HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-11-30 TranscriptionPage 1
Teague: All right. Welcome everyone to the City of Iowa City, um, formal meeting to
those that are in the audience. And for those that are listening through social
media, I did want to take a moment to just acknowledge Adil Adams, who was a
change agent in the Sudanese community, who has always made it his priority to
put other, others before himself. He passed away on Friday and just wanted to talk
a little bit about him. He had an MBA from Mount Mercy, as well as a law degree
from Khartoum, Sudan. He was born and raised in Sudan, but his unique
perspective came from the fact that he had children who have been born in the
United States, as well as Sudan. Through mentorship and advocacy, Adil gave the
Sudanese community a voice at the table, not only in Iowa City, but more broadly
across the nation. For example, Adil was a critical piece of the Obama campaign
in Iowa, as he advised the campaign on how to engage with the large Sudanese
community in Iowa City. Outside of his work on the Human Rights Commission
for the City of Iowa City, he spent time spearheading the Sudanese community's
involvement with the Iowa City's taxi business. Adil was passionate about helping
others and his involvement in the Sudanese community, and his six years on the
Human Rights Commission showed just that. I ask that you joined me in a
moment of silence. ....Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 2
2. Proclamations
2.a. Human Rights Day
Teague: Going move to item number two, which is proclamations, and it is 2a, Human
Rights Day. And I'm going to ask that Councilor Bergus read this.
Bergus: (reads proclamation) And accepting this proclamation this evening is Jim Olson
with the Johnson County United Nations Association.
Olson: Thank you. My name is Jim Olson. I'm the president of the Johnson County
chapter of the United Nations Association. I want to thank Mayor Teague for
issuing this proclamation and thank the Council, the Human Rights Commission,
uh, the City's Office of Equity and Human Rights and all those in the city
government, and throughout our community who work day in, day out to protect
and uphold the rights of all residents of Iowa City. As the proclamation states,
December 10th is Human Rights Day. It's the 73rd anniversary of the adoption of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the UN General Assembly. It's an
opportunity for us to reflect on the fact that human rights are under attack around
the world. We must remain vigilant and active, and our idea of what constitutes
human rights are continually evolving. In that vein, I'd like to invite all of you to
participate in the Human Rights Day event on Friday, December 10th at noon, a
virtual presentation hosted by the University of Iowa Center for Human Rights
and our UNA chapter, uh, presented by Dr. Tom Farr of the University of Denver
on the topic, is there a right for people to cross borders in search of a better life?
So with that again, I, I thank Mayor Teague and the Council for issuing this
proclamation and declaring December 10th Human Rights Day in Iowa City.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 3
3. Special Presentations
3.a. COVID Update — Johnson County Public Health
Teague: We are moving on to item number three, which is a special presentation, 3a is
going to be COVID update from Johnson County Public Health. And with that
we'll, we'll welcome Sam Jarvis.
Jarvis: Good evening to the City Council, Sam Jarvis, Johnson County Public Health. Uh,
certainly we'll cover probably what's on front of mind of most folks, and we've all
seen and know that the public is aware of a new Greek letter, which is Omicron,
and certainly it's predominated the news in the past several days and, um, you
know, well after the holidays. And so, uh, at this point in time, I do just want to
reiterate, uh, after we've spoken to our state and federal partners at this moment,
um, there's very -- very little known about this new variant. And so, uh, while yes,
it's been listed as a variant of concern by the World Health Organization, uh, we
are still waiting to learn more about it, whether it's more transmissible, uh,
whether or not we'll see more breakthrough cases with vaccine. So, uh, at the
moment, uh, certainly it is of note, it is a concern, but, uh, there is no need to, to
cause panic or, or, uh, much alarm at the moment. And a good reminder that we
do have the, the knowledge and the tools to be able to continue to, uh, lower
transmission and make our daily life safer. Uh, so whether or not we, we'll learn
more about this variant into the coming days or weeks, or whether it is identified
in the US or Iowa, we do want to remind everyone that again, we can continue to
physically distance as best as possible. We can continue wearing masks,
vaccination is, uh, one of the best tools, uh, against, uh COVID-19 and certainly
now, and the giving, uh, the past couple of days, we've seen the CDC strongly
encourage 18 years and older, uh, get their booster. So it's been a little bit more
clearer messaging from our federal partners on, on what that means for everyone.
So again, we are encouraging everyone 18 years and older to get their booster. So
if you've received Moderna or Pfizer, it is six months after your second dose. If
you've received Johnson & Johnson, it's two months after that. And so, uh, we'll
continue to share information on availability, uh, with our partners, uh, across our
community at our hospitals and pharmacies. So, uh, at the moment we are, uh,
still going to see an increase in, in trend. I believe the last time we reported out,
uh, near the end of October, we started to see that increase. Uh, we were hoping to
see that, uh, trend downward, uh mid-October, but, um, sadly we're not there yet.
Uh, roughly over the past several days, we've had an average of about 80 cases.
We've seen some triple digit days. Uh, so it's, it is concerning and we're
continuing to see transmission, uh, in, uh, vaccinated and unvaccinated
households. Uh, one area of concern that I know that our disease prevention, uh,
team has, has noted that, um, uh, our younger, uh, age ranges who were not
eligible to be vaccinated yet, or maybe waiting to be vaccinated, uh, would
become ill. And then certainly parents, uh, who are vaccinated were, were
becoming ill after that. So, um, the upside to that is those who are vaccinated,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 4
certainly have, uh, less severe illness, uh, which is good news. Uh, but again, a
good reminder that, um, we, we strongly encourage everyone to get vaccinated as
soon as possible. On a lighter note, uh, to date we've allocated, uh, roughly over
12,000 pediatric vaccines for five -to -11 -year-olds. So well over what our
population is locally. So at the moment the limiting factor is getting appointments.
We know that there's been some frustration across the community, but please be
patient. And please know that our hospital and pharmacy partners are doing
everything they can to get those appointments scheduled or to fill those
appointments, then to offer off-site clinics, which we've had several in the past
weeks. Uh, we know that those clinics are now roughly approaching their, their
second dose clinic, uh, starting this week. So we've got several others, uh, being
planned for the end of this week and early next week as well, too. So, uh, overall,
uh, the upside is that we are getting, uh, five -to -11 -year-olds vaccinated. So, uh,
that is, I believe most of our kind of updates and highlights. I'm happy to answer
any questions.
Weiner: Any sense of when that is going to come in for the under -fives?
Jarvis: Uh, no clue. We have asked the state Health Department, uh, when that will be,
and I believe they're still waiting on getting those improvements, um, to their, the
state's dashboard. But, um, from what our partners report, uh, we believe there's
been roughly at least 3000 five -to -1 lyear-olds vaccinated in our community. Uh,
that was report, a report we received about a week and a half ago. Uh, we know
that from our partners at UIHC, uh Hy -Vee and Towncrest and, and the VNA, uh,
they performed some off-site clinics, uh, about a week ago. So we're making good
progress. I mean, there, there is a high demand in our area, so, uh, which we're
happy to see.
Weiner: And, and, um, your view on the current need for wearing a mask.
Jarvis: Uh, we need to continue to do so. Uh, certainly right now, the CDC's guidance has
not changed. So areas of substantial or high transmission need to continue to wear
mask in indoor spaces. Um, so we're, we're hoping that folks continue to
recognize that and remain vigilant. Uh, right now I think where, uh, we are seeing
transmission occur is, is that lapse, you know, certainly we're all very tired of this
and it's been very difficult. Uh, so it's just a reminder to stay vigilant and keep up
the good practices while we, we enter this, uh, trend upward, upward trend of
cases. And then certainly to recognize that it, we saw good results of flu season
last year, we virtually saw very little cases of flu. So we know that, uh, this is
helpful for other respiratory viruses as well.
Teague: Thank you.
Jarvis: Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 5
3.b. UCI Jingle Cross World Cup Cyclocross Race
Teague: Yes. All right. Moving on to item number 3b, the UCI Jingle Cross World Cup
Cyclocross Race. Welcome, Josh Schamberger.
Schamberger: Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. And I appreciate it. Just a few
minutes in front of the Council here tonight as I been customary, uh, I've I'd like
to come and just, uh, give the Council a little overview over the UCI World Cup
event that's taken place now five times in Iowa City and been broadcast five times
in Iowa City to, uh, between 14 and 16 million people across Europe and the
country, uh, live from the Johnson County fairgrounds. And this year was
certainly our most challenging of the five years, because we had worked so hard
to book that international event, uh, on a bye weekend for Iowa football. And then
they went and changed the schedule and we were up against Homecoming or, um,
Homecoming, uh, game. So very challenging, uh, with people and resources, but
as always the City of Iowa City continues to step up and support alongside
Johnson County to put on and host this tremendous event. Uh, there's a couple of
individuals in particular that always step up and that's Brock, with your Streets
Division and Darien Nagel-Gamm. And of course Geoff and his entire team. So
just want to thank all of them. Uh, this event attracted just short of about 300
people from Europe, uh, and this was our most popular and most attracted event
of all the five that we've had. And, uh, that was evident in the women's race, were
in the women's professional race, we had here in Iowa City for three or four days
up until race day, and then on race day, we had nine of the top 10 ranked women
in the world here in, uh, in Iowa City and Johnson County. And they come from
all over the country, uh, Canada, and certainly all over Europe where they have
Sunday night cyclocross, just like we have Sunday night football. And so that's
why it's broadcast live all across Europe. So, um, I'll be happy to answer any
questions, but just want to say, thank you. This brings in a tremendous amount of
attention and exposure to the City of Iowa City. And certainly with all of the
visitors, it brings, uh, hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenditures to local
businesses, hotels, restaurants, and, uh, and retail establishments. So as
customary, we always like to bring a little piece of the race to you. So Geoff can
hang it alongside the rest of the year's events. So this year we brought you a
section of the start line, uh, from the UCI World Cup that has Iowa City on it and
was shown all over the world. So thanks very much, happy to answer any
questions, but appreciate all the continued support of this significant event.
Weiner: Josh, I have a lot of friends in Belgium and I recorded the Belgian national
anthem being played for one, for one of the winners. And they couldn't believe it.
Schamberger: Yeah. You know, we have to always make sure that when we play the
national anthem, we have the exact national anthem. So we have about 40 of them
queued up. And I'm always worried that the Netherlands is going to play for
Belgium, but we got it right, so. (laughter)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 6
Teague: It was a great event. Well ran. And I think you always should be very proud of
all the work as well as the experience that it brought to the community.
Schamberger: Thanks very much, Mayor.
Teague: Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 7
4 — 9. Consent Calendar
Teague: Could I get a consideration for adoption of the consent calendar as presented?
Weiner: So moved.
Salih: Second.
Teague: Moved by Weiner, seconded by Mims. Would anyone from the public like to
address any item? (several talking)
Salih: Moved by who?
Taylor: Moved by Janice, seconded by Mazahir.
Teague: Sorry. All right.
Salih: That's okay.
Teague: I heard Weiner.
Weiner: Yeah—I, I made motion and Mazahir seconded it.
Teague: I'm sorry, moved by Weiner, seconded by Salih. I must've said the wrong
name—your name. Okay, great. All right. Would anyone from the public like to
address a topic that is under the consent agenda? If so, please write your name at
the desk over there in the corner, and then come to the podium and state your
name and your address. Welcome.
Theisen: Sony, sorry. Uh, hello. My name is Nicholas Theisen. Um, I'm not going to give
you my address, but don't have to, so I'm not going to. Um, I want to draw your
attention to item 5a, on the consent agenda, because, so this is relevant to a
discussion that you had during the work session. Several of you mentioned the
fact that you weren't exactly clear what it was that the, the TRC wanted at certain
times, like what they're doing. And it's interesting that you brought up at several
points requests for things from them that they actually discussed at that very
meeting. So I wanted to highlight the fact that it's in the minutes, and if you want
to know what their timeline is for the extension, you could just, you know, read
the minutes that you are in fact passing right now. And so that's, and so it was a
more general comments on that fact, there is a basic problem that this Council has
had time and time again, where literally the inf -- it's right there. It's literally right
there, the information that you need from your commissions to make decisions
that you should be making has already been given to you. And so 90%, most of
the time when commissions have problems, it's precisely because this Council
isn't actually doing its work. So I would strongly suggest that before you make
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 8
grand pontificating statements about like, oh, we need this from the TRC or, oh,
we need this from Planning and Zoning Commission that you could actually read
the fucking minutes that they send to you. Thank you.
Teague: Thank you. Welcome. And we ask that people keep their comments to three
minutes and the timer is over there. Welcome.
Petersen: Hello, Noah not doxing myself. And now I will -- now I will read an email I
sent to y'all, uh, at the end of October, that most of y'all ignored, which I'm not
surprised. Anyways. Okay. So here's we read from the email. Now I will expand
on the need for having Zoom call-in public comment at meetings.
Teague: This, Noah, is not --
Petersen: I don't care.
Teague: Oh, well, if --
Petersen: Every single person --
Teague: -- not a consent item --
Petersen: Well, are you're gonna have accessible meetings.
Teague: If this is not a consent item --
Petersen: I don't care.
Teague: Please be respectful, and wait until --
Petersen: Oh, wait, no, hahaha, you don't get to tell me to be respectful when you are
currently discriminating against disabled people by not --
Teague: Noah --
Petersen: -- having accessible meetings, do not give me any lessons about respect or not
respect than you are currently discriminating repeatedly --
Teague: Noah, this is not a consent item --
Petersen: -- make meetings accessible
Teague: It is not a consent item.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 9
Petersen: I don't care. You are currently being extremely ablest by not having hybrid
meetings. So I'm going to continue to speak. You are currently discriminating
against my community,
Teague: Noah --
Petersen: -- so I'm not just going to stand by and be silent.
Teague: Noah.
Petersen: No.
Teague: This is not acceptable
Petersen: uh, not acceptable that you are discriminating against disabled people. Not even
just disabled people. That just makes it worse. You just discriminate against
everyone else who can't physically make it...
Teague: Noah.
Petersen: -- you just had an update about a pandemic.
Teague: You're welcome to come back up.
Petersen: Oh, I will. I will.
Teague: All right.
Petersen; So I'm gonna, I'm gonna continue reading my email.
Teague: No.
Petersen: Every single person should have the same opportunity for public comments
Teague: Noah, this is not a consent item.
Petersen: Currently, that is not the case contacting you all by email or in person out of
meeting is not the same as giving public comment at a meeting.
Teague: Noah, this is not a consent item.
Petersen: That is the fact.
Teague: Noah.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 10
Petersen: It is unacceptable that the very reasonable accommodation providing Zoom call
and options...
Teague: Noah, you are being disrespectful to the request by the Mayor.
Petersen: Shut up.
Teague: You are being disrespectful.
Petersen: I are -- no, you are, you are being disrespectful.
Teague: You are being disrespectful.
Petersen: Well, you are being incredibly ableist, so I don't really care.
Teague: You are being disrespectful,
Petersen: You are discriminating, you are committing discrimination against the
community I am part of --
Teague: Please take your seat.
Petersen: No. As I was saying. Oh yes. The Johnson County Board of Supervisors
providing some [muffled] lack of technical ability. As Susan Mims told me few
minutes ago it's because you don't want too much public comment. And you and
Bergus both told me you've already decided that. So you can't apparently reverse
your decisions for some bizarre reason. Even if we weren't still in pandemic, there
are a number of reasons why people can't attend meetings, but would still like to,
and the option, it would be able to, if the Zoom call-in option was available. I am
a disabled person. I want to be able participate in public meetings. So my
disability prevents me from being able to physically make it to said meetings. But
currently I cannot do that. It makes me feel discriminated against, and that I
matter less to this Council than my able-bodied neighbors.
Teague: Thank you.
Petersen: Change your damn mind. Stop discriminating against me and everyone else in
my community.
Teague: Thank you.
Petersen: Are you going to do that
Teague: Next?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 11
Petersen: I'm sorry you don't care about ableism right in your community. That should
be....
Teague: All right. We're gonna we're we're gonna, we're gonna, we're gonna move on to
the next speaker that wants to address the topic on the consent agenda.
Weipert: Yes. Travis Weipert, Johnson County Auditor, Tiffin, Iowa. So not an Iowa City
resident, so I can keep it brief. You have the re -precinct maps in front of you. I
know there, I believe that's coming up later on. I would just like to thank the Iowa
City staff for all the help that they've provided us and given us the leadway to
draw the maps on, it's great collaboration between both governments. Um, we're
happy if you don't vote on any of the maps, that you like to draw some more, but
just wanted to share that everything that, between Geoff and Eric, Kellie, the City
staff, they've been amazing to work with as we do this process. So thank you,
guys. Any questions?
Teague: Thank you.
Weipert: That's good. Thanks.
Teague: Welcome.
Kauble: I would like, excuse me. I would like to talk about the consent agenda. Um,
specifically if someone was at home and disabled and they wanted to comment on
the consent agenda and they would be unable to, because this Council lacks
hybrid meetings, a hybrid meeting allows someone to call in from Zoom. This is,
uh, this, uh, these hybrid meetings as shown by the Board of Supervisors are
possible. But as members of this committee, this Council have said before, they
don't do it because they don't want a flood of public input. That's ridiculous as
shown by the Board of Supervisors, hybrid meetings are effective and they work.
And the only reason this Council and the City don't do it is because they want to
restrict public comment. So again, if someone wanted to have something pulled
from the consent agenda, they wouldn't be able to, because they'd be at home. I
know several people who aren't able to participate in this meeting because they
couldn't physically come here. That's not democracy. That's not what this, what
our government, what our country is built upon. You may, or I mean, all of you
from Geoffrey to Bruce, all of you people, you don't give a damn about the
public, because if you did, you would allow hybrid meetings. It's possible. There's
no reason why you can't. Thank you.
Teague: Thank you. What anyone else like to address the topic on the consent agenda?
Are you corning for the consent agenda or for the open agenda? Welcome.
Landry: Good evening, Mayor, uh, uh, current City Council, Doyle, D O Y L E Landry,
LAND as in David R Y, Positive Vision Communications. I'm asking
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 12
respectfully that the item 7a, be tabled for a complete diversity, equity, and
inclusion review, um, by respected officers, um, acknowledged by the Governor
of Iowa in relation to fairness and equity for African-Americans, uh, similar to
other cities in Iowa that have done the same exact thing to ensure that the
contributions of African-Americans i.e. construction have been documented, have
been awarded because as of this contribution, me stating this, there's not a single
African-American construction company that has been even consulted in relation
to building of anything in Iowa City during this fiscal year, this fiscal year. So the
appropriate and, um, NAACP, Urban League, National Association of Black
Journalists, National Association of Construction Professionals -- we can, I can
extend this past three minutes, but you sure you'll get the point. Uh, please
respectfully consider tabling 7a, 7a, for a further review. Thank you.
Teague: Thank you. Is there anyone else then willing to address a topic on the consent
agenda? Seeing no one....Council discussion. I did want to point out that 8a, the,
uh, re-precincting. Um, this is, uh, we have an item here to set a public hearing.
The Council will be having a special work session on December 7th at 8:00 AM.
Just to have a further discussion. Hearing no other comments. Roll call please.
Oh, yes. Roll call please. [Roll call, stops at Salih]
Salih: Before I vote, I thought, we're going to do discussion, before the voting or
the...when was the discussion.
Teague: Yeah, that was, I opened up discussion. Sony. I had opened up discussion, sorry.
Salih: I don't know, but.... We are not discussing, right. We just vote at this time.
Teague: I think if you wanted to make a comment, you can make a comment and then
vote.
Salih: I really would like to discuss 7a more, but I don't know at this point how we can do
that. Can we pull it from the consent agenda as this point?
Goers: Okay. Well, at this point it's been moved and seconded and we're have eight coun-
- or I'm sorry, six Council members have voted. Um, uh, I'm not sure we can
remove it at this point. I'm sorry.
Teague: But I think you can make a comment if you wanted to and then vote.
Salih: No, because I, I wasn't really giving it the attention and there was somebody
comment about it and I thought after we hearing them, we have like Council
discussion, and after that we vote, but I don't hear you say Council discussion. It
was a public discussion, but it was not Council discussion after that. Yeah. Isn't
that the right order or I'm mistaken?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 13
Teague: I believe I stated Council discussion. And then --
Salih: You said the roll call, as soon as the first -- the person fmished.
Teague: Yeah. I, what I, what I recall doing is saying Council discussion, and then I
jumped in to make mention about 8a, item 8a, for -- because I wanted to notify the
public that we'll be having a special work session.
Salih. Yeah. But as soon as you're fmished, you said roll call, you know, like, I don't
know how you're going to solve this, but I don't think so. I hear that there is a
Council discussion here, and at that time I was like, I would like ready to say, can
we pull this from the consent agenda so we can talk about it more.
Teague: I think at this point you can give a comment and then make your vote.
Salih: Yeah, my comment, I would like my comment is, I would like to take to this item
off the consent, you know, the consent agenda and make it an item on the formal
agenda. Yep. That's what my comment is.
Teague: Because this has already been seconded and, moved and seconded, and I know
what you're getting at. I think the only option is to give a comment and then make
a vote.
Salih: Okay. All right then. Yes.
Teague: Okay. Motion passes 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 14
10. Community Comment (items not on the agenda) [UNTIL 7 PM]
Teague: We are on to item number, I believe it's 10, item number 10, which is
community comment. This is an opportunity for people to speak on any item that
is not on our agenda. You will be given three minutes to speak and this period
will end at 7:00 PM. Um, uh, for a total time of, well, we may extend it just a few
minutes after. I'll make sure that it's open for at least 30 minutes. And also I asked
that, um, people, uh, address your comments to the Council and the clock is over
here. There is a place where you can sign up and I'll welcome everyone to come
that wants to speak. Welcome.
Houlahan: My name is Anne Houlahan. And first off the -- I'd like to say that we can't
hear hardly anything you're saying to the public here, cause it's very muffled. I'm
with the Catholic Worker House and I'm a member of the excluded workers fund
coalition. I've been amazed and disappointed in this process. Iowa City and
Johnson County, if I understand it correctly, received millions of ARPA dollars in
April or May. Our coalition members have been attending Board of Supervisor
meetings, City Council meetings, and public input sessions since April. The
excluded essential workers have been speaking at these sessions. You have heard
their stories, those of you who have attended, which have been very few elected
officials. I thought this money was to be directed to people impacted by the
pandemic, especially essential workers. I'm amazed how many hands came out,
needing pandemic relief, especially in the last few weeks. Few voices, other than
the excluded workers had been heard all year long at these sessions. The most
egregious distributions in my opinion, is the Sheriffs office getting $1.2 million
for GPS monitoring, which is likely to impact persons of color more than white
citizens. Another distribution is $3.4 million going to Kent Park to replace the
shower house and allieve -- alleviate pollution. Are these items which should be
covered by pandemic relief, I think not. Kent Park gets nearly twice as much as
essential workers. We have been discussing this need for most of the year.
Finally, we got approval for $2 million from the County, but these still hold up,
possibly till March, Iowa City has proposed continue contributing one and a half
million to supplement the County money. That is great. A good start. The
pandemic has been going on for nearly two years, and these essential workers
have received little if any relief. The money is less than what they deserve, which
is what we got without lifting a fmger. It is not right that they are not getting the
full amount of stimulus payments we received, but that distribution should not be
delayed until March and should not have strings attached. This is the holiday
season. Bills are continuing to come due and the pandemic is still with us. The
excluded workers need the money. Now these are who I thought the money was
intended for. Why are we so resistant to helping the least among us. Please
approve the funds and distribute them with Johnson County with the least amount
of red tape, that is: proof of identity, proof of residency and stated need, please
stop the delaying tactics. We are not going away. Thank you for your time. Thank
you. (applause)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 15
Teague: Welcome.
