Anyone have anything?
Weiner: I mean I don't ... I don't want to pull anything from the consent... consent agenda, but I would
while we're doing it or after, whenever the appropriate time is, I'd like to make a comment about
the CPRB.... minutes, which include all their recommendations.
Teague: Okay. Anything else from the ... for the meeting agenda? All right, moving on to info packet
January 7c'.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of
January 19, 2021.
Page 24
Information Packet Discussion (January 7, January 14):
Bergus: I had a quick question about IN, which was the 2020 building stats. Geoff, I think you'd
mentioned this before, but do you have a sense of just how that compares to other years? I
noted in the ... think it was in like the financial report. It was talking about fiscal years and had
some statistics in the same info packet. But, and this was calendar year for the building stats on
page 176, but just off the top of your head, do you have a sense of how down it is for 2020?
Sorry to put you on the spot, you're muted!
Mims: I have a quick suggestion, since you bring that up, Laura. As I recall, I think staff does this
every year. Would it be possible in a packet maybe to take this same report from the last five or
six years and just put that in there, so we could kind of look at it? I'm assuming we've had that
same report every year, and if so.. just give us the last five or six years maybe?
Frain: Yeah, we have a, uh, a ... kind of an annual comparison that's ready to go from 2009 to 2020. So
that'd be a one-page report that we could ... we could easily put in the packet, but, you know, we
finished the year, as you can see, with the 87 million in construction value for our permits, and
just looking back at the last four years, it was 231 million, 192 million, 216 million, and 388
million. So 87 million is the lowest we've been. You'd have to go all the way back to ... looks
like 2011 before we were down in that that area. So it was a tough year ...uh, tough year
and ... and, you know, in the report that we can issue or we can send to you, you'll notice that it's
different based on the type of...type of permit. Our single-family and our ...uh, our single-family
permits remain pretty strong. It's multi -family and commercial that you see a big drop off. But
we'll put that report in a future packet for you.
Bergus: Thank you. And thanks for just that very general comparison. I didn't... that's kind of what I
was going for is how much is it down, and the answer is a lot. So ... thank you.
Salih: I have something, but I really don't know if this (mumbled) or just like, Geoff, uh, what it called,
the letters to us or email to us about 110 surplus, that there is an option we can add it to the
affordable housing, if we need to. I just want to see like what ... what the Council think about his
recommendation for that.
Frain: Yeah, just for clarification and for the public's understanding. The FY22 budget has a $122,000
surplus. I don't have the exact number, but roughly $122,000 surplus. And as I was talking
with some of you over the course of this budget season, I've indicated that you certainly have
the ability to apply that to a ... a line item, uh, without having to adjust taxes and while still
presenting a balanced budget to the public. So if that's affordable housing, you can ... you can
easily add $100,000 and put that towards affordable housing or for Aid to Agencies or any ...any
initiative that you see fit, and right now it's just kind of excess surplus that we're showing right
now.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of
January 19, 2021.
Page 25
Teague: Could I make a recommendation? I think that the $122,000 funds, the surplus, is very
important. We're going to have other opportunities to talk budget. If we can hold off, but
definitely think about, um, if there is any projects or any support for affordable housing, if that
would be the one, that will happen in the future budget conversation. But I think it's good for us
to be... have that in the forefront of our head. I... I've been on, like I said, I've been through a few
of these, and I know last minute, if we can avoid that last minute, you know, proposal is what I
would definitely suggest, but think about it and we'll ... we don't have a lot of time right now to
navigate through that though. All right. Any other item for January 7? You're on mute.
Mims: Sorry, it went the wrong way. Uh, just quickly point out IN, the comprehensive annual
financial report. This is a pretty significant report that Dennis and his staff put together. A lot
of...a lot of detail there, but they do a great job, and that's something they've gotten awards for
number of years.
Teague: Anything else? Moving on to January 14a .
Bergus: This IP...um, sorry IP9, which was the strategic plan update for January 2021. Very well
presented, lots of really good information. If that hasn't yet gone out with like a... one of the
City releases, I hope that it will shortly. Um, really accessible and helpful summary of also how
we... how our adaptations in this really weird last year still fit with our strategic plan. So I was
glad to see that.
Teague: We do have item IP8 and that is for the joint entities agenda. Is there anything that someone
wants to add? The City of Coralville will be hosting.
Taylor: Um, yes, Mayor, I was giving some thought to that, and I... I think if Af the rest of the groups
that attend that meeting would agree, I think we need to make some kind of a joint statement
that we... our community won't tolerate, urn ... how do I want to put it? Anger and ... well, maybe
somebody else can come up with a phrasing for that, like the violence and the anger and the
intimidation that we... we just won't tolerate in our communities. If other think that we maybe
should bring that up.
Teague: I guess, personally, I'm not sure what we're referring to with the anger, violence, or
intimidation.
Weiner: My...my sense is that ... that Councilor Taylor is referring to what happened at the U.S. Capitol
on January 6th, essentially insurrection, and the ... and the ongoing threats to state capitals,
that ... that... that we've heard about and are prepared for.
Teague: Okay. What are people thoughts on (both talking)
Taylor: Mayor, I think I was thinking of that because of the recent events and the theme for ...for this
year's MLK events was Truth, Love and Justice. And I think if we could kind of play on that, as
far as making a statement... that might be better.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of
January 19, 2021.
Page 26
Teague: So are you thinking that our agenda item we can more so make a statement and, um ... make a
statement related to some of that you mentioned, and I guess we can probably connect outside
of this to create something, if people are in agreement that we will do that.
Taylor: Yeah, right. Maybe a more positive spin on it would be that the Truth, Love and Justice in the
community, as opposed to the negative aspects of it.
Teague: Okay. Is this something that you would like to present... when... when... on the agenda item...
from the City of Iowa City?
Taylor: Oh, I could, if you'd like to since I brought it up.
Teague: Okay.
Taylor: I don't have a lot to say about it except that I think that it's... that's... it's important at this time.
Teague: Maybe what we'll do is we'll connect if people are in agreement with it and then we can figure
out who will present it and all ... and all that. So, any other item that people want to suggest for
the 25th joint entities meeting?
Weiner: I mean, I ... I (mumbled) I think it's useful to continue discussing COVID, at least to some
extent. The ... I was really happy to see that on ... on this evening's agenda. I don't know if they
want to have anyone speak to where ... sort of to that group on ... on where things stand in this
community.
Teague: Uh huh. So maybe we can make a suggestion for the City of Coralville to have a Johnson
County representative come forth to talk about COVID. So we're seeing nodding of heads,
Geoff. Will you make that request, and then I think we'll just ... I'll make the announcement of
our change in time, uh, starting in April. Anything else? All right. Um, we have ... I think we'll
just end here, and we'll do our Council updates at the end of our formal meeting tonight. All
right. Anything else? We will see you at 7:00 and remember to sign out of this and sign back in
to the new Zoom link. See you soon!
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of
January 19, 2021.