HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-04-04 Transcription Page 1
Council Present: Alter, Bergus, Dunn, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas
Staff Present: Fruin, Kilburg, Goers, Fruehling, Sitzman, Russett, Knoche, Havel,
Sovers, Liston
USG: Zeimet, USG Liasion, LeFevre, Alternate
1. Riverfront Crossing Orchard Subdistrict Discussion
Teague: So welcome to the April 4th, 2023rd City Council work session. And we are electronic
today due to severe weather watching our community and we wanted to make sure that
we can keep everyone as safe as possible. Uh, we're going to start with our agenda items.
Item number 1, Riverfront Crossing Orchard Subdistrict discussion. And I know that this
was one that Councilor Thomas asked to have on this agenda, so probably turn it over to
you.
Thomas: Okay. Thanks, Mayor. Well, after the, you know, the vote on the Orchard District, the,
you know, the staff mentioned that staff would like some sense of direction from the city
council. So I've certainly been considering, uh, that and discussing it with others as to
how, you know, what- what direction, what- what approach might be considered for the
Orchard District. And so I also was, you know, as a starting point, beginning to look at,
you know, what was the, you know, the-the history of the Miller Orchard district had
some prior, uh, re-rezonings where it was rezoned to Orchard District, the Shive-Hattery
project, which was several years ago, uh, proposed a development which was what-
which- which was approved by Council. Uh, and it was on the southern end of the
Orchard District. And at that- during that process at the planning and zoning commissions
hearing, there was some concern about whether the proposal belonged in that location.
Um, I can recall Mark Signs saying that it felt to him that the- the project belonged in
Riverfront Crossings on the other side of the river. And I know it council and perhaps
Pauline, if you have any memories of that, you know, there were concerns about the
project as well and I- I would maybe try to summarize them by saying that the- the
frontage of the project because it was on the south side,uh, was on Benton Street and I
know that council has some concerns if it seemed again to be sufficiently sensitive to the
context there. We did approve it. The, um, Shive-Hattery project, I think had a high level
of design which, uh, I know influenced my decision. But that was-that was- what it-
what it reminded me I was- there- there are areas within the Orchard District which
suggests to me that there may be opportunities for improvement, meaning a better fit, a
better sense of tran- transition that could occur in this project. Urn, the other thing I
would mention is, and this was in addition to the Riverfront Crossing District. And if you
look at the master plan, uh, the exist- the original master plan, uh, all the districts, uh,
had- they had depictions of the district in three dimensions in terms of understanding
where development might occur and the scale of the-the projects. So you would see the,
you know, kind of a rendering which showed the massing and scale the building
placements where- where the opportunities were for development. And it gave you a
picture in a sense of what- what was being proposed in these subdistricts. That wasn't
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 4, 2023.
Page 2
done in the Orchard District to my knowledge. We had,um, you know, we had a-we
certainly discussed it, uh, but I don't recall ever seeing an attempt to, urn, express within
the Orchard District what kind of ultimate build-out might look like, like in terms of the
yield and the district. So I think one of my reactions to the most recent proposal was this
was the first time I had seen the full district in a kind of build-out form, and it- it took me
by surprise and began to ask- it cause me to ask myself, can- can we approach this in a
different way where it would, uh, more successfully realize that goal that was stated of
providing a transition between Riverside West and the Miller Orchard neighborhood. I
think there's perhaps opportunities as well, I hope in this project who at least incorporate
into the discussion the question of affordable housing. I know we have, you know, the
Riverfront Crossings already has its own code-related issues asso-associated with that.