Bowen: Good evening. My name is Pat Bowen and I live in Iowa City. And I'm here
tonight to ask you to finalize and complete your commitment for the excluded
workers fund as well. Don't drop the ball. Last September, Iowa City committed
to contributing $1.5 million of the American Rescue Plan money to make sure
that the excluded workers got at least a $2,000 stimulus check, a $1,400 check in
March, which is what we're hearing, it's going to be March of 2022, that is two
full years past the beginning of this pandemic, is not good enough. Excluded
workers need $2,000 in checks before Christmas and regarding the disbursement
of monies, other excluded workers funds across the country are doing the same
thing. And in New Jersey, they ran into problems because the paperwork
requirements were so burdensome that the size of the checks were so small people
didn't even apply for them. If that happens here, the fund will be a failure. Our
government, meaning all of you, will have failed the people that you are here to
serve. As Anne said, there needs to be little to no paperwork. She already re -said
them, but it's proof of residency, proof of who you are and a self -certification of
need. These people are needy. They can't wait. You promised them a million and
a half. Now it's a time to fulfill that. And I didn't realize when this meeting started
that first issue, but as a side note, no Zoom call or comments is wrong. We are
going into winter. We are going into a new COVID variant. This doesn't seem
like the right time to stop this and to shut down the Zoom meetings, your, Mayor,
your mask order has been extended indefinitely. So do you expect people to come
down here in the middle of winter to give comments? You are cutting us off. And
so I would like to request that this be implemented again. Thank you. (Applause)
Teague: Thank you. Welcome.
Bowen: Hello. My name is Kenn Bowen, and I live on the east side of Iowa City, and I'm
a proud member of Iowa CCI, Veterans for Peace, Chapter 161. And also I am
part of the coalition for the excluded workers fund. Last September, Iowa City
committed contributing $1.5 million from the American Rescue Plan to make sure
excluded workers got at least a $2,000 stimulus check. That was almost three
months ago. Now that Johnson County has voted to create an excluded workers
fund, I am here today to demand the City make good on their promise and transfer
$1.5 million to the County's new fund and do it now. Excluded workers risks their
lives to keep society going during the pandemic. And they're still doing that today
because the pandemic hasn't gone away. It's getting worse. No cause for panic,
but there is cause for concern. They haven't had any relief. None whatsoever. A
$1,400 stimulus check in March isn't good enough. Excluded workers need
$2,000 by Christmas. I ask every member of this Council to walk a mile in their
moccasins. Think about it. You got your checks. Why aren't they getting theirs?
Anyway, the difference between the $2 million fund and a $3.5 million fund is the
difference between $1,400 and $2,000. Iowa City has a responsibility to deliver
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 16
on a pledged commitment to the excluded workers and must fully fund that plan
now. Excluded workers can't wait, you promised $1.5 million and now's the time
to fulfill that promise and transfer your fair share to the fund that Johnson County
set up. Thank you very much. (Applause)
Teague: Thank you. Welcome. Yep. And we'll um, we'll extend the time.
Rosa ?: (via Emily Sinnwell): (speaking in Spanish) Thank you. Hi, My name is Rosa.
I'm from Guatemala. I'm here because they've given us the money. The problem is
they're, um, making it too long, and the process is too long. It's -- we're not going to get it
till March. For this, for us, this is too much time to wait. We have a lot of needs and our
needs don't wait till March. Can't wait till March. Rent, light. That's not going to wait till
March. Our hung -- our hunger won't wait for -- till March. We would like the money
sooner. Uh„ this month in December. $1,400 is not enough We need at least $2,000.
We've suffered a lot because of Covid. We fought hard for this money and been waiting
for a long time for it. And it's not just that you're going to wait until March to give it out.
Other people here didn't have to do anything for the money. We as Hispanics have been
doing so much, um, we've been to every meeting, waiting in the, in the, like when it was
hot and now we're starting to get into winter time and we're here in the cold. So March is
not soon enough. I hope you understand this and that you, um, get the money sooner,
please. Thank you.
Teague: Thank you.
Campos (via Sinnwell): (speaking in Spanish) Hi, good evening. My name is Ninoska
Campos. You all know me from the excluded workers fund. We're here insisting
that, uh, you give out the $1.5 million that you promised. You know Johnson
County approved $2 million. But that's not enough with $2 million; it would only
be a small check of maybe $1,400. $1,400 is not nearly enough for all the people
that have suffered during this COVID-19 pandemic. You know that these are
some of the most vulnerable families and they suffered the most. We need that
you -- we need you to also give the $1.5 million to the fund that you promised.
Uh, unite the $1.5 million. Uh, she's referring to this money, to the $2 million that
Johnson County has voted to hand out the money. So that all the people that you
see here in front of you and all the other people that have come to the meetings
receive a check of $2,000. You have to keep your word of what you're promising.
We don't want to wait till March. We've waited enough. We're still in this
pandemic. It hasn't stopped. It doesn't mean anymore that just because we're
vaccinated, it doesn't, um, that we can't get the virus. I'm here as one of the
leaders of the funded excluded worker coalition that, um, you give us this money,
so each one of these people in the month of December gets their check. We don't
want to wait anymore. You have the control and the power. Did you see, in
Illinois, they're giving out a thousand dollars to their inhabitants. And why, with
you guys having the power of the city, you are not completing what you're
promised. What is it? Um, kind of cost to you. I'm being clear that we want this
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 17
money. And if you're bothered by this, I'm sorry. And you'll keep seeing me in
the meetings. Because I'm also fighting for each of these people you see in front
of you who've left work to come here. Keep your promises. We don't want to
wait longer. We need this money from you guys to join the City so that we have a
bigger check and not to put restrictions on it. It should be enough with an ID, a
person can prove that they live in this City of Iowa. Not being proposed, not
proposing all kinds of urn, protocols, because we're doing all the hard work of
Iowa. They are not asking for all these protocols. They tell us what to do and we
do it. We're tired of coming to all these meetings. Why don't you believe us?
We're not here for it -- to be deceived. We, um, lift up or even, um, sort of, um,
carry this economy with all the hard work that we do. And then you're going to
see us here in all the meetings. And you don't want to give us an interpreter,
thinking that maybe that would shut our voice. We'll keep using our voice
because we have rights. Just like, from my check, I pay taxes. Just how I do my
taxes. I see your, I have the same rights. It's just like each and every one of you,
and I'm fighting for all of these vulnerable people, and we're asking for you to
give the $1.5 million that you promised. We want these checks for the month of
December. Thank you for attending us, to us. (Applause)
Teague: Thank you. Welcome.
Gonzales: Hi, good evening. My name is Leon Angel Gonzalez. I'm here to talk about
the check that we're going to get, and I'm feeling happy and also upset or mad
because of the wait period till March. I just got off work. And I'm here today
with some kind of hope that I'm going to receive this check sooner. For me, it
would be something so beautiful, it would be a big help. To receive this check
sooner, it'd be a huge help. And why? One thing is we've, um, almost completed
two years since we've been in this pandemic. The first year we didn't receive
anything. And as for myself, I worked through it or I worked. Why? Because
nobody was going to give us anything, knowing that we're immigrants. So we
carried this risk that we could get infected so we can continue to pay our bills.
During the pandemic. We were there. We were out looking for ways that we
could pay, make our, make payments And then, um, so this is what happened the
first year. And then another thing on top of that came the month of March and
February, finding ways to pay these taxes. It was hard for me. I had to pay taxes,
the bills and rent with support from nobody, not even the government. And then
talking about the second year, January to where we're at now, the same. Looking
for a way to make rent and to pay taxes and without any support. I paid my taxes,
During the first year of the pandemic, I paid my taxes and I had to pay an amount
of $1,500. And now I'm just thinking the check of 1,400. Can you imagine? Tell
me what will this do? If you guys can give out the $2,000, this would be a huge
help. The only thing that I'm asking tonight, and, you know, throughout all these
meetings that we've been in is that you can give us this check, um, this month
that's corning. This would be a huge help for me. And the other thing is that you
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 18
keep your word, that you're gonna, um, give out the money and that you give the
check out in December. Thank you. (applause)
Teague: Thank you. Anyone else like to talk during this time on any item that is not on
the agenda?
Sinnwell: Um, I'm just following the list and I'm looking, is it Doyle? He's next. Oh, I'm
so sorry.
Landry: Evening again. Mayor, the City Council, and the employees paid out of taxes to
manage the City. On March -- on November 30th, 1955, the residents of
Montgomery had a meeting and decided the next day we act, we're not going to
discuss about what to do with our money, but when we remove our money, the
world will notice. December 1st, 1957, December 1st, 1955, the start of the
Montgomery bus boycott, 381 days of African-American residents deciding no
thanks, we'll walk. When you remove your money. Everyone notices. I state that
because of what I asked as a United States Marine Corps veteran during public,
uh, con-- the consent about tabling, tabling. Because sometimes when you sit with
someone who you currently disagree with, it doesn't mean that you don't like the
person. It just means you disagree with the person on an issue. I state that because
this cup of coffee came from the Java House. I specifically purchased it because
of one person on the Council who, when she did not know who I was and thought,
Hmm, I'll take the meeting at the Java House where I found out that Council
[inaudible] birthday. And she made a simple request, just don't publicize my
birthday. (Laughter) I, as a United States Marine Corps veteran, I may not like
what someone has to say, but I will respect it because the oath that I took to
defend his life, to use my life, to defend this country and what it stands for. So I
may not like being called a certain name that starts and ends with an R. I may not
like being treated like one, but there's a difference between that word and a W I N
N E R. Tonight, there are residents here in Iowa City who are white, who are
considering the same actions as the Montgomery residents from 1955 on
November 30th. They are the majority in Iowa City and understand that African-
American residents and taxpayers continue to be ignored. So businesses can't earn
a profit if residents don't spend their money. Consider yourself advised.
Teague: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We have the next person. Come in, please.
Thank you.
Landry: Oh, I wasn't going to say anything else. I just need to do something on the
record.
Teague: All right. Welcome.
Landry: It's the same envelope a certain Councilor got about her birthday.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 19
Teague: Thank you. Next welcome.
Harris: I don't need a really big introduction. Everybody knows who I am.
Teague: Please state it for the record.
Harris: Eric Harris.
Teague: Thank you.
Harris: Um, I've been working with these guys since the beginning of the last year, and I
seen them do a lot of hard work. I've even saw some of the jobs that they do and
some of the work that they do. And I'm not saying that a American person
wouldn't do those jobs, but some of those jobs are tough. So I just got a few facts
that I wanna, you know, just kind of put out there. Um, you know, it's like, it was
just Thanksgiving. It was just Christmas. Um, and when you go to the store, you
can see the difference in the prices. So why not, you know, give these guys this
money that they're asking for at the end of this year, they're going to go through
Christmas to Thanksgiving. And at the end of that, they're going to be struggling
still when they were already struggling through a two-year pandemic. Now, my
next point is, and here's the things that I don't want to challenge people. I just
want people to just get this in their mind. Everybody has been paying attention to
what's been going on that we have a potential to have a pandemic part two, which
could be worse. We just need to wait until the information comes out and we can
figure out what's going on with it. So are we going to sit and wait until a different
variant of the pandemic comes out and then say, Hey, we should've gave those
guys some money to help them because now they need more because we don't
know about this new variant, but if you pay attention to the alarm that the
government gives and the things that happen, we may not know about how bad it
is at first, but eventually we will figure out how bad it is. So it's a struggle
through the past couple of years with the pandemic. And when the last pandemics,
you know, first started out really bad. It kinda wasn't like around this time of the
year. So that kind of matches up. Um, these, all of these people in this room, I
have something in common with them. I struggled through the pandemic. I was
kicked off unemployment when my family had Covid and I'm not afraid to say
that I'm also a formerly incarcerated person. So I struggled during the pandemic.
My wife had Covid three of my children had Covid. We struggled during the
pandemic. And I worked an essential job as well, similar to one of these jobs that
all these people in this room probably worked, making people's beds, making sure
that people eat, making sure people get their food that they order out. Those
people were in those kitchens, just like they say, they pay taxes, just like every
other person. And I'm an American, an American citizen. So it means a lot to me
that we help these people out. Well, I wouldn't be standing up here saying it,
because I have every right to get all the help in the world, but it's just my personal
cause to help all these people out in this room. (Applause)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 20
Teague: Thank you. I'm going to automatically give 10 more minutes, but I'll I want it to
just see a hand of those that was wanting to speak.
Sinnwell: We have like three on our team. Okay.
Teague: Um, so we're going to go till 7:20 and I'm going to drop the time to two minutes.
Kelvin (via Sinnwell): (speaking in Spanish) Uh, good evening, honorable, uh, City
Council members. What you can see on the paper that I'm holding says, listen to
my --my voice and not just mine, but all the people that you see standing before
you. We are residents or inhabitants of this city. And we feel like we're citizens of
this city. We want to be included in this, um, this city All the things that we've
lived, lived through during this pandemic. All the things that we've we've fighted,
fought for. And as people of the city, we're asking you to stand in solidarity with
us. We pay taxes and we contribute every day to this city through our work. Uh,
we contribute to this grand country and the city so that, um, it's better. But we'll
see what kind of decision that you make, but I feel in my heart that you are noble
And you're going to make the right decision and help us with this petition that
we're asking The time that you're meaning, making us wait is too long. The need
is, their families need this. We need this. And what better way than you guys to
help. We would like to ask you as honorable people, as people who keep their
word. To help us with this ask, I believe it is something that you can do is
something in your control in your hands. Um, that's all for my part, and I am
confident that you guys will help us. Thank you.
Teague: Thank you. Welcome.
Kauble: Uh, I'm not public comp -- making public comment right now. I'm just going to
say that. I think two minutes for people who need translation's unfair, it should be
at least four. Furthermore, I think you should let everybody who needs to speak,
speak, regardless of whether that goes beyond 7:20. So that's what's going to
happen.
Teague: Thank you. State your name just for public record.
Kauble: Uh, Santa Claus. Um, no, I'm Dan.
Teague: Welcome.
Andino: Hi, my name is Rosemary Andino and I live in Iowa City in the east side. And
$1.5 million is not enough for this community, for Iowa City alone. Are you
serious? I'm with these guys, I support them, okay. I help them in every way that I
can possibly can. $1.5 million is not going to be enough. I have car trouble and
$1,400 ain't going to cover it, but just labor. Okay? All these individuals here,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 21
they don't have benefits like all of you, all of us in this room. Consider the
medicine that they got to go through, the rent, the bills, and every little detail that
they got to do. Half of these people don't get food stamps. Like half of these
people that are the "do" in Iowa City. Is -- is 1.5 enough to support your
community? Absolutely not. No, not even close. Are you guys going to hear us?
Absolutely not. Why? Because you guys think we're going to give up. No, we're
not going to give up. We're going to get stronger. This is just the beginning. Half
of them couldn't even come. Why? Because the limit of seats that are in this room.
Half of them can't speak English. That's why they're afraid to stand behind the
doors because you guys don't want to hear them out. If you was to give a
interpreter, absolutely. You'll hear 'em, but why are you being so shy about 1.5
when we're the ones that provide for half of you, when you order out, put a roof
on your house or a door or whatever the case be, You -- who do you call?
Somebody that is behind these doors. I'm sure half of you guys have problems in
your house. Do you guys call a plumber? Do you guys consider how much he gets
paid? (sigh) Thank you. (Applause)
Teague: Thank you. Welcome.
Padilla (via Sinnwell): (speaking in Spanish) Good evening. My name is Ken Padilla. Uh,
thanking you for this space, um, for having us here. I know that we've all suffered
in the pandemic. Just like they have us, all of you. Everyone did what they could
to move ahead or get out of it. I'm talking on behalf of the roofers of Iowa City. In
this case, uh, Como people and immigrants. We are grateful for the help that we're
getting. And have you, if you've considered that $1,400 is okay for you guys to
give to us, but look, winter is coming. $1,400 is only going to cover four months
of rent, and that's depending on how much you pay some pay more, some pay
less. Will it cover our food? It's not only the pandemic. It's how they see us. This
affects us more mentally than physically. The mental effect is a lot worse than the
physical effect. And $1,400 for this, um, stage that we're in is not enough. We
could get through the summer during the pandemic because, um, um, because of
the work, but now comes winter and we're not gonna make it. Um, And some
people might not see it like this, but we're a part of the development of Iowa City.
So we ask that you be more considerate with us. If you say something like you're
going to help us get uh, that you do it. Cause you're not just, um, um, you're not
just like holding the agreement with us, but with your, your own selves. Thank
you for your time and buen-, uh, good evening.
Teague: Thank you. Welcome.
Fixmer-Oraiz: Yeah, V. Fixmer-Oraiz with Astig Planning and I'm not actually sure
which one of these is ours. Um, I just want to say, uh, thank you to everybody
who's here. Um, and uh, I know how hard it is to speak your truth in front of
power. And I just really commend everybody from the excluded workers fund for
speaking your voice. Uh, so I am here actually to talk about a grant that, um, our
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 22
company received, um, it's from the Human Rights Commission, the, um, social
justice and racial equity grant. We, uh, I've been before you before, uh, to talk
about some updates. And my team is here actually, along with one of the residents
who attended the training for the, um, housing advocacy initiatives. I wrote that,
um, what happened? Okay, there we go. So, um, I'm just going to give you a
really quick general overview of the project and, um, just wanted to say that a
huge thank you to, um, Councilor Weiner and Mayor Bruce Teague, also Jessica
Andino and Maria Padrone for attending our event, um, where we had, you know,
our attendees for the training were able to ask questions, be, um, listened to, and,
and to hear some of the experiences that Councilors and the Mayor have had, um,
because I, when we're talking about affordable housing, um, and the impacts of
that, particularly in Covid, um, as you can imagine, there's a lot of emotion. And,
um, really what we're trying to do though, is to create a space for residents and,
um, to become advocates for themselves. So instead of having nonprofits and
organizations come and say, you know, this is what the need is for, for residents,
much like the excluded workers fund to be able to organize and advocate for
themselves. So I'm, I'm here with my staff today to kind of just give you a quick
dose of that. And then also to, um, hear Magali who will share her story as well.
Thank you.
Teague: Thank you. Welcome.
Jamili: Hello. Uh, my name is Hekkie Jamili, and, uh, I'll be talking about the first phase
of the project that Vi just mentioned. Uh, the first phase of our project was
community outreach and it consisted of a community survey and one affordable
housing resources events, which was, which spanned across two days. And we
met with the residents and heard their concerns and, uh, pointed them out towards
resources that they could use with regards to affordable housing for the short and
long term. And, uh, during that event, we also conducted a survey in order to
gauge the barriers towards accessing affordable housing in Iowa City and in the
county. And, um, one of the questions that we asked during the survey was, do
you want to participate in a housing advocacy training? And, uh, 34 out of 48
participants said yes to that. And that was the second part or phase of our project.
We conducted a three -hour-long training session followed by a 45 minutes
discussion with City officials, City, including the City Council members, uh,
members from the Iowa City Human Rights Commission, Planning and Zoning
Commission, et cetera. And, uh, there, the residents had a chance to not only get
familiarized with the faces, but also feel comfortable, um, sharing their concerns.
Uh, another thing that we did during this training was that we took some of the
concerns that the residents had pointed out, uh, during the survey and walk them
through a step-by-step process for advocacy for those things. I'm talking about
teaching, from teaching them to how to write emails and letters to officials, to
how to make phone calls, how to appear for, before the City Council and how to
even create neighborhood unions of their own so that they could, urn, magnify
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 23
their voices and, uh, many more. But in order to talk about the next part of the
project, I'd like to hand it over to my colleague. Thank you so much.
Teague: Thank You. Welcome.
Poudel: Thank you, Hekkie. Um, good evening, everyone. I am Asmita Poudel from west
side of Iowa City and with Astig Planning as well. Um, so with all of the
resources we collected and materials, we prepared for the two phases, um, the
survey and training for the advocacy initiative, we collected all of those and
created an affordable housing advocacy initiative toolkit. And the main purpose of
this toolkit is for it to be replicable to all the Iowa City and Johnson County area
for future similar events for, um, housing advocacy. Um, and, um, the toolkit is
around, uh, 30 pages of document, and it will be made available online soon for
public, um, view. Um, so talking about the materials that are present in the toolkit,
we have presented, um, uh, different action items, um, that can be, um, that can be
used to have a successful community survey and affordable housing advocacy
training conducted in a neighborhood. Um, um, and also we have also included,
um, sample, um, survey questionnaire and sample flyers, sample banners,
signages, um, um, like training materials and pamphlet and everything that we
already created during the initiative. And, um, so we, we are really hopeful that,
um, the community will fmd this toolkit beneficial and will be used in future
events. Um, lastly, I would like to say that, um, on behalf of Astig Planning, thank
you to the City for providing us this opportunity and, um, um, being supportive
throughout the initiative. Um, also, uh, um, wrapping up the project, we, um,
followed up with the community, the training participants again, and to see if they
would like to accompany us to City Council meetings, to talk during a
community, um, comment section. So one of them is here and she will tell her
story. Thank you.
Teague: Thank you. Welcome.
Yengo: Good evening. Uh, my name is Magali Yengo. I just move in, uh, Iowa City, like
three months ago. I moved with my five-year old. So for some personal reason,
had to move here so we can have a better life and hope to get it a new beginning.
So the first thing I was confronted, the struggle I have, the first one was housing.
So I noticed something, there's no public housing in the city, so which make my
move very difficult here. So when I landed in Iowa City, I was living with some
friends in a family, but I couldn't stay longer than two months. I had to move and
fmd my way. So I look around, check online, there was no affordable housing. I'm
a single mum. I'm a hard worker. I mean, I'm not a lazy woman, but where I came
from, we used to have, I used to benefit the public, uh, income -based program for
housing. And here there's none. So it didn't help me to get a chance to move. So I
felt alone with this five-year old trying to, I put him in a school close to the place
when I moved in with that family. So I was looking, checking the rent, very, very
expensive. So to be able to have an affordable or something comfortable is start
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 24
from $800. That's the cheapest, I think $800, for fifty -- $900. So when I get here
was pretty difficult to get something that we'd be happy and my son to call Iowa
City a home. So this is, that was the first. The second thing was the credit, the
credit score. I never had any issue to pay my rent. I never been late. I never had
any issue, but when I get here, they have to check my credit story.
Teague: Thank you. Your time is up, but thank you for your story. Welcome.
McGovern: Hello. Uh, my name is Tara McGovern. I'm here to speak on a different
topic, but I want to unequivocally say that I echo each person here in asking that
they receive the money, their money, the money that's been promised them, not
yours, as soon as possible. Um, but I'm actually here to speak about accessibility.
Um, neither Noah nor Dan were out of order and advocating for basic access to
this meeting because every person in our community is a member of our
democracy. And currently we are out of order. Um, many of us here are aware
that it was our Senator, Democratic Senator Tom Harkin that authored the
Americans with Disabilities Act 31 years ago. And, um, this municipality along
with many others are in violation. And I suggest that we fix it all together
because, um, we're supposed to be leaders in that way. So speaking about, um, the
Americans with Disabilities Act, I would specifically like to call attention to
Section II, which applies to state and local governments and, um, protects
qualified individuals with disabilities from discrimination. So, um, within the
Section II, if you look at the ada.gov website and you backslash C O M P O R O
common problems, there's an, there's an aspect here that specifically relates to
public meetings. Um, in terms of program accessibility, Title II requires city
governments to ensure that all of their programs, services and activities when
viewed in their entirety are accessible to people with disabilities. And when
choosing between possible methods of program accessibility, city governments
must give priority to the choices that offer services, programs, and activities in the
most integrated setting possible. So, um, if the ADA isn't, isn't of enough interest
to you, maybe we can pivot to, um, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
because there's actually another great website, um, Section508.gov that outlines
specifically how to create accessible meetings. Now it's a federal, it's a federal --
Teague: Thank you.
McGovern: Okay. I have actually more to say so I'll, I'll write it up and I'll get it to all of
you.
Teague: Thank you.
McGovern: And I, I recommend that you listen to people with disabilities --
Teague: Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 25
McGovern: -- because they're not being represented here. (Applause)
Teague: Thank you. Welcome.
Petersen: Hello again. Um, also just start off, solidarity, uh, with the excluded workers
fund. Uh, yeah. Give them that $1.5 million right now, even though that is, you
needed to give him a whole lot more than $1.5 million, but you give that to them
right now before the end of the year. Like there's no excuse, stop dragging your
feet, just fricking do it. You have the money. So do it.
Teague: Please state your name and address, please.
Petersen: My name is Noah. I'm not going to give you my address. Uh, second point, uh,
fire the cops that arrested, the political arrests of the TRC chair immediately, you
can not allow that fascism to stand in our community and just tell the cops, or you
can just do political arrests whenever they feel like it. Third, I'm going to read my
email again. So hopefully you'll understand this time. Now I will expand on the
need for having Zoom call-in public. I'm going to expand [mumbled] for having
Zoom call-in public comment at meetings. Every single person should have the
same opportunity for public comment as everyone else. Currently, that's not the
case, contacting you all by email phone or in person out of a meeting is not the
same as giving public comment at the meeting, and that is a fact. It's unacceptable
that the very reasonable accommodation, providing Zoom call-in options is not
available for all public meetings. And this accommodation that the Johnson
County Board of Supervisors and the Iowa City TRC are providing. So there's no
excuse for y'all to not be providing that. We are still in a pandemic, currently
people who do not, who cannot safely make it because they literally fear for their
death, if they'd come to public meetings with this many people on it... sorry, I got
a lot, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So that's [mumbled] being discriminated
against. Even if we weren't still in a pandemic, there are a number of reasons
people cannot attend meetings, well, so like -- to be in --should, and need to have
that possibility of accessibility for Zooming call-in meetings available. I'm a
disabled person. I want to be able to participate in public meetings when my
disability prevents me --
Teague: Thank you.
Petersen: -- from being able to physically make it to the meetings. But currently --
Teague: Thank you.
Petersen: -- I can't do that. It snakes me feel the --
Teague: Noah. Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 26
Petersen: I am being discriminated against, and I feel like I matter --
Teague: Noah. Thank you.
Petersen: less to my government than my able bodied neighbors.
Teague: Thank you.
Petersen: You make meetings accessible then. And don't, don't give a human rights
proclamation. If you're going to continue to discriminate --
Teague: Thank you.
Petersen: -- meetings, don't call them public meetings.
Teague: Noah. Thank you.
Petersen: Bruce. Bruce.
Teague: Thank you.
Petersen: You're welcome. (Applause.)
Teague: Welcome.
Kauble: Um, good evening. My name is Dan Kauble. Um, I would like to comment about
several different things. Firstly, why the hell doesn't the City provide translation
services to folks at these meetings? In an email to excluded workers fund leader
David Goodner, Geoffrey Fruin said, hey, the City won't provide translators to
public commenters at -- at public meetings. What the hell was that? That, I mean,
that continues the trend of the City not being accessible and the City government
refusing to be acceptable to folks. Um, also I can't believe the cognitive, uh,
dissonance presented by the Mayor and other City officials during the work
session earlier this evening, many in the many of the setbacks and difficulties
experienced by the TR -- TRC have stemmed directly from the antagonism of
you, Bruce and this City government as a whole, nothing exemplifies that more
than the arrest of the TRC chair, Mo Traore, by ICPD who were emboldened by
your terrible rhetoric. Um, none of you mentioned that during the work session,
none of you mentioned his arrest, which I think is one of the most disconcerting
things that's happened to the TRC during its existence. Um, Mr. Mayor, you need
to stop kissing Royceann Porter's ring and let this Commission, which she has
made it her personal mission to destroy because Commissioners resisted her
abuses, you need to let the Commission do its work. Mayor Teague and Councilor
Salih, the fact that you were refusing to approve the facilitator wanted by the TRC
is clear evidence that you were putting politics and the greed of Iowa City's non -
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 27
profit complex above the welfare of the community. Also and this is coming
directly from TRC commissioner, Amel Ali, who is an Iowa City treasure, very
few of you have paid attention to their work or meetings. Speaking of Amel, I
would like to talk about the accessibility of these meetings. She wanted to
comment here tonight during public comment, but couldn't because the Council
does not allow hybrid, hybrid meetings featuring Zoom. Um, such hybrid
meetings are possible and work as shown by the County, um, Board of
Supervisors meetings. So, I mean, y'all need to do better. Just --
Teague: Thank you.
Kauble: I mean, come on.
Teague: Thank you. All right. We appreciate everyone that has come up during public
comment. So thank you for sharing yourself. Thank you for sharing during public
comment. Public comment is closed at this time though.
Kauble: Are you, are you not gonna let her speak --
Teague: Public comment is closed at this time.
Kauble: Bruce, she's a commissioner. You do not let her speak during your work session
Teague: We are, we are moving on to item number 11, Planning and Zoning Commission
matters.
Kauble: [shouting from seat] No!
Teague: If a majority of the Council is, we're going to move on to 1 la, which is
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Southwest District resolution two. [continued
shouting] I'm going to wait until you're --
Kauble: [shouting] You're going to wait.
Teague: Dan, Dan I'm moving on to l la.
Kauble: [shouting] commissioner!
Teague: We are at Comprehensive Plan 1 la, amendment --
Kauble: Are you going to arrest me again?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 28
11. Planning and Zoning Matters
11.a. Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Southwest District - Resolution to
amend the Southwest District Plan and IC2030 Comprehensive Plan to allow
intensive commercial and open space land uses for the property south of
IWV Road SW and west of Slothower Road. (CPA21-0002)
1. Public Hearing [Continued from 11/16/21]
Teague: And I'm going to open up the public hearing and we're going to start with
comments from staff at this time. Welcome.
Sitzman: Good evening, Mayor, Council, Danielle Sitzman, Neighborhood and
Development Services. Let me get my pockets emptied here. Sorry. Um, the
agenda items on your, uh, agenda tonight, there are three of them that are related
to each other. So I'm going to give one presentation and all three, there will be
motions at the end individually. So as the Mayor introduced, the first agenda item,
1 la, is the Comprehensive Plan amendment for IWV Road SW. There is a
following, um, application regarding an annexation that land into the City of Iowa
City, as well as the rezoning of that land to a City zoning district. Um, so as I said,
I'll give one presentation for all three. Um, this is land generally located at the
west of the intersection of IWV Road SW and Slothower Road. And the applicant
is represented by, um, uh, MMS, John Marner and Josh Entler, who I believe will
be available later for questions, if you have any. And this is approximately 70
acres generally located at, as, uh, described in, bounded here in white. Um, it is,
uh, just west of Highway 218. For a little bit of a context, um, as far as landmarks
go, uh, it's also near the Iowa National Armory -- Guard Armory, which is on the
north side of IWV Road, Johnson County, um, Poor Farm, the historic site, and
also the location of the JECC, the Joint Emergency Communication Center, just to
the east of that, as well as the Johnson County secondary roads, uh, facilities
building and the Iowa City Landfill, just to the southwest. Um, as I said, there are
three applications, our Comp Plan amendment and annexation into rezoning. Um,
the Planning and Zoning Commission had hearings on these items on September
16th, uh, at which time they thought they had approved all three items. Uh, it
turns out we did not make them aware that the vote that they needed to have on
the Comp Plan was insufficient for passing. Uh, technically, had a majority vote,
but the ordinance requires four votes of the membership. So, um, that, uh,
application needed to come back. Because that Comprehensive Plan amendment
needed to come back and also, uh, triggered some, um, conditions that needed to
be added to the rezoning, uh, action as well. Um, and they also did need to amend
their Comprehensive Plan, uh, proposal so that it would be a different action for
them to consider. Um, this is the current zoning of the property, bounded again in
white, here, it's currently zoned a County zoning district and part of the subject
property's already actually in the City of Iowa City. That's a grayish, a rectangle
on the right is surrounded by Residential, uh, County, Residential zoning, as well
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 29
as County aggregate, agra, uh, Agricultural zoning. And the Comprehensive Plan
amendment under consideration tonight is two, two of our long range plans, uh,
the general, uh, long range plan called our Comprehensive Plan, as well as the
more specific district plan, which is a Southwest District Plan. The amendments
are to the maps that are included in those plans, as well as some of the texts and a
description of the, the general area. This shows the original application for the
Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Southwest District Plan, it's bounded in
red. Um, the area was previously designation, designated in this plan, as future
and urban development, which was a bit of a placeholder for future consideration
in the -- in the future. It had been designated this since 1997 and not really
revisited in the Comprehensive Plan consideration. And this is again the initial
application to the Comprehensive Plan amendment as well. I'm sorry, the initial
application to the Southwest plan, it's a mental map. This is the revised, uh, and
currently proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. You'll see two different
colors in that same area. The lighter color, uh, oriented, uh, east to west is a, uh,
vegetative and noise and site buffer strip that was added to the proposal for, uh,
formerly proposing a buffer between the proposed area to be considered for the
rezoning in the future and, uh, properties to the south. And this is the applicant's
revised, I'm sorry, Comprehensive Plans map. So the different map in another
plan, but basically showing the same concept where part of the land would be
rezoned eventually to an Intensive Commercial use. And there'd be a vegetative
buffer. Um, the Comprehensive Plans, uh, these long-range district maps have
different, uh, keys and different legends to them. So they're, color -coded slightly
differently and identified in different ways, but they're meant to represent the
same thing. And with the Comprehensive Plan amendments, we have two criteria
that staff considers, one is changed circumstances, and the other one is
compatibility with the other goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
Regarding changing circumstances, as I mentioned, this has been a, been a bit of a
placeholder since 1997. And considering this application staff did look back
towards, um, how those, uh, Comprehensive Plans were formulated and what was
considered at the time that they were developed. Also looked back at the patterns
of development that have occurred in this area over time. Urn, as far back as the
nineties, there's been really very little, uh, development in this side of town.
Rohret Road was really just beginning to be developed. Certainly Camp Cardinal
had not seen the residential development that we've seen since then. Um, there'd
been a, more of a focus on commercial developmental along Highway 1 and 218
as a preferred location. Also it wasn't anticipated that infrastructure would be
available. How many of those things have changed over time, as well as the fact
that looking forward, um, staff analyzed, uh, population growth to 2040, which is
the boundary of the long-range planning that the City does in various ways,
including the MPO, anticipating significant, uh, population growth. And then, and
the center of that growth kind of shifting around, uh, in its emphasis and, uh,
defmitely coming to land closer to this intersection and closer to these parts of
town. So really indicating that conditions have changed and it is time to
reconsider this, um, particular part of town. As far as compatibility with, um, the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 30
Comprehensive Plan and its other, um, goals and objectives, um, there is
defmitely a public need to encourage, um, commercial areas. Many of our
commercial areas inside the city limits are more rail oriented, um, and we really
identified that, um, well, they may be, there may be some land available for
building for that, it's not readily developable and that there is a steady and
projected need for this kind of development. Moving on to the annexation part of
this, uh, land consideration, the criteria that would be considered about, uh,
regarding annexation, but would have to do with whether the land falls in the
adopted long-range planning boundary for the City, whether development in the
area proposed would fulfill a need and whether it would be in the City's best
interest to be in control of the land as it is annexed into the city. Again, this is the
area under consideration bounded in white. Um, not all of the land in this
boundary needs to be annexed, some like I said already is in the city. So this
shows the gray area, which would be the land to be annexed into the city. And
now whether we look at the previous Fringe Area Agreement or the current
Fringe Area Agreement, um, this area doesn't change in its designation as clearly
being within the city's identified long-range growth boundary, uh, within that
growth area identified in our Fringe Area Agreement. So it is an area that's
encouraged to be annexed into the city. Um, as far as identified need, I mentioned
previously that there are opportunities for highway -adjacent, uh, development,
um, in the city, but they're largely, um, rail oriented rather than highway oriented.
So this would be an identified need. And as far as control and being in the City's
best interest, again, going back to that growth area, that's identified in the Fringe
Area, um, it's best that it developed under City, uh, development standards and be
provided with City services and to be developed to its highest and best use as
possible. Moving on to the rezoning, uh, the third case tonight, a rezoning criteria,
um, this is not an OPD rezoning, so it just has the two basic general criteria,
again, compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with the
existing neighborhood. As I mentioned, there was a vote previously successfully
for the annexation case and this rezoning. Um, however, due to that failed vote on
the Comprehensive Plan, um, it did need to come back. Um, the revised rezoning
as it is proposed tonight, does include a couple of conditions to ensure that the,
um, goals and objectives as expressed in the Comprehens-- , Comprehensive Plan
amendment, showing that buffer, uh can be truly fulfilled. This is the exhibit
showing the rezoning, um, the two eastern, uh, blocks here the yellowish and the
greenish color are the two that would be, uh, requested to be zoned Intensive
Commercial or CI -1, the purple wedge to the left would remain, uh, in an Interim
Development zoning district, basically a default zoning district until such time as,
um, City services could be provided there. So the rezoning institutes zoning
districts, the Intensive Commercial to the east where, um, City services can be
provided, and then the Interim zoning district to the west. The Intensive
Commercial, or CI -1, zone is intended to provide areas for those, uh, for sales and
out -- um, sales and service functions and businesses whose operations are
typically characterized by outdoor display and storage of merchandise by repair
and sales of larger equipment or motor vehicles by outdoor commercial
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 31
amusement and recreational activities, [mumble] activities or operations
conducted in buildings or structures, and maybe not completely enclosed. Um,
there's a fuller list of what all is allowed here. Again, this is, uh, the top are the
things that are permitted by right. So, um, if there's zoning, we're established,
these are things that could be permitted, um, on day one. Then moving down the
chart, there are things that are also allowed as provisional uses, they would be
allowed uses, but they'd have additional conditions in the Code that would be
required for them to satisfy. And then finally the lower category are things that
are permitted by a special exception with an additional review by the Board of
Adjustment. Um, again, the types of retail trade in the zone are limited in order to
provide opportunities for more land -intensive commercial operations. Um, this
does show again the location on the Southwest District Plan of the proposed, uh,
Comp Plan change. If that Comp Plan change, uh, is, uh, enacted this would of
course, be in compliance with that at the time of rezoning. Um, the Southwest
District Plans calls for future urban development. Uh, like I said, that was kind of
a placeholder. This is definitely Intensive Commercial development and attractive
to it because of its location in -- adjacent to the street network with our major
arterial road access. The future expansion of Highway 965 actually is bordered on
along the west edge of the property here as well. It's also, like I said, adjacent or
near to 218, Highway 218. This shows those future arterials, uh, there as
described. As far as compatibility with the existing neighborhood character that
is, um, analyzed as part of a rezoning. The subject properties are adjacent to
undeveloped farm land to the north, south and west. A mixture of farmland
streams and woodlands can be found throughout these properties, the properties to
the south and west contained County Agricultural zoning -- while, the properties
to the north contain a split of County Residential and City Rural Residential
zoning. Preexisting lighter industrial uses can be found along the north side of
IWV as I mentioned, with the County Public Works facility and the Iowa National
Guard Armory. Additional screening and standards are intended to conceal
parking/loading areas and drives from an adjacent residential areas are required
by Code. However, staff is also recommending a condition that parking between
the principal structure and the IVW Road SW and Slothower Road right-of-way is
screened to a higher screening standard. In addition, the loading areas and outdoor
storage areas may not be located between the front facades of the principal
structure and the front yard right-of-way from a line for both frontages, the IWV
and Slothower Road frontages. As I mentioned, that Johnson County Poor Farm
historic site is immediately east of the subject property. The Poor Farm currently
contains farmland, um, for the entire stretch of adjacent property across Slothower
Road from this property, and the County has expressed a desire and has explored
various, um, development, uh, potential for their property for even potentially
future residential dwellings. It's not believed that the, that this portion of the
property will be directly across from the subject property, but to still to soften the
transition between an Intensive Commercial future land use to an agricultural one,
or potentially a residential one to the east on the County property, staff is, again,
proposing a condition that the developer provide a landscape screening buffer. As
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 32
I mentioned, in the vicinity is the landfill and Highway 965. Future alignments,
it's anticipated that an Intensive Commercial use could act as a transition between
those a very intensive uses in the future and any other future development in this
vicinity. Um, just touching quickly on environmentally sensitive areas. The
subject property does contain several environmentally sensitive areas along its
southern, uh, uh, portions. And those areas were evaluated using the City's
regulations that our Sensitive Areas Ordinance, uh, the Sensitive Areas plan, uh,
that the applicant has provided does meet the woodland retention requirements
and the wetland buffer requirements. And they're not requesting any buffer
reductions. Therefore, because there are no impacts to these areas, um, it's not a
Level 2 review, it's simply a Level 1 sensitive areas review, since they've met all
of the requirements. Um, this level of review is not considered a type of planned
development. Therefore, no PD required. Um, the proposal was, uh, uh, submitted
with the rezoning. It's just a re -- a simple rezoning. And again, as I mentioned,
because most of those areas are located along the southern boundary of this
property, it really would prohibit kind of naturally any development in that area.
I'm just touching quickly on traffic access and street design. Um, there's certainly
sufficient capacity in IWV Road. Actually, it's undergoing some improvements
now, um, access to the site will be addressed at site planning. Um, the City is
clearly expressed a preference that, uh, access to the site beyond Slothower to
preserve the, um, traffic capacity of the arterial street, IWV. There's also several
conditions the staff has proposed, um, to address, um, both improvements, future
improvements, to Slothower and contributions by the applicant to future
improvements that may be needed and the dedication of right-of-way to make
sure that the City is preserving all of the required right-of-way for future imp --
improvements. So to wrap up for the three applications, they're highlighted here
in the orange color, for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the annexation and
the rezoning. Um, following these items, if they are successful, there would be
future applications for the planning and subdividing of the land, um, final
Sensitive Areas review, um, and site plan review for whatever it would be
proposed to be developed here, as well as building permits. So, as I said, there'll
be three motions here. So I'll introduce the first one, step away, and come back for
the next two as you need them. The first one is the Comprehensive Plan
amendment. Um, based on the review of relevant criteria, staff did recommend
approval of the amendments at its October 21st meeting by a vote of five to zero,
the Planning and Zoning Commission and -- concurred with staffs opinion and
also recommended approval. They did indeed follow the, um, Good Neighbor
policy for all three of these applications. So with that, I'd be happy to answer
questions and/or come back.
Teague: Any questions?
Thomas: Danielle, did you mention the width of that buffer zone? I don't recall.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 33
Sitzman: Yeah. I'm not sure that I did. It's 350 feet. It would be the buffer area along the
southern portion.
Thomas: And I know that it's, you, you don't probably have any clear data or analysis of
the land to the south, but the, the natural, some of the sensitive areas that we fmd
north of the property line occur on the southern side as well, do they not?
Sitzman: So this is the, uh, parcel or the subject property. The sensitive areas are what
would be included primarily in that 350 -foot -wide buffer. So areas that would
normally be protected from development anyway, by the requirement of a buffer
around the wetlands or a buffer around the stream or preservation of woodlands,
which I don't believe is as much of a control as the streams and, um, wetland, uh,
controls. Those would all probably not have been conducive for development in
the first place, but they've defmitely been reserved through the -- the form, uh, the
Comprehensive Plan, um, designation.
Thomas: Right. I mean, I was, I was thinking of the land to the south of the adjacent
property, you know, the northern side of the adjacent property.
Sitzman: They didn't have to study that since it's obviously not part of the --
Thomas: Right. Do you have a sense of, I mean, it seems to me the sensitive areas extend
into that area.
Sitzman: They probably do. It'd be because of the drainage system, um, include if the
property of the south were to develop, they'd have to study their sensitive areas as
well, but likely it would, um, prohibit development, at least m part on their
northern property as well.
Mims: Danielle, do you know, in that area, that 350 foot buffer is, are there a lot of trees
in there and, or will there be additional tree planting required?
Sitzman: I don't believe, there really isn't much of a woodland component to the sensitive
areas. It's a stream corridor, but it's also been farmed. And so, um, that is not as
much of a, an area maybe on this property. Potentially to the west where they
haven't proposed development and the interim development, uh, that little purple
wedge that I was talking about. There might be more of a woodland component
there. And I'm sorry, what was the second part of the question?
Mims: I guess the question is, will there be, and I get with that being a drainage area,
there may be some limitations on what kind of tree planting could be done, but
I'm just thinking about buffer between there and the residential to the south. Um,
any trees could certainly help with that.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 34
Sitzman: So the, the screening requirements, uh, conditions that I had -- did not hit on
because those are in the rezoning.
Mims: That's fine. If you want to come back to that, that's okay.
Sitzman: -- they will address the planting that's encouraged, but how are -- it's more of a,
it's not necessarily a, a naturalizing effect. It's more of a screen, it's meant to
screen officially screen.
Mims: Okay.
Teague: Any other questions for Danielle? Thank you. I'm going to open this up to the
public to see if they have any comments on this, please. There is a sign up on the
table there, and please come and give your name and your address, please.
Welcome.
Marner: Thank you, John Marner with MMS Consultants, 1917 South Gilbert Street,
speaking on behalf of the applicant. Uh, I think everything was, was well covered
in the staffs presentation. I would just add a few things. The 350 -foot buffer was
added, uh, as she mentioned with the second revision or with the revision that was
resubmitted to the P&Z Commission, uh, with those additional restrictions, a lot
of that area contains the sensitive areas that have been discussed. They're not
heavily wooded. There is some woodland areas there, uh, the areas to the west
contain more wetlands, and then the stream corridor, um, that 350 -foot area. And
in addition that, as shown on the previous slide, there's two stormwater detention
basins provided in that 350 -foot buffer area as well. Uh, the total area of the site is
just under 80 acres, that 350 -foot strip of land that's being proposed as the
vegetative buffer between this Intense Commercial and the Residential current
County property of the south constitutes just over 21 acres, which is roughly 26%
of the developable property. And we feel that's, uh, uh, more than adequate, more
than appropriate effort to provide a natural buffer, both a natural buffer and
additional buffer with tree plantings. I know that it was mentioned as something
that would be covered with the rezoning. That is one of the conditions is to plant
additional trees for screening along the south property line, uh, to help with that
screening from this property to the south property. And additionally, it was
mentioned during the report that most of the existing commercial, Intense
Commercial properties lie along railroad access. There is some highway access as
well. Most of those properties lie in the one- to five -acre range. There's very few
of those types of properties within the city limits or, or within the close city -- city
limits that are in the 10- to 20 -acre range, uh, that have immediate access or very
quick access proximity to the interstate system. This site would provide that that's
a very highly desirable, uh, aspect for the types of businesses that would want to
be able to utilize this zoning. Uh, whatever that use may be is immediate arterial
access, and then quick interstate access for larger pieces of property. Uh, I'm
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 35
available for any other questions. I'll just add in lieu of getting up with the next
two. I'm available for questions. If, if there are any from Council, thank you.
Teague: I want it to just, is there anyone else from the from, from your group that's going
to be planning to speak?
Marner: I think, okay. Josh Entler will.
Teague: Yep. What I might do is just have, um, public commenters, maybe just rest a
minute so that we can have them come up, um, before the public comments
actually start. Thank you. So you can come up.
Petersen: So you're going to make a change for this public comment, but not let a TRC
Commissioner speak.
Teague: Welcome.
Entler: Josh Entler representing IWV Holdings the, uh, owner of the property, as well as
the applicant. Uh, thank you this evening for your time to, to hear this application
and really all three applications, uh, just wanted to hit a couple of highlights that,
uh, we felt like we heard, uh, received feedback during the Planning and Zoning
process, as well as coordination with staff, and then some of the pivots that we
made, uh, according to that feedback. Um, like what was mentioned, the buffer, I
think we need to really step back for a moment and realize 350 feet is longer than
the width of a football field and it spans the entire width or the entire breadth of
the property. So we've got a substantial amount of, of buffer. So that, uh, it really,
that was, that was based on a comment that we heard, not only in the
neighborhood meeting, but also on the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
that they didn't want any buffer from any required buffer from commercial to
potential residential, to be on the neighboring property. We added that on our
property and then solidified it with a change in the boundaries for the rezoning, as
well as the Comp Plan amendment to make sure that that was solidified and
locked in, uh, to, to really ensure our intent and express our intent to preserve any
future developability of the property to the south. On the other thing, um, we can
hit on some more stuff probably in the rezoning, uh, but in terms of the Comp
Plan amendment, we feel very, very positive towards Intensive Commercial,
which we've heard a lot of interest over time of, uh, properties that have direct
access or very quick access to, to Highway t218 and then 380 and, and, and
Interstate 80. Um, so, so whether we have a user now, which we don't have a
locked -in user, but any users potentially that are transit oriented, uh, are in very
high demand for properties like this that are, that can be very quickly in and out to
the interstate. And they don't have to drive travel through any neighborhood, uh,
residential street networks. So we feel very positive that we'll fmd a user very
quickly. Once this process is wrapped up, I'd be happy to answer any questions
and I'll come up, uh, on the next two hearings as well.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 36
Teague: Thank you. All right. Is that everyone from the development team that wants to
speak? Typically I bring up staff and then development team. All right. We're
going to start public comment at this time. Thanks for waiting. Welcome.