Um, but nevertheless think that- that district may be an opportunity for- for providing
affordable housing. Uh, and I-I think it would be interesting to see if we can come up
with a strategy where that might be possible. So what I began to see, was there may be
kind of, uh, the-the- I was seeing the hint of a kind of a gradient of density, if you will,
from the,uh, southern edge of the property along Benton to the- to the north edge along
the railroad tracks. Uh, another observation on- on the process in the existing conditions
was we already have a development within the Orchard District. We have the project by
Ryan Wade, um, rest of the Kevin Hanick project. And it's, you know, three-story
building kind of matches up with the- the code of the, um, of the Orchard District. You
know, it was pretty much conforming with that. And there are two I wasn't sensing that
there was an issue with- with that particular project and I think it had something to do
again, with its location that it was, urn, compositionally more related to the Hanick
project and also so far back from Benton Street that its impact on that transitional
character wasn't as significant. Urn, so it's again seem that there may be opportunities to
explore how we-we apply different degrees of density, urn, within the district itself as an
approach toward, urn, achieving that transition. Urn, I was- I'm also interested in-in
seeing if we can look at ways in which, urn, one of the-the g oals of our,um, strategic
plan, which was promoting the idea of, urn, you know, high-quality, uh, open space,
outdoor space might be something to at least consider. Uh, and I- I mentioned that in part
because we are seeing considerable development in that general area. And also that,urn,
Miller Orchard anyway has been identified as a neighborhood which is lacking and open
space so it- if its possible to create, uh, such a space within- within the Orchard District it
might be able to serve not only those who are living in the Orchard District itself, but the
surrounding area. And another- another aspect and it kinda relating to the- at least the
open space aspect of this is, I'm always interested in trying to find models of what it is
I'm talking about. So if- if they're local examples of building designs or building types,
urn, that seem appropriate to me, urn, to consider- consider those in the discussion. With
regard to the idea of public open space, the small park, and the Peninsula neighborhood,
seem like a possibility and I think it's roughly 12,000 square feet in that- that range. Urn,
so with the higher densities, if you build up, uh, higher density, I think in a way with that
provides an opportunity for is to serve that higher density with- with an open space
shared in common. So all of these, these are factors that, you know, that- that I've been
thinking about and discussing with others. Urn, I do feel that in terms of a process, I
would- I would like us to consider the, uh,use of a consultant who is familiar with the,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 4, 2023.
Page 3
urn, you know, the situation we're dealing with, which is a transition between, you know,
a very urban transect feature, you know, the the Riverside, urn, the Riverside district
within Riverfront Crossings, the Orchard District itself, which is intended to serve as kind
of a transition between the Riverside development and this third element, which is the
existing single-family home to the-homes to neighborhoods to the west. So- so looking
for a consultant who is familiar with form-based coding, both at the, um, comprehensive
plan level and the zoning code level to see if we can. And- and this is- gets- gets into the
mayor's language, Mayor Throgmorton's language of co-crafting a concept that, um, we
find is acceptable and supported by, you know, all those who have a stake in this- in this
area. So- so those are kinda my preliminary thoughts. Um, and, you know, I thought this
might be a way to begin the conversation.
Alter: May I ask a question?You said a couple of times that you've talked with others. I would
be interested to know who and- and are they sort of sharing that vision? Urn, what-who.
Thomas: Yeah. I've- you know, I've shared it with the former Mayor, Jim Throgmorton. Um, I've
shared it with some of the council members just here's- here's what I'm thinking,just, you
know, I'm throwing this on the table to start a conversation and, urn, feel that's for me
anyway. It's a way of trying to understand what the issues are. It's very hard for me, you
know, given the-the nature of the problem to sort of conceive of how- how I might
respond or how they, you know, we come up with a concept that would work, urn,
without beginning to sort of, you know, put a paper to- a pen to or pencil to a piece of
paper, and understand what-what that might translate to. Um, in terms of process, urn,
you know, sort of, it's looking back on- on my years here at this point. And, you know,
one of the first experiences I had with rezoning was on the, uh, Linn Bloomington corner,
kitty corner to Pagliai and that was a project that have been zoned. A proposal was- was
submitted to the- to the Council for zoning that corner, and the- the Council, uh, rejected
the first concept. Uh, I was at that time the Northside neighborhood coordinator and, you
know, raised issues that- that I felt were of a concern. And the council did- they- they
approved the rezoning, but in a different form than the proposal, uh, was suggesting. And
so the project- the zoning in a modified version went forward, and the proposal failed.