Petersen: Okay. This relates to this item because it is about the rule, the current Council's
rules on [mumbled] here. So I'm going to read again. Now I'll expand on the need
for having Zoom call-in and public comment at meetings. Every single person
should have the exact same opportunity for public comment as everyone else.
Currently, that is not the case contacting y'all all by email phone or in person out
of meeting is not the same as giving public comment at a public meeting. That is a
fact. It is unacceptable and discriminatory that the very reasonable
accommodation of having, hybrid meetings is not available for all public
meetings. And this is an accommodation that both the Johnson County Board of
Supervisors and Iowa City TRC is currently providing. We are still in pandemic.
Currently people who cannot safely make it to meeting who can't physically can't
safely, physically make it to a meeting are being discriminated against. People
should not have to risk death to participate in this so-called democracy. Even if
we weren't still in a pandemic, there are a lot of reasons for people cannot
physically attend meetings, but it was still like to -- chh. And would be able to, if
we had accessible meanings, I am a disabled person. I should be able to
participate in public meetings when my disability prevents me from being able to
physically make it to the meetings. But currently I can't do that. This Council is
currently discriminating against me and the entire disabled community. You are
telling me and my community that we matter less to this local government than
my able, then our able bodied neighbors do. [tongue clicking] I got another
minute and 23 seconds, I'm going to do this until you have accessible meetings.
So you could like solve this by having accessible meetings. So I'm going to have
to do this, but since we currently don't have accessible meetings and you won't
commit to making publicly accessible meetings, I'm gonna keep doing it. It's
unacceptable. It is wrong morally completely. You can't excuse it. Just as you
decided change your decision. You were wrong when you decided to not make
hybrid meetings, make them hybrid meetings. Does this annoy you?
Teague: Any more comment for, comment for Council?
Petersen: Ah, yes. Let me think about that. Make it, meetings accessible. And that's a
really wild idea to have accessible government having accessible functions and
not to be ableist, but like do it. It's really easy. Other entities in this County are
doing it. Your own City's TRC is doing it. There's no good reason you aren't
doing it. So do it. [To public] Sigh all you want. I don't care. It's not currently
accessible and that is wrong.
Teague: Thank you. Welcome.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 37
Theisen: Uh, good evening Council. My name is Nicholas Theisen. Um, again, I'm not
going to give you my address, sorry. So I actually want to address the
Comprehensive Plan directly and specifically with regards to the issue of
annexation. So I don't know what y'all are going to say when you have your
discussion, but I hope that you will note the similarity between this situation and
the Carson farm situation from a few months back where y'all have a interesting
tendency to apply your Comprehensive Plans in completely arbitrary and
oftentimes whimsical ways. Now, I know Councilor Mims objected to the way in
which the Comprehensive Plan was being applied at that time and the entire
annexation process. And there were a lot of really interesting objections,
including, you know, the need for the city to increase utilities and so forth. And
the reason why I bring up specifically the utilities, now, I know transit was
actually the, the biggest concern that was brought up with the Carson farm
situation. But the reason why the utility situation is interesting is because
Intensive Commercial also has an even more intensive effect on City water,
sewer, electric, like all utilities. And so the thing is if you had an objection to the
way in which that was going to affect city resources, then, do you have the same
objections now? I'm curious. I would also like to comment briefly with regards to
the situation in which, by the way, as chair, it is entirely at your discretion, how
public comment is allowed to proceed. In fact, it's not only your discretion, how
public comment is allowed to proceed, how staff address this Council. Basically
you can rule that anyone in this room could speak for seven hours before this
Council. I mean, I'm not suggesting you actually do that, but it's entirely up to
your discretion. So the thing is, if you're going to, I notice I stood right over there.
As you told us to back off, while the developers got to have their say, the clock
didn't run when they were talking, the clock, doesn't run when staff talk and yet
when it comes to the people who actually have to vote for you, which by the way
I have to admit is not exactly the most delightful thing to have to do, those people,
namely us, we get the little ticking time bomb in front of us. And so the thing is, if
you want to actually have equity in this city, equity doesn't just mean having the
same a hundred or so people who always make all the decisions in the city stand
up at this podium and say the same things that they always say. I'm sorry, but
when Planning comes up here and talks to you about, you know, the need for this
particular rezoning or this particular change to the Comprehensive Plan, they're
not saying anything, they haven't said a million times before, and you are all
going to vote for it the same way you always do, except with the strange
exception of the Carson farm situation. So I am genuinely curious. And after I
hear your remarks, I will be back up here to comment on those as well. Thank
you.
Teague: Thank you. Welcome.
Kauble: Hi, good evening Council. Uh, my name is Dan Kauble, and, um, I'm promise
I'm not here to annoy you about things that I should be annoying you about, but
I'm going to annoy you about something else. Um, so first off my family is one of
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 38
the stakeholders, um, and this, uh, situation, uh, we, my family owns a little piece
of property off, out, just bordering, uh, this, uh, zone that they're going to be
rezoning. Um, a major concern of residents, uh, I only attended one of the, I was
only able to attend one of the neighborhood meetings, but, um, my vibe from that
was a major concern of the residents has been the lack of transparent --
transparency throughout this rezoning process. Um, although my family's land is
tiny and only used for our business, many of the other lands are farmland that
owners were hoping to turn into development. Um, the impacts of this rezoning
and what commercial businesses planned to move into this area is a major
concern for them as the property values will be impacted by this decision. I forget
who it was, but during one of the neighborhood meetings held by the City,
someone mentioned that for all that we were being told that developers could be
building an adult bookstore. Uh, not that there's anything wrong with that, but,
um, my requests for the City is this. I think that they should place less emphasis
on the needs of developers as exemplified by the fact that you basically gave them
an unlimited amount of time to speak while you're giving the residents a, a small
window of time to speak. Um, my request is that you prioritize the needs of
stakeholders above the needs of the developers, because I mean, I don't, how
many people here, raise your hand if you're a neighbor or you're here specifically
for this issue. All right. How many of you have been, uh, keep, keep them raised?
How many of you are happy with the way that this issue has been handled by the
City? See? I mean, the City has not been doing a very good job with this issue and
it's not only this issue. I imagine it's all other issues, uh, regarding development. I
mean, you're not placing it -- you're not prioritizing the needs of these folks.
You're prioritizing the needs of the developers. That needs to change. Um, and
it's, it, it's just ridiculous that, that this is what it's come down to that it's about
money you're. I mean, it's, I could go on and on about this, but I'd also like to
back up, uh, Noah's point about accessibility. Thank you.
Teague: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address this topic at this time? And
anyone that is interested in speaking, there is a sign up over there, but I'll have
you come speak first and anyone that also wants to speak, you can go ahead and
sign in. Welcome.
Bergstrom: Thank you. Um, my name, excuse me, hard to talk in this thing. Uh, my
name is John Bergstrom, and I think many of you, uh, received an email from me
stating our, uh, our position on, uh, uh, what's before you tonight. Uh, I'm, uh,
representing, uh, Slothower farms, Slothower family that owns the hundred plus
acres that abuts, uh, the subject property. And, um, you know, I, I guess I simply
state that we're here to object, uh, to the change in the Comprehensive Plan and
the rezoning that, that goes along with it. And it's, it's for a number of reasons,
but, uh, uh, you know, I, I think we're kind of dancing around, uh, what's the use
is going to be on this land. I, I, somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, but it's
going to be a MidAmerica energy service center. It's going to be on 40 acres. It's
intense, it's Intense Commercial, and it should not be the cornerstone of an
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 39
intersection that's going to, uh, long-term be residential all the land to the south. If
all the other land is not going to be residential, let's address it in the
Comprehensive Plan rather than a, a spot zone. I mean, this is, this is ridiculous.
The land to the east, the County Farm it's under, uh, you know, it's been planned
out all the plans and concepts seem to show agricultural, uh, residential, uh, oh,
that's better, uh, residential, uh, educational and public space. That is not
compatible with what's being proposed directly adjacent to it. So the, the City, uh,
you know, in Ann's presentation, uh, yeah, it showed kind of the character of the
area, but it was very limited. It did not show the hundreds of homes that are
already in place just to the south of the County farm. So what, what what's been
happening here is the, uh, when we met with the staff in the spring, we were told
that, uh, cause we had an inquiry about a sale. We were said, no commercial, uh,
there's no commercial market out there in that area, which was fine with us and
we're not against commercial, but we want compatible commercial and a
MidAmerican energy is not that.
Teague: Thank you.
Bergstrom: This, yeah, this is spot zoning. Thank you. Let's fmd something else. Thank
you.
Teague: All right. Thank you. Welcome.
Bergstrom: Hi, thank you for hearing me, uh, I'm Sherri Slothower Bergstrom, and, um,
my family owns the a hundred plus acres right to the south of this plot. And just to
tell you a little bit about the character of the land in that area, the land owners all
around that whole area are 50 -plus -year owners. And, uh, the land is zoned
contrary to what you were told in the, um, pres-- presentation tonight by the City.
The land is zoned Agricultural and Residential, and there has been a lot of very
nice, expensive residential development within sight of this plot of land. And, um,
I feel like the buffer has been mentioned a lot tonight, too many times, and that's a
result of our objections, but it is a diversion because what we're looking at on this
tiny 80 acre plot of land is a lot of lights. A lot of security fencing, a lot of big
trucks and a lot of noise. And, um, no amount of trees is going to make a
difference in the effect that it has on the people that live m the area. Um, I also
wanted to bring up the idea of the spot zoning of this. Spot zoning is illegal in a
lot of places. And what spot zoning means is that a small plot of land has their
Comprehensive Plan changed to benefit one owner. And that's exactly what's
going on m this case. And the effect that it's going to have on the value of our
property is massive. We are going to become the buffer between future residential
development and, uh, this Intensive Commercial. And so I just implore you to
take your time, look at this, do it right. There's a lot of other places in Iowa City
that already have commercial and industrial zoning that could be expanded. And
this could take place. This is an area that you need to visit and look at and see
who lives there and see if it's the right thing to be next to the County Home with
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 40
all the plans they have for the future and all the people that live in this area. Thank
you very much for listening. And we hope that you really look at this. I felt like
the Planning --
Teague: Thank you.
Bergstrom: and Zoning Commission, didn't go out and see it.
Teague: Thank you. Welcome.
Tholer: Thank you. My name is Kathy Tholer. I live at 965 Slothower Road, one of the
few residents that actually live on that road in I have lived on that road for 25
years plus. Um, there are three houses there. Um, it's very rural. Um, having a
Commercial Intensive property right to -- in my backyard actually, um, is very
offensive and I'm sure it's not only offensive to me. Uh, we've got Country Club
Estates. There there's many homes in there. These people are going to be looking
at huge lights. Uh, my opinion, if these big trucks are coming in -out on Slothower
Road, even though they develop it, they're going to be going right up and down
next to the Johnson County Poor Farm, where all of those people are farming and
they have their children there. People walk up and down that road, dozens of them
every day it's, it's from, and that's from Country Club Estates. Um, it just doesn't
seem as though it is the appropriate place to have that kind of commercial,
Intensive Commercial. Um, even though the improvement of the IWV Road is
what initially brought this about. And apparently some future talks, or that were
taking place at the beginning of the year, which none of us knew about. I live
probably 600 feet from where this is going to happen or where it is proposed to
happen. And I honestly have never even gotten a letter from Zoning or anyone in
conjunction to this. It was the Slothowers, which I bought their parents' farm
house, that notified me and said, hey, you know, did you know this was going on?
I said, no, I had no idea. And I still to this day have had no notification from
anyone. I don't know if you guys notified people within 300 feet, I believe is all
you have to notify as far as this is concerned. Um, so I mean, there's lots of
residents out there. There's Country Club Estates, there's Galway Hills, there's
Walnut Ridge. You've got Chatham Oaks, you've got the Melrose apartments for
the people that are developmentally disabled, or having some other types of
issues. Um, there's many residential people out there that this is gonna affect.
Traffic, already, just because of the landfill. As you -- just sit out there someday,
look at the traffic in the morning and in the afternoon, look at the traffic already
turning on to the interstate, look at the traffic, turning off of the interstate, going
into the university to work or wherever they work in town. So this is just going to
Teague: Thank you.
Tholer: -- add a lot more to it.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 41
Teague: Thank you. Welcome.
Landry: Hello again, Mayor, Council, please Google the name Edward Gardner, GAR D
N E R. Chicago. Mr. Gardner used to bother me as a 15 year old because
Teague: Will you give your name again.
Doyle: Oh, I apologize. D O Y L E L A N D as in David R Y, Positive Vision
Communications. As I was saying, Mr. Gardner used to bother me as a 15 year
old, me, working at McDonald's illegally, I lied about my age, and he used to talk
about character. Three years later, Mr. Gardner handed me a check. It was for five
comma, 0, 0, 0, no application needed because he sent me to college. Mr. Gardner
is the founder and former owner of Soft Sheen products, an African-American
business owner. Fast forward to 2 0 1 2 in Evergreen Park, Illinois, Mr. Gardner
by himself got up, got up, traveled to Evergreen Park and stood in the path of
construction and said, I dare you by himself. No media, no entourage by himself.
And that embarrassed Chicago because Evergreen Park, which sits on the border
of Chicago had decided we're going to extract profit from Chicago by clearing off
land for a profit gain by African-Americans. What does that have to do with Iowa
City? The very thing that I brought up earlier, where are the African-American
construction firm, planning design. You get the point. Because we keep talking
about what matters, but what matters most is equity as relates to dollars. Think
about it.
Teague: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address this topic? Seeing no one. All
right. Um, before I close. Oh, yes. Welcome.
Anderson: Hi. Well, thank you. Thank you. Um, actually I've lived in Iowa City all my
life, and this is my first Council meeting. I have to say that I admire the work that
you do. It is it's, um, long and hard listening to all these comments. But, um, I
want to comment on, um, the Slothower, um, rezoning. Um, I am a, Slothower,
also now an Anderson. Um, I grew up in that area. Um, and if you think about it
and if you drive out there, it just does not make sense for that area. It is very flat
out there. And if you drive like into, um, the Country Club Estates Development,
and drive to the back of it and look over to that area, it's just a straight shot as far
as what you would see over there in that corner. So no matter what kind of buffer
zone you put in, it's still going to affect the value of those properties and the
properties that we own, the 180 acres that we own. Um, so you really have to,
really think about what the whole future of that area is, because if you do this spot
zoning that you're talking about for this development, and then you keep our 180
acres that's to the south residential, agricultural, what does that do to the, our
property, which is actually even closer to that Country Club Estates. So it's really
important that you look at the big picture and not just what is important for that
corner. And, um, there is also a lot of traffic that goes through there, through the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 42
university and things like that. So I just don't want you to make a hasty decision. I
want you to think about it. I want you to drive out there. Um, there's a lot -- that
County Home, there's a lot of beautiful plans for out there where potentially
people go out there, visit there, and then right across the road would be this Mid-
America site. It just doesn't seem to fit. So just --thank you for listening and
please take it into consideration. And we appreciate it. Thank you.
Teague: Thank you. All right. I'm going to close the public hearing, but before I do that, I
just want to make sure, um, from Council, if the majority are in, uh, inclined to
vote in favor of this.
Goers: Yeah, it's actually that the second two that's required, but not for this first item,
because it's a Comp Plan.
Teague: Okay. Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing.
2. Consider a Resolution [Deferred from 11/16/21]
Teague: Could I get a motion to approve please?
Thomas: So moved.
Teague: Moved by Thomas, seconded by Bergus. Council discussion.
Mims: I have a couple of questions of staff if I could. All right. Uh, questions about, um,
it's some of the local people have brought up lighting, uh, fencing, um, some of
those issues, what is, what is allowed, what is required, um, on an Intensive
Commercial, Commercial property, trying to get a better sense of the impact on
the local residents?
Sitzman: Sure. I don't have the standards with me since those are site plan elements. Um,
those types of things would be reviewed at that point. I can tell you a code does
have a lighting standard in it that has limits on lumens, a brightness of the lighting
and, uh, where it, how bright it can be at the property line. Uh, it has to come
down quite a bit by the time it hits the property line of where the onsite lighting is
occurring. So that's not to say you wouldn't see sky glow or that there, you
wouldn't notice there's an additional use in the neighborhood that has lights. Um,
but the standards are meant for light, not to trespass as measured at ground level
at the property line of the development.
Mims: Do you know offhand the fencing either requirements and/or limitations?
Sitzman: We don't usually require fencing? If there was a hazard that needed to be
fenced, uh, either a fall hazard or some thing like that, there our Code might
require it. It's more typical that the user would want to protect their property by
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 43
putting up a fence to keep trespassers out or that their, their storage of materials to
remain on site. Um, so ah, fencing, if it's used in those ways, it has height limits
on it, um, things like that. But it's not a requirement necessarily we would impose.
Mims: All right. Thank you.
Teague: Okay. Thanks. All right. Council discussion.
Bergus: Well, I was grateful to see the, the, the discussion at Planning and Zoning
Commission, kind of between the two meetings and the changes that were made.
Um, I, I hear the area residents concerns and understand them. This is a more
rural setting. And certainly the idea of what, you know, you might see in the
farther distance is, is I think maybe more top of mind than if you're in an urban
environment to begin with. But I think that this buffer distance is really significant
and the other, um, the Country Club Estates that was mentioned, and the other
homes are quite a distance away from this, um, even -- well, and, and so my, my
home is about, it's about a 60 foot wide lot, and so 600 feet away would be 10 lots
away. And if I stand in the street, you know, I think I'd have a hard time kind of
understanding what might be going on that far away. Um, and I'm very close to a
heavy industrial area, which is the Proctor & Gamble plant, probably closer than,
than that distance as well. So I'm just thinking in my own mind of what that
impact might be like. And I'm, I'm reminded of some, uh, helpful, uh, phrase that
was brought to us recently or reminded to us recently, which is an individual's
property rights don't extend beyond the boundaries of the property. And it's hard
when something that may be near you is not something that you would desire to
be there, but we really do have to balance, um, other property owners as well.
And so I I'm favorable to this Comprehensive Plan amendment based on the
changes that have been made in the what's been presented in this version.
Mims: Yeah. I appreciate the comments, um, by the residents and as I've, you know,
looked through and read through it, the other, the other comparison in some ways,
when we look at these is, is the number of houses that are built, um, amazingly
close to the interstate. As I, as I look at interstate 80. Um, and I mean, I hear that
all the time from where I live. I -- I think a lot of the traffic here that has been
mentioned is really, is going to be headed east on Melrose. Um, when people talk
about the university and things like that, anything coming off from 218, you
know, for the universities going east is not going to be impacting this out there. I
do think that 350 -foot buffer, um, is significant. Um, when we get to that
rezoning, I want to see more about what might be required in terms of additional
tree planting. I realize it's kind of water, creeky-water area, so I'm not sure how
much, um, can actually be done there. Um, I, I'm concerned, you know, as I
looked at this and looked at the staff report of, and it was mentioned tonight by
developers in terms of the limited amount of, uh, sites in the city for, um, this kind
of development and the small size of those lots. And a lot of it is on the Southeast
side where rail is an important component and having, um, some of that
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 44
development in other parts of the community and, and adjacent basically to the
interstate or very, very close to the interstate. So, um, while I understand, um, that
it's not ideal, I think that this can work in this area and I will be supporting it.
Thomas: It seems to me one of the critical issues here is the, the question of the buffer.
You know, we've, we've heard about, heard it described as a vegetative noise and
site buffer. Um, I do agree that 350 feet seems like, uh, a significant amount of
area in which to establish that noise and, uh, site buffer. Um, but the, the, the
screening specifications that we have in our zoning code in my view, um, you
know, and we're, we've been talking about form -based Code at Council, our
standards, which are really in my mind, more developed for urban situations
rather than rural situations, which I think is that's, that's kind of the character in
context of this project. And, and with that in mind, it seems to me the buffer needs
to have the robustness, that one would find with a rural buffer, as opposed to
perhaps what you might see, oh, just off the top of my head, along the edge of a
Hy -Vee supermarket. Um, but it's hard to understand what exactly needs to be
done in my mind, because we're, we're talking about, uh, you know, at this point,
the, um, Comprehensive Plan change, and then annexation and rezoning, um,
what it, what exactly it is we're trying to buffer. We just don't know. So my, my
concern would be having the assurance that when a project actually is being
proposed under the, any change in rezoning, that we would be able to meet the
noise and site buffer intention that we are discussing tonight. Um, I mean, I do
think if, if there is a robust enough and substantial enough buffer, I do think the
impacts of whatever is done there, uh, should be able to be mitigated, but I just
want to pose that concern and, and how we might be able to address it as we move
forward.
Weiner: I think this is an, this is an area of the, of growth for the city. Ultimately. I mean,
we did not, we did the, uh, majority of Council, um, didn't -- voted down the
annexation of Carson farms. I voted, I voted to annex Carson farms. I think that
area is probably directly adjacent to this. When, when we talk about development,
there's going to be a sewer trunk going underneath 218, um, in the, in the near
future to, to facilitate development, uh, of the city on the other side of 218. Um,
you know, I think that we, that we, I live all, not all that far from there, someone
mentioned Galway Hills. I live in Galway Hills. I hear the interstate all the time. I,
I smell the landfill quite often. Um, and it's part of what I bought into, um, for, for
better, for worse. Um, I think we have that, um, realistically, um, there's the talk
about the buffer, but also realistically, when we look at the other, some of the
other intensive uses that haven't really been mentioned very much such as the
National Guard Armory and so forth already out in the area that this would be,
this would be adjacent to, um, that, um, that there, there can be enough mitigation.
I also talked to people, I also talked to supervisors, asked does the County have
specific concerns, uh, because of the Poor Farm. And they said no. So I will be
supporting.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 45
Teague: I guess, for me on this, on this, uh, project. When I look at, uh, the amendments
that will, uh, be required to, you know, make this happen. Um, of course, you
know, I looked at some of the things that have happened in the past, uh, what
things have been presented to Council. Um, but I also have to balance where are
we growing, um, in this city and how do we do that? Um, it's been mentioned that
Mid -American, um, you know, would be potentially, uh, nothing assigned to my
knowledge. Um, we'll have a project out there. I think what's gonna be important,
um, should this be passed, is when whatever proposed project come forth, that we
do pay attention to some of the concerns that have been brought up by residents to
the best of our ability. Um, it is never, it's always a challenge when you're the
neighbor to something new moving in, um, that is not identical or similar to where
you live or what you live in. And so I, I do understand that this is kind of a
challenge for some people that live there. Um, totally get it. I understand. I
empathize with you honestly. Um, I do think that given all of we don't really, we
don't really know what's going to go there. Um, but I do think that if it is
MidAmerican, I, you know, when I look at where, where else in the city, I do
think that this would be appropriate out there. And so I will support it.
Taylor: This is been kind of a difficult decision for me because I've wavered both ways
here, listening to the residents. I really do appreciate, um, hearing from, from you
all and, and can understand what you'd anticipated and, and have been used to in
that area. Uh, but I think as the Mayor pointed out, um, we are kind of growing,
uh, small on where we can develop and especially develop these kinds of areas,
uh, in Iowa City. And from what I've heard, there is a need, if it is potentially
going to be MidAmerican, there is a need for that. And it already does exist on, on
the eastern edge of town there just off of Muscatine Road. Uh, we haven't ever
heard any complaints. I don't know, Geoff can maybe help me out with this from,
from residents around that area, as far as noise or light or the, the traffic. So I'm,
I'm hoping that those kinds of concerns may be, uh, would be resolved or
wouldn't be such, such an issue with that. Um, it just sounds like it's, um, a good
spot for this development to me, it doesn't look as though to me, I've driven by
there. A number of times that residential would be there. I just can't envision
homes being there in that area. Uh, but I could see something like this as I think,
um, Councilor Weiner stated with the highway, um, construction, uh, vehicles
across the way and the National Guard across the way. It seems more well-suited
to this kind of development than to anything residential. So I would be supportive
at this time.
Salih: I really appreciate everyone come here today to comment. Uh, this is hard. I
always, you know, try to hear the resident concern and figure out the ways to
solve their problem, but we knew this is coming and, uh, this area is city growth
area. And I think, uh, if it's going to be a MidAmerican, MidAmerican was here in
the middle of the, you know, residential and [muffled] and not a lot people was
complaining. So, uh, I really, it's hard, but I'm going to be approving this. Thank
you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 46
Teague: Any other comments by Council? Roll call please. Motion passes, 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 47
11.b. Annexation - IWV Road SW - Resolution to annex approximately 70.39
acres of land located west of the intersection of IWV Road SW and
Slothower Road. (ANN21-0003)
1. Public Hearing [Continued from 11/16/21]
Teague: I'm going to open the public hearing and welcome again.
Sitzman: Thank you, Mayor. As I said, I presented earlier on this, so I'll just move to the
motion and the recommendation. Uh, based again on a review of the relevant
criteria, staff did recommend approval of the proposed annexation at its
September 16th, 2021 meeting of by a vote of five to zero, the Planning and
Zoning Commission concurred with staffs opinion and also recommended
approval of annexation. Um, that is it. I'm happy to answer questions about the
annexation, if you have any more at this point.
Teague: Any questions?
Weiner: So, uh, annexation is, is voluntary, correct?
Sitzman: This is a voluntary annexation.
Teague: And before I go to the public, is there any, anyone from the developer that have
anything to add to this?
Marner: Thank you. Uh, not a lot to add for the annexation. I'll maybe come back and add
a couple of things with the rezoning. Uh, again, this is a voluntary annexation.
Some of the concerns that have been addressed, I think, uh, in your discussion
addressed, answered some of the things that I was going to come up and, and
mentioned as well, the traffic, uh, that already existed with the Armory and with
the Joint Communication Center on that property. Uh, it's a natural expansion
area. Uh, one other item I will add the sanitary sewer that would be necessary to
provide service to this property, uh, would be extended from its current location,
uh, to the east. It's about 600, I believe six to 700 feet to the east of the property of
Slothower Road. It would be extended across the length of, of, uh, IWV to the
west, almost to the stream corridor, uh, by the developer at the cost of the
developer. And I'm available for any questions, if you have any.
Teague: Thank you. All right. No more comments from the developer. Great. I'm going
to open up the public hearing at this point, and I'll ask you to sign in and give your
name and your address. Welcome.
Petersen: All right. Hello, it's me Noah, again. Um, this relates to this item because it's
about the, uh, your rules about not allowing public comment, uh, accessibility.
Okay, so I'm gonna read this once again. Now I will expand on the need for
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 48
having Zoom call-in public comment at all meetings. Every single person should
have the exact same opportunity for public comment as everyone else. Currently,
that is not the case contacting y'all by email, phone or in-person is not the same as
giving public comment at a so-called public meeting. That is the fact. It's
unacceptable in this discriminatory at the very reasonable accommodation of
having hybrid meetings is not currently available all so-called public meetings in
this, of this Council. And it is an accommodation that the County Johnson County
Board of Supervisors and Iowa City TRC is currently providing. We are still in a
pandemic. Currently, people who cannot safely make it to a meeting are being
discriminated against. People should not have to risk death to participate in this
so-called democracy. Even if we weren't still in a pandemic, there are a lot of
reasons. People cannot physically attend meetings, but would still like to, and
would be able to, if meetings were truly accessible. I am a disabled person. I
should be able to participate in public meeting when my disability prevents me
from being able to physically make it to a meeting. But currently I cannot do that
because this Council is currently discriminating against me and the entire disabled
community. And you're telling me and the entire disabled community that, that
we matter less than our able-bodied neighbors. So Bruce, you're going to, you
know, change the rules and have accessible meetings or no.
Teague: Any other comment?
Petersen: Yes. Have accessible meetings. It's very easy. It's happening within this own
City's commissions. I know y'al, don't care about the TRC, clearly, but they're
providing it. And that's you have the equipment, you have the technological
ability. You're just choosing not to. You'll make rules for developers. Like he has
said, make special accommodations for those. We can make accommodations for
disabled people. How is that okay? Where's the social justice in that? You, one of
your seven strategic priorities is to have and encourage community engagement.
You know how you can encourage community engagement, have hybrid
meetings. Yep. Very easy.
Teague: Thank you. Any other comments.
Petersen: Yeah. (singing) Make your meetings accessible. Please make your meetings
accessible, make your meetings accessible. I'll sing a song that was a little, little
ditty for y'all. Make your meetings accessible. Make them accessible. That's all.
Teague: Thank you. Welcome.
Theisen: Uh, good evening again, Council, um, Nicholas Theisen, as before, um, same
such not going to give you my address. So, um, first of all, Councilor Taylor, um,
the MidAmerican facility is off of Lower Muscatine Road, not Muscatine Road,
but it's easy oversight, but it's worth noting that that facility is actually
sandwiched in a bunch of other commercial and light industrial. It's not just in like
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 49
plopped down in the middle of nowhere. To the south of it is Sycamore mall to
the east of it is -- well to the sort of east-ish of it is Kirkwood. And also to directly
to the east of it is a P&G facility. And then on the other side of First Avenue,
which is on -- well, then you have Tate High School and then you have First
Avenue and then you have more commercial. So the thing is that entire zone is
actually already commercial and regardless of buffer sizes and all of that newbie
crap, frankly, I don't care. But the, the real serious question here, and the reason
why I say this specifically for the annexation is because when annexations have
come up in the past, this Council has always, at least until tonight, addressed the
issue of, well, we need to seriously talk about what we're doing with annexations
and specifically how it relates to housing, as several people who came up here
noted, this is current -- this land is currently zoned Agricultural Residential. And
in the past you have had pro -- uh, plans come before you that have included
residential. So then the question is, do you actually have a long-term vision of
how you're going to integrate residential into this area? You've said that this is a
growth area for the city. Yeah. I mean, it's in the buffer zone, obviously it is,
sorry, not the buffers. It's, it's in the, I forget what it's called the agreement zone
between the County, and, anyway. The point is because you've always failed to
have that ultimate conversation about what you're doing with annexation, how it
relates to housing and what you refer to as affordable housing, whatever that
means, you keep doing things like this, where a developer comes to you with any
old proposal. And then you think, you think of it solely in terms of itself. You
look, you say this thing seems fine as it is by itself. The problem is you're talking
about a part of the city that hasn't really been fleshed out yet. When you talk about
the MidAmerican facility on the south, on the east side of town off Lower
Muscatine, like that is a part of the town that has already been fleshed out, like
where it's residential is located is already been located where its commercial is
located, has already been located. Where the schools are already been located. But
when you're talking about that part of town, you actually have to have a broader
vision of what you're going to be doing with the entire area. And so that, in that
context, the spot zoning is a very serious issue because you're making these
haphazard decisions based upon, well, frankly, arbitrary justifications that you
come up with in the moment. Thank you.
Teague: Thank you. Anyone else like to address this topic? Welcome.
Bergstrom: Thank you again. Uh, he actually, uh, makes very good points. If you're going
to change a document that a ruling document, uh, that affects a large area, you
don't do it for an 80 -acre piece. And, you know, as far as our land, we just want to
know what we're going to be able to do with it. And you're, you're restricting us
now by placing -- and yes, it is MidAmerica Energy, uh, by placing them there,
it's going to have a large effect on us, but a lot of other people. So if you're going
to change the Comprehensive Plan, look at a much wider area, include us, include
other, other landowners. We, we want to know. I asked the City, uh, in plan -- and
City plan planner, you know, okay, if you're going to do this, what are you going
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 50
to do with the land surrounding it? And the answer was, we're not looking at any
other parcel. That's, that's crazy. That's not responsible. And if you're going to put
a commercial use on that corner, make it compatible with what, what else is
planned for out there? Uh, a 40 acre frankly, industrial use just is not compatible
for what's there or what should be there in the future. So thank you.
Teague: Thank you. Anyone else like to address this topic before I close the public
hearing? All right. Before I closed the public hearing, I'm going to ask Council if
they're inclined to vote with P&Z. I'm seeing the majority. Okay. I'm going to
close the public hearing.
2. Consider a Resolution [Deferred from 11/16/21]
Teague: Could I get a motion to approve please?
Thomas: So moved, Thomas.
Salih: Second, Salih.
Teague: All right. Council discussion....Roll call please. Motion passes, 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 51
11.c. Rezoning - IWV Road SW - Ordinance conditionally rezoning
approximately 53.36 acres from County Agricultural (A) to Intensive
Commercial (CI -1), approximately 17.03 acres from County Agricultural (A)
to Interim Development Commercial (ID -C), and approximately 9 acres from
Rural Residential (RR -1) to Intensive Commercial (CI -1) for land located
west of the intersection of IWV Road SW and Slothower Road.
1. Public Hearing [Continued from 11/16/21]
Teague: I'm going to open the public hearing and, uh, welcome Danielle again.
Sitzman: Thank you, Mayor. Again, I'll just move to the recommendation from the
Planning and Zoning Commission on this one, based on a review of the relevant
criteria, staff did recommend approval of the proposed rezoning with conditions,
which I'll walk you through here in a moment, at the October 21st meeting by a
vote of five to zero, the Planning and Zoning Commission concurred with staffs
opinion, and also recommended approval of the rezoning with the same staff -
recommended conditions. The CZA has been signed by the applicant for this one.
So these are the conditions that were, uh, included with this. I mentioned them
kind of briefly in my presentation. I'll kind of refresh your memory again. Um, the
conditions include platting the property, um, because we need the zoning
boundary districts to follow, uh, lot lines, which they're not currently established
yet. So they will be kind of the final, uh, component of establishing the exact
location of the rezonings. Um, the plat does need to show that buffer easement
area 350 feet wide as, uh, embodied in those Comp Plan amendments that were
made, the area is to be planted to an S, S3 standard, which I can tell you more
about if you want to know what the S3 standard is. It's nearly the highest standard
of screening that our Code does include. Um, it's intended to be a buffer treatment
that uses dense landscape screening to provide a visual and physical separation
between uses and zones. It's commonly applied between residential uses and
commercial and industrial uses. To screen outdoor worker storage areas. And it
has required materials, including shrubs and small evergreens to form a
continuous screen or hedge at least five feet to six feet in height, and more than
50% solid year round. Um, screening materials must be at least three feet in
height when planted, at least half the shrubs must be evergreen varieties. I'm
included in our, uh, CZA, and the conditions here is, uh, the mixture of deciduous
and evergreens, and that they have to be at least 30 feet tall upon maturity. Um,
also that the plant needs to include dedication of right-of-way along Slothower
Road frontage, um, as determined by the City Engineer to allow for that, uh, road
section to be improved eventually as needed to City urban design standards. With
the final plat approval, um, the owner also has to execute a subdivider's agreement
addressing, uh, the conditions related to road improvements, including, uh, uh,
financial contribution to the cost of upgrading Slothower Road. Um, the
installation of an S3 screen, as I just mentioned along Slothower to buffer the, um,
property to the east, the, uh, Johnson County Poor Farm and improvements to
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 52
Slothower Road to the extent to the south of where their, whatever, uh, future
access occurs off of Slothower. And then finally for all lots fronting IWV and
Slothower, the loading areas and outdoor storage areas shall not be located
between the front facade of the principal structure and the building right-of-way
line. So those are the conditions, uh, attached with this rezoning. Happy to answer
questions about those, if you have any.
Teague: Thank you. All right. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and call on public comments
at this time. Oh, I'm sorry. [Petersen remarks about a special rule, muffled.]
Please.
Marner: I'll just add a couple of very brief notes. Um, I know there's been some concerns
about the spot, referred to as spot zoning. It's 80 acres. It's a very large piece of
property. A lot of the concern or, or issues that arise with spot zoning tend to
address individual lots within an already developed part of town. And they're,
they're meant to protect those existing residents in highly developed parts of town
from small areas of, of property being zoned to something that's not compatible
with the adjacent uses. This is a much larger piece of property, uh, than, than
something of that nature. Additionally, that subject came up during the P&Z
Commission's meeting. They'll, uh, uh, uh, I believe a couple of the Commission
members mentioned the fact that during their review process, and as during our
review process as well, and staffs, I believe, they did take a look at the entire
area. And they did feel that this commercial use is complementary in the big
picture as it pertains to the immediate area along IWV and the area farther to the
south. It's approximately a half a mile away from Country Club Estates, and those
properties adjacent to Rohret Road. Again, I'm available for any questions, if you
have any.
Teague: Thank you. All right. Public comment, public hearing is open. Welcome.
Theisen: Uh, good evening again, Nicholas Theisen, again, same such as, before not
going to dox myself. So it's interesting to me that you guys didn't have anything to
say about the annexation for all the reasons that I enumerated before. So, okay.
The previous speaker noted that when this went before P&Z, that there was an
evaluation that was performed with regard to the bigger picture, the problem is no
one actually knows what the bigger picture is precisely because this Council isn't
doing the job of figuring out what that is. Because you have your Comprehensive
Plans, but again, you change them willy-nilly to accommodate whatever
individual proposals happen to come before you. In other words, the work that
P&Z does, or rather they should have done to make sure that this conforms to the
Comprehensive Plan, they didn't do, and now you're not doing it. So the issue
here with this particular rezoning is actually the same as with the annexation:
they're related. They're fundamentally similar things, which is that I already know
that you're going to approve this because you always approve these things with
rare, rare exceptions. But the issue is you still make these decisions without
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 53
actually having had the conversation about what that bigger picture is supposed to
be. So whenever evaluations are performed at the Commission or the Board level,
they have to guess what that bigger picture is. And that is precisely what P&Z has
done here. They have guessed what is going to happen. Now, if you had clear
intentions for what this land is ultimately going to be used for, and that was
supposedly to be communicated in the Comprehensive Plan, then it would be less
of an issue. The problem is the Comprehensive Plan ends up being more of a
suggestion rather than a rule, because you can change it willy-nilly, which, you
know, is your right as Council. You, our elected representatives, you can do that.
It's perfectly legal, but the fundamental issue is for the City that as it grows west,
as it grows south, as it grows east, and even as it grows a little north, you all, don't
actually have a clear conception of what the city is going to look like in the future.
What its housing needs are, what its commercial needs are, even what its
industrial needs might be, such as they are. And since you refuse to have that
conversation, every single time these issues come up. I have to sit generally there
or sometimes online and listen to you meander around the topic rather than
actually address it. And as the Mayor and also the City Manager could do this as
well. Geoff, you could do it too. You could put items on your work session
agendas to fmally tackle these issues, but when it comes to these larger, broader
concerns about housing, about what kind of commercial is important for that
housing, I mean, you talk about again and again and again about the form -based
Code in the South District. I mean, that's nice, but the thing is like, you need to be
doing the same thing for the rest of the city as well. And you really shouldn't be
making these sweeping changes without doing that. Thank you.
Teague: Thank you. Welcome.
Petersen: Hello! Noah, as, you know, (knocking microphone) um, is this on? Okay, I hear
it now. Um, so yeah. Seconding, what last speaker said, he said a lot better than I
ever could. Uh, so I'm going to read this statement once again, hopefully you will,
hope it'll sink in this time. Now I will expand on the need for having Zoom call-in
public comment at meetings. Every single person should have the same
opportunity for public comment as everyone else. Currently, that is not the case.
Contacting y'all by email phone or in person is not the same as giving public
comment at a public meeting. That is a fact. It's unacceptable and discriminatory,
that the very reasonable accommodation of having hybrid meetings, it's not
available for all public meetings. It's the accommodation that the Johnson County
Board of Supervisors and Iowa City, Iowa City TRC are currently providing. So
proves that y'all could be doing that. Uh, we are still in a pandemic. We currently
have people who can not safely make it to a meeting physically. They are being
discriminated against. People should not have to risk death to participate in this
so-called democracy. Even if we weren't still in a pandemic, there are a lot of
reasons for people to not, uh, disabled and abled to not be able to physically
attend meetings. Well, it's still like two and should disabled to be able to make the
said meetings. Sony, I got lost a little bit. Okay. Um, I'm a disabled person. I
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 54
should be able to participate in public meetings when my disability prevents me
from being able to physically make it to meetings. But currently I can't do that.
This Council is currently discriminating against me and the entire disabled
community. You're telling me and my community that we matter less to you
because we are not able bodied. Stop your ableism. It's easy. You could do it. You
could say something right now saying, okay, we're going to have [mumbled]
meetings from now on it's up to you, Bruce. He's like, you make the rules and all
that stuff. So do it. Are you going to do it? And anyone else wants to speak up?
Teague: Any other comments relating to the rezoning of the IWV Road SW.
Petersen: Yes. And they are what people comment on these who can't basically make it to
meetings. Janice. This is your chance to speak up about this since you claim,
you're going to try and make meetings accessible. So do so publicly, since none of
you all have committed to doing that besides you on Twitter, Janice, I'm referring
to you just to make that clear.
Teague: Any other item related to this?
Petersen: Yeah, I'd like to have meetings accessible and stop having an ableist Council.
Teague: Thank you.
Petersen: You're not welcome this time.
Teague: Thank you. Welcome.
Bergstrom: Hi, Sherri Slothower Bergstrom again, and I won't take up very much of your
time. I'm just extremely disheartened and sad about not only what the decision
was, but the way I see our City government operating and, um, you know,
decisions being made without input until it's too late. And, um, I hope that I, I just
want to echo what the other speakers had said, that we would really like to sell
our land. Our parents have passed away. It's an area where this is happening a lot.
Uh, it's, there's going to be a big turnover. It's a lot of older people and, um, it's
time to look at the whole area if you're going do something like this. And, um, if
we put our land up for sale now, like we had planned, that's why we had called the
City staff in the spring. And we were told there was nothing on the horizon. There
was going to be no change. And so that's, that's what we've been dealing with.
And, and to sit out here and not be able to, when we hear wrong information or
when we look at stilted, uh, presentations that go, you know, toward what the
developer wants and you can't say anything is so disheartening, but, um, anyway,
we're going to probably be putting our land up for sale and we don't know what it
is now. You know, we don't know who we're looking at or what's going to
happen. So please, please look at the larger area and figure out what you're going
to do out there. And, um, it it's affecting a lot of people, even though that's not
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 55
what you've been led to believe. Um, the pictures don't show anything other than
what they want you to see. So, um, thank you for listening to us. And, um, I hope
that the whole thing can come to good in the end.
Teague: Thank you.
Bergstrom: I thought I was done too, but this'll be quick too. I just want to refute spot
zoning relates to a single user and this is what it is. And when we talk a much
larger area, I'm not talking our land, I'm talking the land to the north, the land to
the east, the land of the south. And you are, you are so focused on accommodating
this one user. You're ignoring a much, much bigger picture. Take a look, you
know, uh, if you want to amend the Comprehensive Plan, do it, but do it with
thought and care and, and make it encompassing. So, okay. Thank you.
Teague: Thank you. Anyone from the public, like to address this topic? Okay. Um, I'm
going to just ask Council before I close the public hearing, if they're inclined to
vote in accordance with P&Z. All right. I'm going to close the public hearing.
2. Consider an Ordinance (First Consideration)[deferred from 11/16/21]
Teague: Could I get a motion to give first consideration please?
Salih: So moved.
Thomas: Second, Thomas.
Teague: Council discussion....Roll call please.
Thomas: Oh, wait, are we going to have discussion?
Weiner: It's not, it's not a hundred percent directly on topic, but, uh, but I really do take
the points of our need to take a, really a, a thorough look at the Comprehensive
Plan and figure out what we want this whole area to look like. And I'm going to
vote yes tonight. But I think that we need to think, as a Council, it's really
incumbent upon us to, to take a look at the big picture and make some decisions.
Thomas: Yeah, I, um, you know, I think one of the factors that are driving, uh, you know,
our land use policies here is 218 and the interchange here. So that's, that's creating
kind of a unique corridor if you will, um, in what is essentially a rural landscape.
And, um, you know, I share the concerns of the residents and, and, uh,
landholders in this area of what exactly is the vision. Um, you know, we're, we've
been moving more to a form -based Code if you're familiar with these terms from
our conventional coding, which is more driven by use, but that doesn't apply here.
We were, we were still in kind of our conventional zoning categories. Uh, form -
based coding pays more attention to the relationship of land use, land uses to one
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 56
another and promotes, um, mixing the uses. It's less exclusionary in terms of that
interface, but it, it does, it is mindful of how they interface. And, um, you know, I
think staff and some of their suggestions are m effect inserting some of those
qualities that you would see in a form -based Code with respect to the, the
streetscape on IWV, which I just learned what that stood for the other day. I
fmally found a source for what that stands for. Um, so the, you know, the
frontages, in other words, are important. How, how do the frontages and the
relationship of the land in question relate to the context. Um, so we have the
frontages' issues along IWV and, uh, you know, the road there to the, to the east
and then the properties to the south. And, you know, I've been trying to
emphasize, so I feel, uh, the, the, what we refer to as the vegetated, vegetative
noise and site buffer are, you know, critical, particularly to the south. Uh, it seems
to me, there are conditions both on the property in question and on the property to
the south that will lend themselves to creating a, you know, a strong vegetated
buffer. But, uh, you know, we don't have assurances that questions of particularly
site in my view are going to be satisfactorily, um, achieved through the S3
standards. So I guess what I would, I would be asking is that as this goes to,
excuse me, to a, um, you know, an actual project that staff pay very close
attention, uh, to the, in a sense what I consider to be the performative aspects of
this, you know, that we're, we're looking for a noise and site buffer, what do we
need to do to achieve that? It may be that the S3 standard is not in itself sufficient
to achieve that at that level of buffering, uh, and that the site plan be developed to
ensure that it does.
Fruin: If I could just provide some commentary, um, to, to wrap things up here. I think
one thing that, uh, is important to note for the Council and the public, you know,
the properties, uh, the subject properties tonight, um, have very different
characteristics than, than nearby properties to the south that had been ref, uh, um,
uh, referenced particularly when it comes to their developability. Uh, currently
Slothower's an unimproved road. Um, and when we talk about, you know, you'll
be getting into budget in another month, um, I don't think you've ever heard us
talk about, um, the timeline for improving Slothower. It's not currently what we
would consider an on -the -radar project m terms of the City taking initiative to, to
fully improve Slothower, which would be needed for development, uh, to the
south there. Um, and there hasn't been a whole lot of, uh, discussion tonight
regarding the nearby landfill, probably close to 200, 250 acres. Uh, clearly there's
going to be a continued pressure to grow that landfill, which will have significant,
um, compatibility, um, uh, implications for nearby properties, particularly those to
the south, uh, that, that are directly adjacent to this landfill. And then lastly,
utility, uh, characteristics are much different up on the IWV Road, um, uh,
corridor as they would be to the south. And the properties there to the south are
not immediately serviceable by municipal utilities. So the kind of the
development -readiness of these properties are drastically different, and they have
some, um, uh, more significant challenges as you move away from the subject
property. So they may be adjacent, but there's a lot of differences between those.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 57
Um, I just wanted to point that out as you wrap up your discussion tonight, as we
start to think longer term about this, this area.