Uh, the developer was very interested, you know, after the meeting, I will never forget
Jesse Allen coming to me and saying, John, what is it you want? And I said Jesse, it's
really what the neighborhood would like. And so he agreed to have some- a series of
meetings in the neighborhood and the result of that process was the building that's there
now. Um, I'm pleased with it. I think it's- it's an example of infill and a Main Street, urn,
you know, kind of Midwestern Main Street location that, you know, is- is a new building,
but it- it kind of fits into the character of our Northside marketplace. Uh, so that- that for
me personally has been an example of, you know, the opportunity we have when we- we
develop something, feel that maybe there could be improvements on it. Explore what
those improvements might be, and, uh, you know, have kind of a public discussion as to
how we-how we might approach the problem.
Alter: Yeah. I mean, I think certainly having those collaborative conversations are- are useful.
One- one thing that I noted and took, uh, notes on actually you were talking about
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 4, 2023.
Page 4
opportunities for, urn, different kinds of density and you were saying- and again, more
green space and talking about building up higher density, right? Urn, to allow for more
green space. And I mean, this merely as a point of fact,but wasn't one of the issues that it
was too high to begin with in your estimation?
Thomas: No, it wasn't- it wasn't the height. The- the- the issue was-
Alter: I know there was the density.
Thomas: Well, density- density is not supposed to factor into,um, you know, the Form-based
code as we've written it- written it. But I- I would suggest we need to- we need to keep it
in mind, uh, as part of the process. But the- the other- and in fact, if you look at the
master plan, there were proposal- as I said, proposals developed where you could- you
could calculate the density based on the information given to you. For example, the
Hanick property, the density there in the prop- in the proposed master plan or adopted
master plan,but it's- you know, it's the Comprehensive Plan, so not zoning code, was
around, uh, 20-30 units per acre. Uh, so no the- the issue th- that I was trying to address
during council's meeting was the fact that, you know, the-the complain called for
transition-uh, you know, design the transition in mass and scale so that it's- it serves as a
transition between Riverfront and the neighborhood. And that mass is more than just
simply building height. Mass is- is- is both the- the-you know,the horizontal-the
horizontal dimensions making up the built form and- and the height, th-the vertical. It's
say, you need to factor all of those in, which in the more recent codes,uh, the Rohret and
South districts codes, they do talk about building footprint. So- so those- those elements
of the language have been incorporated into our more recent form based codes, which
also are residential codes. The Miller Orchard district is a residential area. It doesn't have
the mixed use that's more typical of the Riverfront Crossings district as a whole.
Teague: I have a question. Have you spoke to the developer that came before us to present this?
Thomas: I would like to. I have- I called, I put in a call, but I hadn't-haven't heard back from
him.
Teague: Okay. When it comes down to this, uh, project specifically, we had, urn, petitions that
came in that required a super majority for, urn- for the-the votes amongst this council.
And it wasn't successful, urn, to move this project forward. So I really believe that
starting with the developer is probably the greatest path forward for this project. Outside
of that, I do hear, you know, there's a greater conversation which, um, I know that you
are an advocate for, on really getting into what is in our strategic plan, which is, you
know, initiate a comprehensive plan update and subsequent zoning code review to more
broadly incorporate form-based principles with emphasis on growth areas first, and infill
areas next to expand it in missing middle housing allowances, minimum density
requirements, and streamlined approval processes. So I know that both you and Counsilor
Tay-uh, Taylor has been on Council longer than any of us. And then I'm- I'm next in line.
Um, and I've seen, urn, some strides forward,um, since I've been on Council, South-
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 4, 2023.