Teague: Any other comments? Roll call, please. Motion passes, 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 58
11.d. Rezoning - East of S. Riverside Dr. and North of McCollister Blvd. -
Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 5.81 acres of property
located east of S. Riverside Dr. and north of McCollister Blvd. from High
density single-family residential (RS -12) to high density single-family
residential with a planned development overlay (OPD/RS-12). (REZ21-0009)
1. Public Hearing
Teague: Item 11d, rezoning east of South Riverside Drive and north of McCollister
Boulevard, ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 5.81 acres of property
located east to South Riverside drive and north of McCollister Boulevard from
High Density, Single Family Residential to High Density, Single Family
Residential with Plan Development Overlay. And I'm going to open the public
hearing. Welcome.
Sitzman: Thank you, Mayor. Again, Danielle Sitzman, Neighborhood and Development
Services. This application is for a rezoning of the area highlighted in white here,
it's approximately a six, five or six acres, I'm sorry. 5.81 acres of land, uh, located
north of McCollister. So adjacent to property owned by the City along the Iowa
River. Um, this is a rezoning to an OPD zoning designation. The property had
previously gone through this process in 2015 to establish an OPD RS -12.
However, the OPD doesn't have, it does have an expiration date and it has
expired. So in order to continue development into a manufactured housing park,
the OPD needs to be re-established. OPDs are required by our zoning code for
manufactured housing parks, because they're a type of alternate ownership, a little
bit different than typical development in that one owner generally owns all of the
land and then leases lots out to people that own the, just the dwelling that are lo --,
that are located on the land. So because of that alternate ownership, um, there's
often private infrastructure involved, streets, uh, water and sewer connections,
shared facilities, and provision of services like trash privately. So again, it's a little
bit different than typical development and requires an OPD so that a glimpse of
the site planning can be obtained early in the process. Um, the, uh, surrounding
area is an existing manufactured home park, which was created in the mid 1970s
containing 55 units. And the rezoning would allow for the development of an
additional 35 manufactured homes, uh, in the area extending out another phase of
this manufactured housing community. Um, this shows the existing zoning, as I
mentioned, the OPD that has expired and the City parcel to the east. This is a
glimpse, like I said of that, uh, more of a site -plan -level detail that we would not
normally see with the rezoning, but because of the OPD, you do, showing that
next phase of development showing a connection of a loop street, a private loop
street to an existing, uh, roadway, uh, that connects eventually to the private
street, which is South Riverside Drive. Because this is an OPD rezoning, there are
the two standard, uh, criteria as well as several more that are evaluated, um, the
primary ones being consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Um, this is in the
South Central District Plan, and it does note that residential uses should be phased
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 59
out of this area. However, the City has made improvements to McCollister
Boulevard recently and extended, um, south, um, uh, extended us up along the
south edge of the property and also, uh, developed a levee, uh, in this area in
2013. Um, the Iowa City 2030 Comprehensive Plan goals also state that a need,
there is a need for affordable housing, especially in areas with good access to
parks like the nearby Terry Trueblood and other amenities. Because of that, this
property, because this property is maintaining existing use, essentially extending a
phase, uh, provides a relatively affordable housing alternative and has good
access to the street network trails and open space, staff does support, um, uh, this
rezoning tonight and finds that it is keeping in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan's goals. Um, and as far as compatibility with the existing
neighborhood, again, I mentioned this is an existing, uh, development, and it's, uh,
another phase of that extending that out and developing some vacant land into
similar use. As far as the OPD, we'll walk through the, uh, criteria for that here,
starting with land uses. Um, the density for this proposal, this is single family
manufactured housing. It's an allowable type and does meet the density, uh,
limitations of this particular zone. And talking about design. Um, the RS 12 zone
requires a minute -- minimum building width of 20 feet. The applicant is
requesting a waiver from that under the OPD process to reduce that to 14 feet;
that is in line with the existing manufactured housing stock. Um, it would allow
for development of under-utilized land, like I've mentioned, this final phase of
development and the configurations of lots and layouts of the internal street net --
network will be similar to the existing neighborhood and the neighborhoods to the
west of that. Um, in addition to that, the proposed homes will be well within the
allowable bulk dimensions for this zoning district. Um, as far as open space, I
mentioned the City -owned parcel to the east that was acquired in lieu of this
development, providing a public open space in the future. So their public open
space criteria has already been met. Um, however, there's also private open space
that our code requires on a lot by lot basis or in this case a leased lot by leased lot
basis. Um, the applicant is actually requesting to waive, uh, some component of
that, um, private or the onsite open space. And therefore staff is requesting, as a
condition, um, additional semi-public, uh, open space be, uh, required, uh,
through the development of a park and play, a play area within the development.
So as far as what that waiver entails, um, this shows, oh, I'm sorry, we've lost the
notes on the right-hand side of the screen here. This area shows the lots that are
subject to the waiver. The waiver would be to reduce the private open space
requirement, uh, on the leased lot by leased lot basis. Um, the standard is for 500
square feet of usable, um, open space on the lot with no dimension of that, uh, uh,
open space to be less than 20 feet. In this case, they're simply requesting to reduce
that dimension to 10 feet, um, because of the smaller, uh, lot areas. It does
generally match what's seen in the existing neighborhood. Um, you can see here,
the homes are offset from each other. So, um, there's still an opportunity for some
privacy and open space around each home. Um, and the resulting building
coverages will still meet the code standards even with that reduction. Oh, there it
is. I'm sorry. Tricksy. Uh, the next slide shows what I said. It would be that
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 60
private, uh, semi-public open space in the, in the form of a development of a
playground and recreational facilities. This is the proposed next phase, and this is
the area that would be, um, developed for that as a condition of this approval in
exchange for that reduction, essentially. Moving on to streets and utilities, um,
like I mentioned, there's a private loop street, internal to the development. City
water and sewer are available. Um, the surrounding street network can absorb the
estimated additional traffic generated through the development of this next phase.
Um, all new leased lots will have sidewalk at back of curb. Um, an improvement
over what's currently provided in the rest of the development, and they are
requesting a waiver to the streets, uh, the private street width here. Now, typically
the requirement is for 26.5 feet width, and this would be reduced down to 22 feet,
22 feet in width. That is again comparable with the surrounding existing street
network and has been reviewed by our Fire Department as sufficient. And then
lastly, I mentioned some of the previous waivers and variations that are requested,
there are several more. Um, there's three more regarding setback, uh, reductions.
Uh, the first one is a setback, uh, along the outer edge of the property. Our current
Code standards say that if you're developing a brand new manufactured home,
housing community, that the rear setbacks along the outer lots has to be a quite a
distance of 30 feet. Um, this existing development does not have that around the
rest of his perimeter, perimeter, and they're simply requesting to waive the next
phase from that standard as well. So to reduce that 30 foot setback down to zero,
um, as I mentioned, um, this parcel to the right of this is a City -owned park area.
Um, so really it's just impacting, uh, the adjacent area that's for the intended,
primarily for the use of these residents. They're the most, the closest neighbors to
this park. Um, so it's, um, adjacent to them. Also, the lots, um, in this phase will
eventually be combined with the rest of the development and under one plat or
one lot. So that outer boundary will actually be reduced somewhat. The other
setback is a reduction in sideyard setback, our sideyard setback is typically
required to be five feet. The reduction in this case would be reduced to zero.
Again, I mentioned there's some diagonal and offset positioning. The [mumbled]
helps to soften that visual impact between units. Um, and then fmally, the last one
is a reduction in minimum lot size, and the minimum lot size is typically 5,000
square feet. They're asking for a slight reduction down to 4,500 square feet. Um,
the reduction in overall lot size does not impact their overall density calculation.
There's still well within what's allowed for density. Um, while there are no
regulated environmentally sensitive areas on the property like we've talked about
in other applications, like stream corridors or wetlands or woodlands or steep
slopes, perhaps there are none on this property, but it is within the 100- and 500 -
year flood plain, and therefore it's subject to additional City regulations in the
City's Floodplain Management Ordinance. The City Engineer and Building
Inspection staff do review site grading and foundation plans as development
occurs to ensure compliance with this ordinance, which does require that
manufactured houses be anchored to resist floating, collapse, or lateral movement,
and that homes be elevated on a permanent foundation, such that the lowest floor
of the structure is a minimum of one foot above that 500 -year flood hazard height.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 61
And there was a supplemental memo provided to you in your packet that goes to
some further details explaining to the federal flood insurance program as well. So
as far as development steps, we're here at the rezoning to reestablish the OPD to
go along with that existing RS -12, um, High Density, Single Family Residential
designation, there would be a final plat enacted, like I said, to combine some of
the previous phases, um, and then a site plan and building permits under staff
review. So based on a review of the relevant criteria, staff did recommend
approval of the proposed rezoning with some conditions, and those conditions
include the construction of a storm shelter and a sidewalk along the existing east -
west, uh, private street all the way out to Riverside Drive. In addition, prior to
issuance of building approval, uh, permit, the approval of a final plat, on that,
final plat does contain some additional construction drawings and site grading and
drainage information. Um, as far as the final plat, uh, there would be a dissolving
of lot lines to essentially create, uh, one development here with all of the existing
development and this new phase. So that that's, I mentioned those outer
boundaries are reduced and the submission of an open, uh, space plan for that
vacant area to be developed in the future into a playground or equipment or
recreational area, and the construction of those improvements to that open space.
So at its November 4th meeting by a vote of seven to zero, the Planning and
Zoning Commission concurred with staffs opinion and also recommended
approval with these same conditions. Um, the CZA has been signed and I'm
happy to answer any questions.
Bergus: I have a few questions, Danielle, um, on the private open space on each leased
lot, uh, did I understand correctly that they are meeting the 500 feet just not
having a single, um, side of that be less than 20 feet?
Sitzman: Right. It is just the minimum, minimum dimension of that area -- of that open
space that is being reduced, not the overall square footage.
Bergus: Okay. And then you talked about the City lot. That's immediately adjacent to the
east and they're requesting for a couple of the lots to have zero feet of a setback.
Sitzman: Right.
Bergus: Okay. So that would mean the structure would be like right on the line with the
City property, right.
Sitzman: Right. That's correct. And that's existing condition along most of the perimeter
of this particular manufactured home community, as well as many others that
we've looked at, um, these standards are developed for new development, should
it occur in the city. However, most of our manufactured housing parks were
actually developed at a time when they were not within the city and were under
other standards, has since come into the city and are grandfathered and, and much
like this.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 62
Bergus: So if it's normal to have a structure right up to the lot line, how does the city
handle when people kind of encroach onto the city's property? I imagine that's a
very common...
Sitzman: Unfortunately on a case by case basis, as it's discovered as a conflict. Um,
typically we don't like to see it next to our parks because when it occurs, it makes
it difficult for us to maintain our parks. Um, but we, so we do have more eyes on
our parks than we would on other private property. But when we find out about it,
uh, between two other private property owners, it's typically kind of resolved
between them, uh, to, you know, remove improvements. If they've encroached, if,
if necessary,
Bergus: If, would we consider, did, did staff consider some kind of easement or
something to address some buffer area, some ability for there to be essentially
that.
Sitzman: So this would all be, you know, presumably new construction. So there would
be eyes on the first, uh, unit that gets placed on these lots, because we would be
checking the setbacks at the time of the foundation permit. Uh, kind of what
happens after that, just -- adding an easement to it just means it encroaches farther
and farther and farther. Um, the intention is that that should not occur at all. So
unfortunately it does, but I think we would, I don't think there's any way to plan
for it to make it less of an impact when it does happen.
Thomas: Could we plant, uh, I could see, uh, you know, a landscape screen, um, there's
one way of discouraging, any kind of an encroachment into the park space,
something that would define that edge. Uh,
Sitzman: I suppose the, the owner of the community could install a fence around the
property edge. That's typically --
Thomas: On their side, yeah.
Sitzman: -- people have to fmd where the property is, but even fences get put in the
wrong place.
Thomas: I was thinking of the City planting trees on its own property.
Sitzman: If we wanted to plant trees in our park, I suppose we could consider that as an
improvement. If we thought that would be an improvement for the adjacent
properties, I'm not sure.
Mims: Would we be going in and mowing that regularly?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 63
Sitzman: I'm not sure what the maintenance schedule for it is. It's not designated, I don't
believe as a park per se, it has a little bit of a sidewalk in it and it's adjacent to the
river. So it's a pleasant area, but I don't think it has a lot of other park
improvements in it.
Thomas: If, if I wanted to get to Terry Trueblood, which is kind of off the image, but to
the south and a little bit east from here, how do I get there?
Sitzman: Um, the applicant will be installing a trail connection from their development to
the, uh, public sidewalk along McCollister to this, the City owned land to the east.
And you would travel east along McCollister on the north side, and then
eventually cross the street after you cross the river to continue south into the park.
Thomas: So -- so the trail would be where exactly?
Sitzman: Um, I'm not sure if I have a detail on here that makes that clear. Um, maybe the
applicant can point that out when --.
Thomas: So they, in other words, I wouldn't have to go all the way up to the road at the
top.
Sitzman: No, you would not need to go to Riverside Drive and then around. The intention
is to be able to get to it.
Thomas: I -- I didn't see it identified on the plan. So I was, it seemed to me to be fairly
easy to make a connection to McCollister.
Teague: I did have a question about just the playground. Will that be the responsibility of
the, of the, um, developer or is that at some point going to be turned over to the
City?
Sitzman: No, that's private. It would be the developer's responsibility and it's included in
the conditions, the timing of when they need to make those improvements.
Teague: Okay. And there is no, there is no, cause sometimes we'll have it where it is the
developers', and then at some point it becomes the City, but that is not a part of
this.
Sitzman: No. This would be private.
Teague: Great. Thanks.
Taylor: Danielle, could you go to the, uh, picture of the area? I'm really not clear on that.
Uh, cause there was talking in, in the materials about requiring a storm shelter and
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 64
where that location would be as well as this park, green space, play area that
they're talking about.
Sitzman: So the park, the play area. So on the left side of this slide is Riverside Drive.
And then across the top is the entrance into the community. The orangeish square
here on the south side of that entrance road would be the area for the future play
area for the community. And I'm sorry, what was the second part?
Taylor: The storm shelter, storm shelter.
Sitzman: Um, I'm not sure if I have, let's see if any of this details. I think it's, it's here by
the 36. Yep.
Taylor: Okay.
Sitzman: Which is on the northwest corner of the next phase. So sort of central to the
overall community.
Taylor: And also on that picture, it's a little unclear to me, uh, what the plan for parking is
for, for vehicles.
Sitzman: So you can sort of see in the gray outline the possible footprint of the dwelling
and then a pad for parking that's adjacent to each one.
Taylor: It's adjacent to the home, or in front of it?
Sitzman: Adjacent to it.
Taylor: Okay.
Teague: All right. No more questions. Thank you. Would anyone from the, uh,
developers like to address this?
Boelk: Good evening, Council. Uh, yeah, here representing Axiom Consultants, I'm the
engineer for the project. And I know there's representatives from the Cole family
and, and uh, the Cole manufactured park, as well, to answer any of those
questions. Just, I think Danielle covered that very well. Uh, just a couple items I'll
add on the engineering side of things. We actually do still have a setback shown,
uh, on that east side between lots 4 and 13 as, I don't know if I can get to the plan
here. Oops. Nope. Um, on the east side, that's between that and the, and the City
park that we were talking about, um, the, the area where there is actually a
reduction of no setback at all is on that north side. Uh, those one through three.
Um, and that's because it's all becoming one parcel through that final plat as
Danielle discussed. So that's just adjacent to the existing, uh, manufactured
homes that are already there. So there will still be a little bit of a buffer there in
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 65
terms of setback as was asked there. Um, we do also show, uh, the sidewalk
connection trail connection that you were asking about. It does connect directly to
McCollister. It's hard to see, it's on that kind of Southwest corner south of number
31. If you see that, and that's got a direct connection to the sidewalk along
McCollister Boulevard, which would then take you to the trail system. Uh,
otherwise, yeah, I think she described it very well. Happy to answer any other
questions from the engineering side of things though. Thank you.
Teague: Thank you. All right. I'm going to open up comments to the public. Welcome.
Theisen: Good evening once again, Council. Uh, Nicholas Theisen, same situation as
before, not going to dox myself. So the reason why I came up here, I actually
have no feelings one way or the other with regards to whether or not you should
vote yes. Vote in favor or vote against this particular proposal. What I do want to
remind you all of though is again, the larger context for these things. So in this
situation we have what is called a lease hold. So, I mean, this was already
explained to you by Danielle. It's a situation where you have a land owner who
owns the entire plot of land. And then you have individuals who owned the
residences, the manufactured homes or mobile homes that sit on top of them.
Now, the reason why I remind you of this fact is, one, because the City has an
extremely bad history when it comes to dealing well with mobile home residents.
Now I realize that. So I was actually just kind of tossing this back and forth
whether to bring this up now or bring it up with regards to the legislative
priorities, because it's mentioned there, but it is relevant to this discussion. Now,
the reason why I mentioned that specifically, that particular history, and if you're,
if you don't know what I'm talking about, just the words Foster Road should, you
know, immediately spring to mind the situation. That was one in which a
developer had actually created a mobile home lot specifically so as to hold the
land for future development, and then basically screw over the residents when the
time came to make more money by selling it off to somebody else. That is why
these mobile homes exist. They exist primarily to hold onto the land because it is
leasehold. You don't own the land when you have a home, when you have a
manufactured home in one of these lots and it can be sold out from under the
residents, literally at any time. That is precisely what happened to the people in
Foster Road and the people who were there, you all went to extraordinary efforts
to try and actually arrange a deal. Rafael who used to work, I mean, Mazahir, you
know this, sorry, Mayor Pro Tem. You know this. Rafael went out of his way to
negotiate between the City and the residents there, a special dispensation for the
residents and the, with, between the residents and the developer, and the
developer screwed them. And you all have done nothing about that. So I am
deeply worried because this is in another one of those areas that will be developed
into in the future, that this is going to be a similar situation, that the developer is
just doing this to hold onto the land until such time as they can develop it into
something else and screw over the people who live there. Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 66
Teague: Thank you. Welcome.
Petersen: Hello, Noah. As you know, I don't dox myself, uh, just want to second what he
said, and um, yeah, if you're actually gonna pass this, have it, so you have a
vision, so you don't screw over more people living in mobile homes. Once again,
if you're gonna, that's an easy thing to do once again. It's the easy things you can't
seem to do, but you should. And now I'm this, my next comment is, uh, relevant
because it's talking about your decision to have accessibility for public comment
on this issue. Now you are familiar with the statement and I'll probably mess it up
because, eh, I'll go through it. Now I will expand on the need for having Zoom
call-in public comment at meetings. Every single person should have the same
opportunity for public comment as everyone else. Currently, that is not the case.
Contacting y'all by email, phone, or talking in person is not the same as giving a
public comment at a public meeting. And that is a fact you cannot deny. It's
unacceptable and discriminatory and ablest that the very reasonable
accommodation of having hybrid meetings is not available for all so-called public
meetings because apparently not public meetings when they aren't accessible to
people. It's an accommodation that the Johnson County Board of Supervisors and
Iowa City TRC are currently providing. We are still in a pandemic. Currently
people who cannot safely make it to a meeting are being discriminated against.
People should not have to risk death. People should not have to risk death to
participate in this so-called democracy. Like that's an incredibly like low bar that
y'all are not even reaching at this point. If we weren't still in a pandemic, there
are loads of reasons, people abled and disabled, for why they cannot physically
attend set meetings. Well, it's the right to be able to, it should be able to have,
attend those accessible, have accessible meetings. I'm a disabled person. I should
be able to participate in public meetings when my disability prevents me from
being able to physically make it to meetings. But currently I cannot do that. This
Council is currently discriminating against me and the entire disabled community.
You are telling me and my community that we matter less than our able-bodied
neighbors. So you're gonna change the rule or not. You give me a thumbs up or
thumbs down, thumb ups means you're going to not be ableist. Thumbs down
means you're going to be ableist and no answers, meaning you're going to be
ableist.
Teague: Thank you.
Petersen: So why don't we have accessible meetings? Can I have a good reason? I know I
can't miss there's no good reason. That was a trick question.
Teague: If you're done talking on this,
Petersen: I still have 10 seconds. Nine seconds, eight seconds, seven seconds. Five
seconds. Nope, sorry. Five seconds. Four seconds. Make your meetings
accessible.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 67
Teague: Thank you.
Petersen: You're welcome.
Teague: Welcome.
Rosenquist: All right. n.1 keep this really short because I know you guys have kind of
been dragged through the mud tonight, but, um, I'm here. I'm, Larissa Rosenquist,
I'm um, with Cole's community. Um, we need to focus on some common sense
here and that's to vote yes for affordable housing. I think not anybody, any of us
here could sit here and say, we don't need affordable housing. Our family has
been running parks for many, many years. We're uh, very capable, um, in doing
so. I just hope that you can all get on board and vote yes for affordable housing.
Um, I'm here to take any questions if anybody has any.
Taylor: I, I would just first like to thank you and, and the Cole family for, uh, having this
plan, uh, to increase the number of available lots for manufactured homes in the
community. Because as we all know, especially at one time a manufactured home,
(shouting from audience) manufactured homes were an affordable means for, for
people, uh, to live in, uh, they've of course over the years become more and more
expensive, but they still are affordable. And so I do appreciate, uh, the, the
thought that went into that and, and the plans, um, to add these lots. I did have just
a couple of questions as far as that, um, I almost hesitate to bring this up, but is it
possible that these lots could serve to help replace some of the housing needs of
the residents of Forest View?
Rosenquist: Um, you know, that's come up a couple of times, um, right now, we're
focusing on just getting this passed. Um, and then we can definitely discuss that.
Right now. I have half of the waiting list filled up and I feel like, I'm going to
make a liar out of myself if this doesn't pass. Um, currently most of the people on
the waiting list are family members from, um, current residents. So we have a
huge need for it. We have, um, definitely discussed Forest View tenants, of
course. I mean, they're, they're very important to us. It's just, this is a total
separate issue and this is, we want to focus on this right now. Um, but yeah, that's
defmitely in the, in the future.
Taylor: So in regards to that, and in regards to the waiting list is, is the plan to, for you
folks to, to buy the units and then sell them to the individuals or will, the persons
buy them elsewhere and then have them placed on the....
Rosenquist: That's a good question. Um, right now we're not in a position to buy out all
of them at once, obviously. So our current plan is to, um, bring them in, in about
three phases. I think we could do three, maybe four phases if we had to, um,
within a year and a half, we'd like to do, I know it's ambitious, but there's a need
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 68
for it. We have a lot of, like I said a thousand times, sorry. Um, so we would like
to direct them to financial institutions. We have a lot of lenders that we've already
spoken with. Um, that's the deal. That's the idea. Um, obviously some people
aren't able to do that and we can help in some ways, but I wish we could do more.
It's just obviously fmancially, you know, we have to direct them to other
institutional lenders. So.
Taylor: Thank you.
Rosenquist: Yeah.
Teague: Thank you. I want to get out before you speak that this, um, as a part of the
development team, I wish I had, I should have invited you up. I just assumed that
he was representing, but you can go ahead and speak. Mayor Pro Tem.
Salih: Yeah. I just want to ask you about, you said there is some people on the waiting
list right now and, uh, what their understanding is, uh, uh, like somebody come,
put their name in the waiting list, just, not knowing that they, they gonna purchase
their own home or are they going to bring home to the lot and they can rent only
the lot or there is no like clear plan, how come we already have, have a wait,
people on the list and you don't have a clear plan.
Rosenquist: I'm so glad you asked. Um, I have so many people that I I've actually put
the waiting list on a halt because I don't know if this is going to pass. I hope that it
does, but I stopped taking people on the waiting list. Right now I have 16 people
on the waiting list and they don't know if they're going to be financing it through
us, through a lender. I mean, I've made it pretty clear that to the people I've
spoken with, that they would have to directly go to a different lender. Um, so
that's, I've been very clear in my, I've been very transparent on, on that with my
talks with these people. Um, that's about the best way. We have amazing
residents. I mean, we just, we're very, very blessed with the people that we have.
We have amazing families. Um, so I would, I mean, I would give my shirt off my
back for any of them. They're amazing. So, um, any way that we can help direct
people in the right way we will. Um, right now our plan is to direct them to
lenders and hopefully the banks will not charge them a ton of interest rate is what
I would like to see. I would like to see local lenders come out and speak to me
privately. I mean, my information's right on the sign at the parks. Um, give me a
call if anybody has any ideas. Um....
Salih: Also you spoke about affordability and do you know like how much you're going
to be the rent? Uh, the lot rent for now, or you don't know.
Rosenquist: Yeah, a lot rent raises about $10 every year. I mean, that's just kind of on
average. It depends if we have major improvements. Um, but right now lot runs at
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 69
$380. So I would just, I always tell people when I sign a new lease, I just expect it
to go up about $10 every year.
Salih: Okay. Thank you.
Rosenquist: Yeah.
Teague: Any other questions? All right. Anyone else from the development team want to
speak before I continue with public comment? All right. Anyone else like to
address this topic from the public...seeing no one I'm going to close the public
hearing.
2. Consider an Ordinance (First Consideration)
Teague: Could I get a motion to give first consideration.
Salih: Motion to get first consideration, moved.
Weiner: Second.
Teague: Moved by Salih, seconded by Weiner. Council discussion.
Weiner: I would just like to, I mean, I was, I would like to hear the, um, the, we had a
concern raised subsequent to the P&Z vote about, about the flood plain issue. I
think it's pretty clear in the, in the materials, how that gets addressed. Um, I would
just like to be clear for the public here and everyone else, how, how that works. I
mean, I, and I'm, I'm not, I'm not the one to explain it. So I don't know if maybe
if, uh, Danielle or Geoff or something could, could help out, but
Fruin: Are you looking for information on the levee that was built?
Weiner: I think looking for information on the levee and then the standard to which it has
to be built that would have that it would have to be infilled. Um, just to --
Sitzman: I think, I -- Ron's obviously, I've got Ron with me here. So we'll, I'll take a stab
at it. Ron, you can jump in if I, if I mangle this, but my understanding is that the,
um, the levee was constructed in response to the 2008 flood by the City in about
2013. It's along the west side of the Iowa River and it's intended to protect the
existing and future, uh, housing out there. And the levee, when it was built was
not certified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or accredit, but accredited by
FEMA, but it was built to meet both of those organizations' standards, um,
because it's not certified or accredited, it does not impact the FEMA flood plain
designation of the area, which has shown on that, uh, flood plain federal flood
insurance rate maps, or the FIRMs. Um, a FEMA accreditation requires an
official process, uh, that would be gone through known as the letter of map
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 70
revision or a LOMAR to, um, the flood insurance rate map. If the City revised
the flood insurance rate map prior to the area being filled or raised as the
applicant intends to do, it would still technically be located within the hundred -
year flood plain. So that would kind of not be the time to do that. If we were
going to pursue a LOMAR to the FIRM, a letter of map revision to the flood
insurance rate map, we should do it after development occurs. And something's
actually been changed on the site, such that the land would be potentially raised
out of that flood hazard area area. Um, conducting a letter of map provision is not
an inexpensive process. It involves an engineering study that we would probably
contract out for. And the price estimate that I think we receive from our engineers,
that's probably a six to $7,000 cost to go through a letter of map revision. So staff
believes it would be best to complete the development and then consider if we
want to pursue a LOMAR, at -- doing so at that point. Want to add anything to
that, Ron?
Knoche: Sure. So in re -- Ron Knoche, Public Works Director. So in regards to the levee
design, it was built, uh, three foot above the, uh, hundred -year flood event, uh,
which puts it about a foot and a half above the 2008 event down in this area. Uh,
the interior drainage, uh, the, the pumps that are there for the, for the pumpage,
are sized for the hundred -year event. Um, so there's, there's pipes that will carry
the overland flow and then that's pumped into the river. Um, but, but those are
sized for a hundred -year event, interior to the drainage area.
Goers: Mr. Mayor, before we have any further Council discussion, I'm wondering if you
would be willing to, um, gather from, uh, Council, whether they're inclined to
vote in accordance with the P&Z's recommendation and if not, we would, I'd ask
that you reopen the public hearing.
Teague: [crosstalk among Council.] Well, are you all inclined to vote in favor? [General
assent]
Goers: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Teague: Thank you.
Bergus: I just had another floodplain clarification question, sorry for staff who sat down.
Um, but I think from the materials, the intent is to regrade the site that would
actually then put it, uh, one foot above the 500 -year flood point. Is that correct?
Boelk: Yes, that is correct. We have that noted on the Plan as well for that minimum level
opening to be that one foot above. Correct.
Bergus: Thank you. And then, for staff, if we've got the infrastructure there to deal with
the a hundred -year event, and then the site is raised up to higher, is that still
protective? Is that still helpful?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 71
Teague: And it also sits on concrete, is that correct? Instead of ... cinderblocks, right?
Knoche: So it, in regards to it elevating the ground, it wouldn't have an impact on how,
how the, you know, how the drainage works within, uh, the, the areas protected
by the levee itself. So with the overland flow, that that will go to the piping, that
will take to the pumps. There, there shouldn't be any issues.
Bergus: Meaning it doesn't, like, defeat the purpose if you elevate the ground.
Knoche: Right, exactly. It doesn't defeat the purpose of having the levee in place and
having the pumps in place. Thank you.
Taylor: And one question regards to that too, then, uh, there was concerns raised then of,
of shunting, uh, water if there were floodwaters and these are up higher with the
floodwaters, then be shunted over towards the lower -lying homes. Is that a
possibility?
Knoche: No, the, the levee itself actually is along the river. So, you know, in a, in a flood
event, it's the tendency is that the water would stay in the river. It wouldn't
actually be in the neighborhood. And the area that they're actually building on
was actually the area that was, was the, um, temporary levee during the 2008
event that protected the area and in signi -- and in events after that. So there was
another event in two thousand, uh, 12 or 13 that, that basically this area protected
the rest of the neighborhood from.
Thomas: How many feet were um, is the elevation being raised when we get it the 500
plus one? How many feet of filler we talking about?
Knoche: (aside) Have you got an idea, Brian...
Boelk: Uh, I'd have to double check that, but I want to say it's probably three or four feet.
I'd have to -- don't quote me on that. But part of that would be both with fill
and/or, um, as you said, with the slab or elevating the manufactured home higher
necessarily, you know, as you might see with steps or something like that, going
into them as well as you typically would see. So just in terms of elevating that
minimum o -- opening in general.
Teague: Thank you. Any other discussion by Council?
Mims: I would just say I support this. Um, I, you know, my experience over the years in
talking with and dealing with members of the Cole family, have they've done a
really nice job and really do care for their tenants. I think all of us, you know, in
an ideal world would prefer not to see leasehold kinds of residential areas. Um,
but when you do have that, it's incredibly important that you have caring and
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 72
responsible owners of these mobile home parks. And so I, I believe that we have
that here. I think they've demonstrated that. So, and we obviously we need, uh,
more affordable housing. So I will definitely be supporting this.
Taylor: I'm very familiar with this neighborhood. Having lived there for over 20 years, at
one point in time in my life, and actually lived through the flood of '93 that went
through there, which was much worse than, than '08. Uh, many of us residents
were out of our homes for over six weeks that time. Uh, that's why I asked about
the waters being shunted, uh, because it just came from everywhere, the river and
the sewers and everywhere. So I do have that concern, but I have driven by there
many times and have seen that they have already started to elevate with some fill
dirt, and, and it looks, uh, it's up quite high. And I think that's going to make a big
difference. Uh, but I just still have that slight concern, but also concerned about
the requests, um, the number of requests for waivers from the standards that, that
concerns me a little bit, but there is such a definite need for, for these, uh,
affordable homes. So I will be voting in favor of it.
Salih: I also going to be voting in favor, but I really want to say that we know that there
is many, many mobile homes from the area that are not being taking care of as it
should be. And I hope this also to continue, like really taking care of the sewers,
everything that, uh, we been hearing like a lot of complaint, I hope when we, uh,
like agree to give this kind of things, because as they said, affordable housing is
important, but also as to the, Mims said, you know, we need like, really, the
owner to be really caring about the residents who live there. You can, I guess,
bring people without giving them services. Uh, even though the, the, the lot is
very affordable. Uh, but still, they deserve really like good service. Yeah. But I'm
going to vote yes.
Teague: All right. Roll call please. Motion carries, 7 to 0. Could I get a motion to accept
correspondence?
Salih: So moved.
Weiner: Second.
Teague: Moved by Salih, seconded by Weiner, all in favor, say aye. Motion carries, 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 73
11.e. Rezoning — Hickory Trail - Ordinance conditionally rezoning
approximately 48.75 acres of property located south of N. Scott Blvd. & west
of N. 1st Ave., from Interim Development — Single Family Residential (ID -RS)
to Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development
Overlay (OPD/RS-5). (REZ21-0008)
1. Public Hearing
Teague: I'm going to open the public hearing and going to welcome Danielle.
Sitzman: Thank you, Mayor. Last one of the night for me, this is the Hickory Trail,
formerly Hickory, Hickory Trail Estates, a rezoning shown, uh, the location is
outlined here in white, just south of Scott Boulevard and west of First Avenue.
This is an application by Nelson Development and is a rezoning as indicated at
48.75 acres. There was a previous application sought for an OPD RS -5 rezoning
for this development, which failed, which included a component of single family
homes, the senior living facility with 135 bedrooms. Um, the current application
has dropped the 41 single family homes, still includes a senior, senior living
facility with 134 bedrooms. Um, and then the remainder of the land,
approximately 34 or 30, sorry, 39 acres, uh, would be considered, uh, uh, for
dedication to the City for neighborhood open space for the expansion of Hickory
Hill Park. This slide shows the current zoning of the surrounding area, including
the developments to the west, uh, which includes, um, Hickory Heights Lane
subdivision, the ACT Campus, Oakdale Senior Living to the north, to the east of
this, uh, property immediately adjacent to the east is Hickory Point
Condominiums. And then again, Hickory Hill Park. Um, so in this slide, the
green, this is the larger view of that same area. The green would be the area to be,
uh, combined with Hickory Hill Park, the southeast corner is the remaining senior
living, uh, component. And this is a blown up image of that same, uh, area for a
little bit more detail. It's proposed in the same location as the previous. And like I
mentioned it's approximately, or pretty consistently the same number of bedrooms
and design. This is an OPD rezoning, so you get to see the site plan level details
earlier than you typically would. Um, again, um, the only requested waiver for
this OPD is the height, which was the same height requests that they requested
before, which is, uh, increased from the, uh, height maximum of 35 feet to, uh, 40
feet instead. Um, as we, because this is a OPD rezoning, it does have the
additional criteria to go through as well as the standard ones. The standard ones
having to do with compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Um, this does
preserve natural features, um, and it does connect the sidewalk system along the
south edge of the senior living facility to the existing street network. And it does
provide for diversity of housing types in that it's providing senior living. Um, as
far as, uh, the use of the ravine and wetland areas as a buffer around the park
boundary, that's also envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan as well as the cul-de-
sac system. Um, the additional special criteria that have to do with over, uh, plan
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 74
development overlays include, uh, these criteria. Starting with land uses, senior
living development beats the density requirements of our Code, the, um, design of
the, uh, project includes essentially a three-story exposure along the northern edge
of the development tapering down to more of a one-story exposure along the
public street. Um, landscaping is used to transition between, uh, this building's
height and the adjacent building to the east of it, which is a two-story building.
There's also an extension of the existing street network, um, the, uh, to the west,
uh, for the access to this development and connections, as I mentioned to the
public, sidewalks there. Sensitive areas are also identified and protected in this
plan. Um, a little bit closer view of the project as proposed, it's about a 70,000
square -foot footprint. Um, I'm sorry, height up to 42 feet in height. And as I
mentioned, kind of tapering and height across the site. Uh, landscaping again, as I
mentioned, used to, as that transition, here's the proposed landscaping at this
point, these are details that would be reviewed again at site plan review when the
actual development, uh, construction plans are proposed. Regarding open space,
they are providing the required open space for, uh, as required for the number of
units in the senior living complex onsite, as well as a very large land dedication
for public park expansion. The area in green, again, is this area that would be, uh,
included as outlet A for, uh, and dedicated to the City for a public park. There
would be trail connections to the south provided by the applicant, um, into
Hickory Trail Park as well. Um, Parks and Recreation staff does support the
exposed, uh, expansion of Hickory Hill Park as far as future programming of this
area and what improvements might be made there. That's a process that's
undergone by the Parks and Recreation Commission and Parks and Recreation
staff through their development of master plans, and then funded of course, to the
Capital Improvement Program, which City Council is in control and does review.
Um, regarding streets and utilities, um, there are two points of access off the north
side of the extension of Hickory Trail Street. Um, as I mentioned, sidewalk
extensions along that street, including a five foot wide sidewalk along its north
side and an eight foot wide sidewalk, sidewalk along at the south side, um, there
would be adequate, um, City sewer and water surfaces available and we've, um,
investigated the impacts of First Avenue traffic, um, at the intersection of Hickory
Trail and First Avenue was just sufficient. There are no offsite traffic related
improvements being required for this development. As I mentioned, um, sensitive
areas are addressed. There are wetlands, uh, both are all of which are in being
appropriately buffered as well as the stream corridors. Um, critical slopes are not
being impacted beyond the allowable threshold, um, and as well, woodlands are
minimally being impacted, um, well below the allowed threshold. Uh, as far as
staff and the development, we're here at this second rezoning request, the first one
which failed in July, this is the revised plan that includes only the senior living, as
I mentioned; there would be subsequent steps for planning, site plan development
and building permits eventually. Um, con -- based on a review of the relevant
criteria, staff did recommend approval with the proposed conditions here at its
November 4th meeting by a vote of seven to zero, the Planning and Zoning
Commission concurred with staffs opinion, and also recommended approval of
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 75
this rezoning with those same conditions, the conditions include the trail
connections. I mentioned the sidewalk, um, development, also submission of a
landscaping plan, uh, detailing any proposed landscaping on lot one, um, basically
to be approved by the City Forester to, uh, allow for that appropriate transition
and then a final plat as well. That concludes my staff report. I'm happy to answer
questions.
Bergus: I have a question about the park dedication, um, and reviewing the ordinance and
the, and the CZA. Once the land is dedicated to the City, will we be required to
only ever use that 39 acres for parkland? Or is there an opportunity for some other
use, should a future Council see that appropriate?
Sitzman: I believe the intention is to dedicate it as parkland, which restricts it to the use
as a park. Um, it wouldn't be zoned P, public use, but the City would go back
through and rezone it to that as well. Eventually.
Bergus: Thank you.
Teague: So we know that there was the, um, 41 homes at one point that was in the
previous proposal. And this is now going to the Low Density, Single Family
Residential, with a plan development overlay. Can any other development
happen, um, in this area?
Sitzman: So it's the same zoning district as before, but what's the, what is different is the
OPD gives you a site plan. And if they were to want to build something else,
whatever else it might be would have to be substantially the same as this site plan
that you're seeing. If it's not substantially the same as this site plan, it's got to go
back to Planning and Zoning Commission and be reviewed. So while the RS -5
zoning might allow other housing, uh, by right, the OPD is locking it into this site
plan.
Teague: Okay. And, and that's what I was getting at, do they have any opportunity by
right.
Sitzman: There could be -- can be some minor changes to an OPD, but they're defined in
our Code as being very minor. Um, it might be slight changes to the building
configuration on the lot, but it would not be something like adding single family
homes. That would be substantial.
Teague: Thank you. All right. Thanks. Anyone from the development team want to
address anything at this time?
Boelk: Good evening again, Brian Boelk, Axiom. Uh, yeah, here to answer any
questions, uh, related to the plan. Uh, also have AG Architecture here as well as
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 76
representatives from Nelson Development too, that could help answer any
questions.
Teague: Great.
Alden: Good evening, Andrew Alden from AG Architecture in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin,
I'm here to talk about the building. It's essentially the same concept that we
presented and you've seen before. Um, we've continued to design a little bit, but
pretty much exactly the same, except for the height increase. And I'd be happy to
answer any questions about that or about the building that you might have.
Teague: Thank you. Any questions for them?
Thomas: Well, I think at the P&Z meeting, there was a, like a aerial depiction of the
project. Is that something we could see?
Alden: Yes. There was a video fly over. I'm assuming that it is on a server that somebody
has access to as I wave my hand....
Thomas: We don't, we don't load that up. Um, we can certainly look at that for your next
meeting. Yeah, we, it wasn't shown at the P&Z meeting. Um, I mean, it was
shown at the P&Z meeting, but watching it, I could not see it. So.
Teague: All right, no questions there. I'm going to invite people from the public to come.
Whoever would like to talk on this topic. Welcome.
Petersen: Hello. Um, before I have to read this thing, I'm going to ask, are you going to
change the rules to have accessible meetings? Seeing no response I'm going to go
again. This is relevant because this is about decision on people being allowed to
vote on this item.
Teague: Please state your name --
Petersen: Sorry, what was that?
Teague: Please state your name and address.
Petersen: Uh, Noah and I won't dox myself, as you know. Um, okay, so now I will
expand on the need for having Zoom call-in public comment at meetings. Every
single person should have the same opportunity for public comment as everyone
else. Currently, that is not the case. Contacting y'all by email, phone, or in person
is not the same as giving public comment at a so-called public meeting. And that
is an undeniable fact. It is unacceptable, ableist and discriminatory that the very
reasonable accommodation of having hybrid meetings is not currently being met.
This is an accommodation that both the Johnson County Board of Supervisors and
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 77
Iowa City TRC are capable of providing and are providing. Currently. We are still
in a pandemic. Currently people who can not safely make it to a meeting are being
discriminated against. People should not have to risk death. Again, people should
have the risk death. People should not have to risk death. People should not have
to risk death to participate in this so-called democracy. Even if we weren't
[mumbled] them, there are loads of reasons why people cannot physically attend
meetings get, would still like to be able to attend those meetings, but currently
cannot because they're not accessible. I am a disabled person. I should be able to
participate in public meetings. So my disability, when my disability prevents me
from being able to physically make it to meetings, but apparently I cannot do that.
This Council is currently discriminating against me and the entire disabled
community by not having hybrid meetings. You are telling us that we matter less
than our able bodied neighbors by not making your meetings accessible. Also the
last transcripts you can even get for these meetings, go back. The last time you
can, the last transcript available for formal regular formal meetings is September
27th. That means October 5th, the, I can't remember about the exact date in
October is the other October meeting, the previous November meeting, have no
transcript available online on your website. And plus you have to like go digging
for the website. They're not linked into the information. Like when you look up
City Council to find all the information where y'all are and like how, where did
the address is? But you have to like go searching in the websites, even find the
transcripts. And they're almost two months backed up and not having any
transcripts. I, I'm wrong with that. The last meeting, there was the work session
transcript, trans -- transcript, but that was just the work session, but there was no
other work sessions
Teague: Thank you.
Petersen: -- except for that September meeting.
Teague: Welcome.
Napoli: Hello, good evening. My name is Jason Napoli. Um, I am a neighbor of the
Hickory Trail development, and I'm also serving as Vice Chair of the Friends of
Hickory Hill Park. Um, first I would like to thank, uh, Mayor and Council, um,
Geoff, and all your City staff who've worked on this, uh, for the past year or so,
uh, as well as the Planning and Zoning Commission, uh, we, uh, greatly
appreciate your time, talent and patience. So another party I'd like to thank is the,
uh, the members of the community who have spent a lot of time, uh, working, uh,
together and, uh, individually on, uh, you know, talking about this, uh, proposal
for the last, uh, year. This, this started, uh, with the previous, um, design, uh, with
the Good Neighbor meeting back in December of 2020. And here we are after two
Good Neighbor meetings, four Planning and Zoning meetings. Now, this is the
fourth City Council meeting, uh, related to this, uh, this property. Uh, as for the
current proposal, uh, this is a design, uh, the Friends of, uh, Hickory Hill Park do
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 78
support, uh, in good faith of, uh, the parkland being deeded to the city and, uh,
becoming a part of Hickory Hill Park. Um, you know, we do appreciate the
developers', um, ecological- and community -mindedness of the proposal, and also
the need of, uh, assisted living and memory care, uh, in the, in the local area. It's
been very clear from Planning and Zoning, uh, as well as, uh, Council, uh, for the
previous proposal that it's needed and that we fully support that, uh, uh, with the
use of the building and the land. Um, adding the 39 acres to Hickory Hill Park is
an incredible opportunity and a responsibility that the Friends of Hickory Hill
Park will take very seriously. Uh, we would be more than happy and committed to
partnering, uh, with the City on, uh, just like we do the other 185 acres, uh,
currently existing. Um, this includes, uh, maintaining the trail system, uh,
advancing native prairie restoration as well as working tirelessly on invasive
species removal. So again, just want to thank everyone who has had a part in this.
And again, we do support the proposal provided it goes through with the deeded
parkland, uh, as proposed. Thank you very much.
Teague: Thank you. Anyone else like to address this topic? All right. Council, are you all
inclined to support this? All right. I'm going to close the public hearing.
2. Consider an Ordinance (First Consideration)
Teague: Could I get a motion to give first consideration?
Salih: Moved.
Weiner: Second.
Teague: Moved by Salih, seconded by Weiner. Council discussion.
Salih: I just really like the collaboration now between the residents and the developer,
and they come up with this great plan and thank you for the developer for
donating this land to the city for extending the park. That's really like, appreciate
that. Thanks. I'm happy this is going that way. And we'll like, we'll vote for it.
Yes.
Taylor: As, uh, uh, the member of the public mentioned it, that has been, uh, seemed like
a very long process, uh, but with a lot of community involvement. And I think
that's why we are where we are today with this. And it is assuring to hear from the
Friends of Hickory Hill Park that, uh, they do support this version, uh, so that,
that's a very positive aspect and I will support it for that reason, but I would
encourage the developers to, um, uh, try to assure us that you'll consider
sustainability. Uh, there's pretty large building footprint with this, uh, the size of
this building. And, um, sometimes it seems like we take two steps forward on our
Climate Action Plan and fall four steps backwards when we have built big, large
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 79
building projects. So, um, try to minimize, uh, any overall impacts on, on the
environment, um, with this. And we'd appreciate that.
Mims: I'll support this, I've always supported this part of the project. I, um, I am
disappointed that we did not pass the other one, um, went through three P&Z to
City Council, came to the third City Council and then votes changed and didn't
pass it. And again, it gave, you know, we lost an opportunity for more housing in
the city. Um, I think a lot of the discussion from Council focused on affordable
housing, which is not what we're supposed to be looking at when we're looking at
rezonings. Um, I know there was also issues about cul-de-sac versus through
street, et cetera, but you know, when you take this and you take the lack of
annexing Carson farm, and then you try and talk about affordable housing. We
don't have a lot of land left to develop in this city and we need to continue to
grow. And the only way we're gonna, you know, get some progress on the
affordable housing is to build more. And I realized this wasn't going to be, it'd
probably be high-end homes, but you also get people moving from less expensive
homes into the higher, and then they make room for people coming into those
lower -end homes. It was, it was also, I found, really disconcerting during that
time to hear people or have them writing us letters about how we were developing
Hickory Hill Park. And I reached out to some of the, where are you getting this? I
mean, we're adding, even at that time, we were adding 14 plus acres to Hickory
Hill Park, and people were being fed misinformation that we were actually
developing the park. Um, so yes, I will support this, but again, I am disappointed
that we lost that opportunity to add 41 houses to our housing stock.
Bergus: I'll have an even more unpopular opinion. First, I do want to say thank you to
everyone for all their work. And I think this is a kind of shockingly good
outcome, um, given how I foresaw it may have, have ended. Um, I will be
supporting this. However, the reason I asked about the dedication of the land to
the City is that, uh, we know the infill development is some of the most, um,
helpful thing that we can do as far as our Climate Action. And we know that we
have a really significant housing shortage in the city, and we know that the City
owning property is one way that we can actually create permanent affordable
housing. And so I'm actually a little disappointed that we aren't able to go that
route. And I understand that the developer wants it to be locked in as parkland.