Page 5
form based code in the South district. Urn, certainly before that,urn, the, um, you know,
there's- we have some examples of form-based code already within the community, and
the process for it, as you mentioned, were to use a consultant. I- I strongly believe that for
our next move to get in line with our strategic plan, is probably going to require us using
a consultant. And- and even on our work session, we have a work session agenda,um,
you know, that says pretty much what I just read, is initiated comprehensive plan update
and sub- subsequent zoning code review, dot, dot, dot, dot. So if we want to get, urn, to a
place where there's understanding for people within the community that want to bring us
a project, then we need to get to this next level. Because what we saw here was a
developer that, um, worked hard with staff to understand what the allowables were. We
have staff that said to us, we worked really hard with this developer, change some things,
you know. And then we had P&Z who ultimately approved it. And then, you know, it
gets to Council and then it doesn't go- go forth. And so,ultimately, I think the whole goal
is, um, that we need to look at big picture. Urn, and there is strategies, urn, that have been
outlined. Uh, and that is, as you've mentioned, maybe doing pilot, you know, pilot
opportunities as we move forth through this process. But I would say that the question for
this council, it expands abo- expands beyond just the Orchard district at this point, and it's
a part of our strategic plan, we have it for 2024-2028 to make some advances. And I think
that we can certainly get a plan together to start that process, as you mentioned, and I
think using a consultant is really going to be in our best interest.
Taylor: Of course, I agree with Councilor Thomas's proposals here and the thought that we need
to- to look at this and perhaps more consultant and also from the developer and work with
the developer. Urn, and Mayor Teague mentioned that the vote failed. Um, and that was
the six or seven of us. Six of us didn't- it didn't pass with that. Uh, but it was due to the
petition filed by a number of the neighbors who, uh, were against us, and it was the
neighbors. And I think sometimes we lose sight of that. We have good neighbor policies
for a reason. Uh, but we need to listen to these people. They know their neighborhood,
they know what would work best. Urn, and it's not just change, it's not that they don't like
the change. Most of them have said that they don't mind a development being in that area,
but, uh, they just would like it to be appropriate and consistent, urn, with the flow of the
neighborhood. So that's all.
Teague: So I guess I just wanted to make sure that, um, your intent for this conversation has at
least existed am- amongst this council. My thought is that you just wanted to bring light.
Thomas: Yeah. I was- I was trying to respond to- to staffs concerns and I share them. I don't- I
don't like Orchard hanging in its current situation. Uh, I would like to begin exploring
what some of the possibilities may be there. And I- I do know Ryan Wade. I- I've met
with him. Um, he is the developer of the cafe up on North Dodge, which I think is a
really great project. Uh, I like- I'm- I'm- I have no objection. And unlike the one building
that's already in the Orchard District, you know, it's there. It's part of- we part of the
conversation and then as I said it, it's influenced my way of thinking about this question
of transition. And that, you know, the- some of the terms that you see in the more recent
form based codes of house form and block form, uh, the- the northern portion of the- of
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa'City City Council work
session of April 4, 2023.
Page 6
the site or the- the district, I think. And it's three-and-a-half acres, so it's a fairly sizable
area. Urn, there is an opportunity for block form buildings on the north side, which-
which is effectively what we had in the original proposal. Uh, and I think given the
location there, it's distance from Benton. You have the back of the property. The northern
edge is the railroad tracks. There's just a different sense of scale to the- to the north end of
the project. It's- it seems to me the opportunity for looking at integration into the
neighborhood, Miller Orchard neighborhood is at the southern end. And how- can we use
house forms?And when I say house forms, I'm thinking, not, um, cottage courts, I'm
thinking, you know, small apartments that may be an opportunity to, again increase the
scale, not to scale, the density of the existing conditions, but try to incorporate the notion
of house form into the development, urn, which would have more consistency in form,
again, mass and scale with the Miller Orchard neighborhood. So- so those are- again, its
design as an iterative process, you know, it takes, you know, it moves hopefully forward
in- in a consistent direction,but it's- it's always subject to change in revision. And, you
know, hopefully that will all end up in a synthesis that we're all pleased with. This is the
way I'm-that's been my experience in Iowa City, um, that,uh, you know, it is possible to
open- open the process up a little bit, um. Horace Mann, I think was another great
example. There was a neighborhood meeting which I missed because we were- we had a
council meeting that night, but,uh, it was a very successful meeting with-between the
neighborhood and the school district. And there too, I think Horace Mann is a fabulous
bu-project in terms of preserving the historic character while addressing the needs, you
know, contemporary needs of- of the community, uh, and integrating that addition into
the existing in a way that, urn, was beautifully, you know, beautifully executed. So- so
I've- I've been involved with projects like this, I know it can work,urn, and I'm hoping
we can, you know, begin the process and see where it goes.