And I understand the advocates for, uh, Friends of Hickory Hill requests that as
well. But, um, I do see that as a bit of a missed opportunity here.
Thomas: Well, like I can remember when, and this has been a very long, long process,
almost a year in length with lots of meetings, um, mentioning when we were
meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission about the notion of, of
developing a plan, uh, which was more with an emphasis on designing with
nature. And, uh, I think this plan has achieved that, uh, you know, what I learned
through this process was how cherished Hickory Hill Park is to the community.
It's an extremely important, um, element within the community that has been
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 80
dramatically strengthened by this project. Um, the, you know, that east, that east
front of the park was always a concern. And, um, you know, I, I was, I was not
expecting, uh, the way this thing played out. I, I did feel there were development
opportunities off of Scott Boulevard, but I can understand, um, you know, the
thinking behind just essentially, uh, leaving the, the single family or residential
development off the table. But what we have here is certainly, you know, when I
look at Iowa City over the longterm, which I think is something we often, um, get
so wrapped up in the issues we face on a day to day basis, that we forget to think
about the long-term. In the long-term, this is a huge win for Iowa City. And, um,
you know, I'm really, really thankful that, uh, you know, we, we ended up with
this outcome.
Teague: So this is one that, um, I have to agree. I was a little surprised that, uh, there
wasn't more, um, in what we will be seeing. Um, but I'm very pleased with the
outcome on, for many reasons. One is, um, we know that the community came
out, which we often get the community to come out when it's their neighbor, right.
Uh, and, and I think for this particular one, um, I do believe that, um, we have to
somewhat envision, um, the long-term, as it was mentioned, and this City is going
to grow, um, we're gonna, we're going to expand. Um, and I think sometimes we
forget that, you know, these infills that, you know, we can pack up this entire city,
um, with housing, you know, in the infill. And certainly there is a great need for
housing and even a greater need, greater need for affordable housing. Um, what I
will say is I'm really, uh, I'm happy to see that, um, there is unification today on
this item. Um, not only from, um, this Council on this, but also from the
developers as well as from the neighboring community, um, and Hickory Hill, uh,
Hickory Trail is defmitely that the entire area over there is a pretty, pretty
important, uh, part of this community. And I'll be happy to support this
tonight....Roll call, please. Motion passes 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 81
12. Access Control Upgrade — Resolution approving project manual and
estimate of cost for the construction of the Access Control Upgrade Project,
establishing amount of bid security to accompany each bid, directing City
Clerk to post notice to bidders, and fixing time and place for receipt of bids.
Teague: I'm going to open up the public hearing.
1. Public Hearing
Knoche: Good evening, Mayor and Council, Ron Knoche, Public Works Director. Uh,
the project before you is upgrade of access control for three of our facilities, the
water plant, our City Hall and at our wastewater plant. Uh, currently, uh, we have,
uh, card access within City Hall. Uh, this will update the, the, the system that's
there, uh, bring it in line with, um, an overall master plan, uh, for access, uh, at
the water plant. We have current access. It's a two card system there. So they're
actually gonna bring that on and have it be just off of one system. And then at our
wastewater plant, we don't have, uh, card access yet. It's all still physical keys.
Um, this project is estimated $155,000. Uh, the project would start in January and
be completed in April.
Teague: Any questions? Thank you, Ron.
Knoche: Thank you.
Teague: All right. Anyone from the public like to address this topic? Welcome.
Petersen: Hello? My name is Noah. Now, before I go in this again, are you going to
change the rule, or decision, whatever term it is? You know what I mean. Okay.
This relates to this because it is about the lack of accessibility for public comment
on this item. All right, now I'll expand on the need for having Zoom call-in public
comment at all meetings. Every single person should have the same opportunity
for public comment as everyone else. Currently, that is not the case. Contacting
y'all by email, phone, or talking in person. It's not the same as giving a public
comment at a public meeting. That's an indisputable fact. It's unacceptable and
discriminatory that the very reasonable accommodation of having hybrid
meetings is not currently happening for this Council. And this is an
accommodation that Johnson County Board of Supervisors and the Iowa City
TRC, and many school boards across the state are having hybrid meanings. We
are still in a pandemic. Currently. People who cannot safely make it to meeting
are being discriminated against people should not have to risk death to participate
in this so-called democracy. Even if we weren't still in a pandemic, there are a lot
of reasons people cannot physically attend meetings, but should still have that
ability, should still have the ability to attend meetings hybridly. I am a disabled
person. I should not, I should be able to, I should be able to participate in public
meetings when my disability prevents me from being able to physically make it to
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 82
meetings. But currently I can't do that. This Council is currently discriminating
against me and the entire disabled community. You are telling me and my
community that we matter less than my able-bodied neighbors do.
Teague: Thank you.
Petersen: Uh, uh, uh, I'm ready. I'll answer questions since y'all or answer questions for
other people. So any questions?
Teague: Noah, thank you.
Petersen: Are you going to make them accessible?
Teague: Thank you.
Petersen: You could do that right now by saying you're going to, obviously it's too late
for this meeting, but for future meetings, you could say right now we're going to
have accessible meetings in the future.
Teague: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address this topic?
Petersen: I never saw the time clock go on.
Teague: Seeing no one I'm going to close and I'm going to close the public hearing.
2. Consider a Resolution
Teague: Motion to give approval, please.
Thomas: So moved. Thomas.
Salih: Seconded.
Teague. Moved by Thomas, seconded by Salih. Council discussion. Roll call, please.
Motion passes 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 83
13. Highway 1 Water Main Replacement — Resolution approving the project
manual and estimate of cost for the construction of the Highway 1 Water
Main Replacement Project, establishing amount of bid security to
accompany each bid, directing City Clerk to post notice to bidders, and
fixing time and place for receipt of bids.
Teague: I'm going to open the public hearing and, welcome.
1. Public Hearing
Welter: Joe Welter, a senior engineer with, uh, Engineering Division Public Works. This
project is located on the north side of Highway 1 from Hawk Ridge Drive to the
Westport Plaza, which is the Walmart entrance. Uh, you can kind of see the
layout there, uh, shadowing the existing trail. This is replacing approximately
1600 feet of water main. The existing water main is 1990 -vintage. It's a high
pressure transmission line, uh, so when it breaks, it causes a lot of pressure loss,
uh, in the surrounding system. There have been seven such breaks since 1990 on
this line, many of those caused by, uh, very corrosive soils that are in this area. So
for this project, we'll be using a PVC pipe instead of a ductile iron pipe, which,
uh, will help, uh, resist those corrosive soils. We are going to use trenchless
installation to minimize the disturbances. There'll be, uh, very few disturbances to
the trail. Uh, the actual trail, there will need to be a detour route. Um, and
unfortunately because of where this is located, all the roads adjacent to it all lead
to Benton street. So the detour is going to go from Sunset to Benton to Miller. We
are going to try to have local combinations when work is not happening, uh, in, in
the form of some temporary gravel surfaces along the areas that are going to be
excavated. So that should help, uh, mitigate some of that, um, long pedestrian
detour. This is an interesting water main project because it has no water services
along it. So, uh, that's not usually typical for us. We usually would have some
residents or businesses or other properties that would have water services along
the lines that we're replacing. This one does not have that. Uh, the bid opening is,
uh, later in December, uh, with a start date in March, substantial completion,
which is at the end of the seeding deadline in the spring. And then final
completion 30 days later at the end of June. Uh, the estimated cost is $460,000, a
Watersmith Engineering designed this, they did an excellent job. They've done
several projects for us in the last couple of years. There's my contact information
for anybody that would have questions.
Mims: So this is going to affect access on the trail, not on the roadways, Correct?
Welter: Correct. There is no need for a vehicular. Um, there will be a couple of times
when we're getting equipment on and off of the project site where they'll have to
close down one lane of the highway, but that'll be, it'll be, uh, for short durations,
not even a whole day, um, couple hours. Uh, so we, we, we're seeking permission
from the DOT for those closures, but the detours for pedestrians.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 84
Mims: Thank you.
Teague: Any other questions? Thank you. Would anyone from the public like to address
this topic? Welcome.
Petersen: Hello, my name is Noah. [playing phone recording of Teague] "All right.
Anyone from the public like to address this topic?"
Teague: Is this about --
Petersen: Oh, I'm sorry that wasn't right. I'm going to start over again. [playing
recordings from phone]
Teague: Is this about the Highway 1 water main, this topic?
Petersen: Yeah. As you can hear in that video, one of you is muttering Jesus Christ at
that, really, like it just shows how little you care about accessibility
Teague: Is this related to Highway 1 water main replacement --
Petersen: Yes, it is! It is about excessively [talking over Teague] problem with public
comment on this item. So it is actually, so once again, let me read my statement
and then you can say, Jesus Christ again, let's read for the record. Jesus Christ
would be appalled by your behavior if you're like into that stuff or not. All right,
now I will expand on the need for having Zoom call-in public comment at
meetings. Every single person should have the same opportunity for public
comment as everyone else. Currently, that's not the case, as you know, contacting
y'all by email, phone, or in person out of a meeting, is not the same as giving
public comment at a public meeting. That is a fact. It's unacceptable, ableist and
discriminatory that you are not providing the very reasonable accommodation of
having hybrid meetings, seeking [mumbled] public meetings. The Johnson
County Board of Supervisors and Iowa City TRC both have hybrid meetings. We
are still in a pandemic. Currently, people who cannot safely make it to a meeting
are being discriminated against. People should not have to risk death to participate
in the so-called democracy. Even if we weren't still in a pandemic, there are a lot
of reasons people cannot physically attend meetings, but would just, but would
still like to and should be able to attend meetings. I am a disabled person. I should
be able to participate in public meetings when my disability prevents me from
being able to physically make it to said meetings. But currently I can't do that.
This Council is currently discriminating against me and the entire disabled
community. You're telling me and the entire disabled community that we matter
less than our able-bodied neighbors do by not allowing us the same opportunity
that you give able-bodied people to attend these meetings, it doesn't even just
affect disabled people. Able-bodied people still have plenty of reasons of why
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 85
they can't physically attend these meetings. You are silencing your public and that
is completely immoral and you should be ashamed of yourselves and change that.
Now. There's no reason not to, no. Sorry. No good reason. Not to. There's a
reason to, but it's a terrible one.
Teague: Thank you.
Petersen: It's shameful one, actually, and like search into your heart as you like to say and
stop doing that. Stop being ableist to stop discriminating and actually listen to the
people.
Teague: Thank you. Anyone else like to address this topic...seeing no one, I'm going to
close the public hearing.
2. Consider a Resolution
Teague: So can I get a motion to approve, please.
Taylor: So moved, Taylor.
Bergus: Second, Bergus.
Teague: Council discussion....Roll call please. Motion passes 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 86
14. Muscatine Avenue/American Legion Road speed limit - Ordinance amending
Title 9, entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," Chapter 3, entitled "Rules of
the Road," Section 6, entitled "Speed Restrictions," Subsection B, entitled
"Exceptions," to modify the 35 MPH speed zone for American Legion Road
and Muscatine Avenue.
Teague: Staff is requesting expedited action.
Mims: I move that the rule requiring the ordinances must be considered, and voted on for
passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting at which it is to be fmally
passed, be suspended, that the second consideration and vote be waived, that the
ordinance be voted on for final passage at this time.
Taylor: Second.
Teague: All right. Anyone from the public like to address this topic? If so, please come
forth. Welcome.
Petersen: Hello. My name is Noah. This is around who really is counting, and this
pertains to this item because it's about the accessibility issue of not letting people
publicly comment on this item on said agenda. So here's the statement. Once
again, now I'll expand on the need for having Zoom call-in public comment at
meetings. Every single person should have the same opportunity for public
comment as there anyone else. Currently, that is not the case. Contacting y'all by
email, phone, or in person is not the same as giving a public comment, at a public
meeting. That is a fact. It is unacceptable, ableist and discriminatory. The very
reasonable accommodation of having hybrid meetings is not currently available
for these so-called public meetings. It is a accommodation that both the Johnson
County Board of Supervisors and Iowa City TRC, providing two examples of
entity of yeah, entities, uh, in this county that are currently having, uh, hybrid
meetings. We are still in the pandemic. Currently people who cannot safely make
it to meetings are being discriminated against. People should not have to risk
death to participate in this so-called democracy. Even if we weren't still in the
pandemic, there are a lot of reasons for why people cannot physically attend
meetings, but should still be able to attend those meetings. I am a disabled person.
I should be able to participate in public meetings when my disability prevents me
from being physically able to make it to certain meetings. But currently I can't do
that cause this Council is discriminating against me and the entire disabled
community by not making your meetings hybrid and accessible. You're telling us
that we matter less to you than able-bodied neighbors do. Now. Why is that?
Why, why, why are you telling us that? Like what, you want to like, put it in
words, why you view us as less? Like don't you like work for your day job with
disabled people, and this is how you treat them? Bruce, I'm talking to you, by the
way.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 87
Teague: Thank you. Anyone else like to address this topic?
Petersen: Uh, yes. I would like to keep addressing since my time's not done. Make your
meetings accessible.
Teague: Thank you.
Petersen: I'm not done talking. Accessible meetings, Accessible meetings. Let's have
accessible meetings. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Accessible meetings, accessible meetings.
It's not hard. Y'all can do it. Other entities in this same county are doing it. Your
purposely [mumbled] not to because you are very ableist, stop being ableist, that's
a really easy ask that shouldn't be hard to do. Do it. Don't just sit there silently,
y'all. Janice?
Weiner: I just wanted to let you know, in case you are not aware, that we put it on the
work session topics tonight.
Petersen: I'm sorry, what was that?
Weiner: I just wanted to make sure you're aware that it, that, that I asked to see if any of
the work session that it be put on our work session topics so we can deal with it.
Petersen: Oh, you asked, but it wasn't actually put on it, right?
Weiner: It was, there was, there was enough support to put it on the work session topics.
Petersen: So when would that be.
Teague: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address this topic? Seeing no one, Council
discussion....Roll call please. Motion passes 7-0. Can I get a motion to pass and
adopt.
Weiner: So moved.
Salih: Second.
Teague: Moved by Weiner, seconded by Salih. All in favor -- oh, sorry. Roll call please.
Motion passes 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 88
15. City of Iowa City, 2022 State Legislative Priorities - Resolution establishing
the City of Iowa City's 2022 state legislative priorities.
Teague: And I am going to -- hello, Rachel. But before that, could I get a motion to
approve?
Salih: Moved.
Weiner: Seconded.
Teague: Moved by Salih, second by Weiner, and welcome, Rachel.
Kilburg: Good evening, Mayor and City Council. Rachel Kilburg, City Manager's office.
So as you know, the City Council traditionally adopts a set of state legislative
priorities prior to the start of each legislative session. Um, the 2022 session starts
on January 10th of 2022. And as a reminder, the Iowa legislature operates on a
two-year calendar. The 2022 session will be the second year of the biennium. This
means that any bills that passed, um, final deadlines last session and remained
alive at the end of this session, uh, will remain alive at this upcoming session. So
knowing this, the legislative priorities, uh, in front of you tonight are largely
consistent with what you approved last year. Um, and those do align with your
strategic plan. I will just call out two notable additions, um, made in, in these 22
priorities. First, we are advocating for the state to modernize municipal bonding
laws, um, specifically to catch up those bonding limits to inflation as well as to
modify the essential corporate purpose definition in order to include public safety
facilities, um, some general public works functions, trails, and then improvements
to any facilities that were previously approved by the voters. Uh, the second
addition is that we included support for, um, improving access to affordable high
care quality, high quality childcare through the implementation of the
recommendations from the governor's childcare task force, and also to invest in
training and incentives for childcare workers and providers. So adopted state
legislative priorities are shared with our local delegation and we have again
retained, uh, Carney and Appleby to provide lobbying services for us in 2022. If
you have any questions, I'm happy to answer those.
Teague: Thank you, anyone from the public like to address this topic? Welcome.
Theisen: Uh, good evening once again, Council. Um, so I was reading the legislative
priorities last night and I have to say, I don't generally have any criticism. Well,
no, I do have a criticism. The criticism relates to the absence in this list. So for
instance, I at least listen to every single meeting that this Council holds. And I
have heard you utter the words, affordable housing, affordable housing,
affordable housing, affordable housing ad nauseum, the word affordable housing,
sorry. The phrase affordable housing appears nowhere in this document, which is
interesting because on a number of occasions, I've heard this very Council talk
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 89
about the various state impediments to implementations of things like public
housing. Just an example, off the top of my head. So one of the reasons why I and
others have specifically advocated for public housing in the past has to do with
the fact that you have to kind of get around to the state's incredibly bizarre rent
control laws. Rent control is only possible, in this state, if you build public
housing. It's the only, it's the only exception in the law. So that seems to me like
an area that you would actually want to advocate for, if you're really interested in
bringing housing costs down in the city for the vast majority of residents. I hear a
lot in these conversations about the need to build more houses and your bizarre
trickle down theory of housing, which by the way, Michael Hensch, when this
was being, when sorry, the Hickory Trail issue was being, I realized this is a
separate topic, but it is germane to this discussion, it was, a member of the P&Z
committee made exactly the same argument that Councilor Mims made with
regards to trickle down housing, and then immediately contradicted himself
because he realized it didn't make any sense. I'd explained why it didn't make any
sense. So I would suggest going back and reading the P&Z minutes because it's
all right there. But the thing is, there are a number of issues on the, at the state
level that this City could be advocating for, to deal with housing, to deal with
your supposedly grand interest in affordable housing. And yet it's not there in this
document. I mean, I have said many, many, many times that this city, this Council
is not actually serious about housing. You pretty much approve things, willy-nilly,
all of the time, you say you care about it. You say you want to do something, but
when it comes to putting pave to the road, you don't, and this document, which
literally contains your own legislative priorities, is a very clear indicator of that
fact. I mean, I realize it's too late to amend it now, but yeah. Thank you.
Teague: Thank you. Welcome.
Petersen: Hello. My name is Noah. I'm not going to read my statement again, as you
should be familiar with it by now. And you finally spoke up after the 10 time I
said it. I'm not entirely sure exactly what I'll ask you after the meeting about that,
but still regardless. That's why I'm not reading it again because of that after 10
time now, for legislative priorities, like you said, you talk about affordable
housing all the time, but you can't put that on your legislative agenda. That's
bizarre. Just bizarre. Um, secondly, uh, you should have on there too, uh, like
repeal, repeal the back the blue bill, which I realized that's not going to happen
because we live in, uh, a state house controlled by the fascist party. So I guess
that's not going to happen, but like you could still put that on there to get rid of
that trash law. But this is the same thing about defunding. You could, you could
still defund the police. You, like, the law says nothing about that, tells you, you
can't like decriminalize weed, but you could still, there's no, like, language in that
law about defunding. That's why the Johnson County Board of Supervisors just
went ahead with their GPS tracking program because they misunderstood a lot
first and they realized, oh, wait, the law doesn't actually say that. That's all.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 90
Teague: Thank you. Anyone else like to address this topic, seeing no one, Council
discussion.
Bergus: I was grateful to see the continued emphasis on, um, trying to protect and
strengthen home rule. I think we know that the limitations on, um, the occupancy
and things that we've tried to do to stabilize neighborhoods and help with
affordable housing, especially in the core neighborhoods that were overturned by
the legislature, relate to the reduction in local control. Similarly with our
affordable housing policy and our annexation. Um, you know, that's, uh, we can
do that because we have the authority to do that. So, grateful to see that that's
included.
Weiner: I also appreciate the childcare piece being included. Um, the, the, the, the, uh,
the, the task force plan put out by the governor is not sufficient. It deals with sort
of the business side of things and the building. It does not deal with actually
increasing the wages and the training to, to be able to provide the workforce,
which is what's missing from it. So, I mean, I hope that that not just our city, our
city, but others around the state, since everybody's affected by that, we'll continue
to lobby on that.
Taylor: I think in conjunction with that, I, what I would like to see, what my dream is, to
see a facility actually, uh, perhaps in conjunction with, uh, Kirkwood and their
childcare education program, uh, that would not only provide childcare in that
building, but also educating individuals, uh, to go out into the community, to, to
provide the much-needed care and whatever we can get from the state to help us
do that would be great.
Teague: I just know our local, um, representatives that will be there, um, will have some
challenges, but, uh, hopefully some of the ones that we have selected, we'll be
able to get some movement, if not movement, some discussion, continued
discussion. Hearing no other comments, roll call, please. Motion passes 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 91
16. Council Appointments
16.a. Library Board of Trustees, Library Board of Trustees, one vacancy to
fill, an unexpired term. Upon appointment - June 30th, 2023.
Teague: And this is time for Council discussion.
Weiner: I mean, this, this on some importance to me anyway, some add --added
importance, given all the discussion, not just around this state, but in other states
about pulling books, banning books, and so forth, it really puts a focus on the
importance of, of this Library Board.
Taylor: Um, it was, again, that was good to see so many applicants, uh, for this particular
board, uh, all with a good experience in quite an age range. Um, I had two that
stood out for me as it now it's time. Can I mention those two? Okay. Uh, I thought
Claire Matthews, she has, uh, actually has a master's in Library Science and, uh,
Anna Tunnicliff. Uh, so she has a lot of experience with libraries. So I would go
with either one of those, and this is a none requirement, either, either or, male or
female,
Weiner: the other, um, I, we do have a number of librarians on the board already, which
is great. The other person I've found very interesting is, is Erin Nelson. Um, a
teacher would have an international experience, professor strategic planning,
certified it, sustainability practitioner, planner, and so forth. And I just, I thought
that she had the potential to make contributions.
Bergus: I think we have a number of good applicants. I'll just throw into the mix, um,
Pamela Bourjaily. Thank you. Um, especially to Janice, your comments about the,
the concerns of what the Library may be facing. She had good extensive
experience in some DEI, um, activities.
Mims: It says a lot about the quality of the applicants when we don't start out with much
of any consensus.
Thomas: Yeah. I agree with her, every name, that was a lot of good applicants. I, for
some reason, Claire Matthews, um, resonated with me. So I'll second Claire if no
one else has.
Teague: We have a second for Claire Matthews. Any others with seconds? ...I will
support Claire Matthews.
(female): That's fine.
Mims: Yeah, I will. I think they're all strong. That's fine.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 92
Weiner: Um, I'm [mumbled] Claire. I also like the fact that she's got that she's, she's
directly dealing with high school students all the time as well. So she understands
that piece of it.
Teague: I think we have a majority. So could I get a motion to appoint Claire Matthews
to the Library Board of Trustees?
Taylor: So moved.
Weiner: Seconded.
Teague: Moved by Taylor, second by Weiner. Motion passed 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 93
18. Community Comment (IF NECESSARY)
Teague: And we are at item number 18. Um, USG, welcome.
USG: Hi Council. Um, I just, I'm going to keep it short. I sent you an email just now
with all the announcements, so I'm just going to skim through them. But also I
want to say that USG is in support of the excluded workers fund, as well as the
Zoom option for Council. Um, Ellie and I are conducting a survey about homeless
week, um, and students' experience with homeless week in Iowa City. So I'm
going to send you all a link to that. Um, feel free to take it. We want community
members to take it as well. Um, Janice has been helpful with that initiative. Um,
so that's been cool. Um, our Justice and Equity Committee is conducting a
menstrual equity survey right now. Um, I'm also going to include, include that in
the meet-- uh, in the email. And they're also, um, conducting a gender -neutral
bathroom audit, um, and looking to get funds to distribute, like, more menstrual
products on campus in general. So that's really cool. Um, the Daily Iowan is
having a legislative forum, um, with representatives of Johnson County tomorrow
at the Public Library. There's a link for that. And then the airport shuttle's
happening for students for winter break, um, after finals as well. So thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.
Page 94
20. City Council Information
Teague: Great. All right. Number 19, City Council information. Uh, all right. Um, I did
want to thank Mayor Pro Tem for filling in last meeting for me. I saw it all and I
really appreciate you stepping in.
Salih: I tried.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of November 30, 2021.