Teague: So our timeline just,uh, to,um, go back to what at least I mentioned about the changes
of the comprehensive-updates to the comprehensive plan and the subsequent zoning code
review. That is fiscal year 2024, which starts, you know, July, really for us. So, um, I
guess, you know, I would say that I know that this is a concern for all of the councilors
just to kinda unify, um,understanding amongst, um, developers, residents within the
neighborhood, staff and the council P&Z. Um, we just have to figure out, you know, what
is the next step as a council to direct staff. Urn, so I know that it's a priority of- it's been a-
a major deal because there is such a missing middle and affordable housing is a need.
Um, so I will be in favor in, you know, signaling to staff that we really do want, urn, staff
to, you know, concentrate on this as well as, urn, considering options of how can we
achieve it, which would include a consultant.
Fruin: Mayor, can I j- can I jump in?
Teague: Yes.
Fruin: Because I think we're- we're talking about a couple of different things here. Urn, and I
want to address some of the earlier comments, but, urn, you-you're focusing on the
overall comp plan for the entire city, the overhaul, the entire comprehensive plan, uh,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 4, 2023.
Page 7
which we intend to kick off this year. Uh, well I think it's listed on your pending work
session topics as a potential joint meeting with P&Z. We'd like to have our staff come to
you and talk about what a comp plan overhaul looks like. It's a multiyear process that
does not focus just on Riverfront Crossings, but focuses on the city as a whole. So would
incorporate all those sub-districts,uh, would include traditional zoning areas and,um,
form-based code zoning areas. It's a very high level. It is not going to get at whatever
fixes the council may think is necessary for the Orchard Benton district. Yes, we will
need a third party to-to execute that broader vision, but understand that's, you know,
that's probably a five, six month consultants selection process followed by a 2-3 years
worth of work. Before you adopt that comp plan and then you get to the zoning code,
which is the mechanics of- of how to implement that. So that's the big picture one. And if
I could just make a few comments on the Orchard Benton, I'd- I'd appreciate it. And
given that we're all remote here, urn, I just want to acknowledge that we have some
planning staff online and- and I want to make sure they have an opportunity to weigh in
on anything that we may be missing, uh, in this discussion. Urn, I'm gonna- I guess where
I'd like to start is just-just recognizing that regulating land use is a pretty incredible
responsibility for a city to have. You are telling a private property owner.What they can
and cannot do with their property. That is a- that is a truly awesome responsibility. And
we have to recognize that, um, that has real impacts on- on people. When you're- when
you're deciding what rules they have to play by when they- when-when they're going to
develop or redevelop their property. Urn, in this case, urn, we have been working with,
um, predominantly the- the only property owner in this area. Now, there's been land
acquisition along the way, but really truly one property owner,um, in this- in this kind of
district edition we did. We started working with, urn, that person in 2015 and the council
started the process of, um, amending the comprehensive plan in 2016. And July of 2016
is when counsel set the vision for the Orchard Benton street sub-district. And since that
time, as Councilor Thomas and Councilor Taylor noted in their comments, there has been
some steps forward, right? We- we then did the zoning code. There was, uh, plans
approved for a building that is-that is built there against kind of behind the Hanick
building there. You mentioned Ryan Wade's project there. I believe that was the first
project to comply with the Riverfront Crossings, urn, affordability requirement. If it
wasn't, it was actually before that requirement was adopted. Urn, so one of the- one of the
first projects in- in Riverfront Crossing that I think has been successful. The subsequent
rezoning, which was referred to as the Shive-Hattery rezoning, urn, was approved by the
council. Urn, that's also the same developer that- that owns that land. Shive was the
architect for that. Shive was not the owner for that- for that project. I believe Shive has
been the architect on- on that one and the built- and the built project. Um, those changes-
those rules that we've set for the redevelopment of the property,particularly when we get
into the zoning code, those aren't 20 or 30 or 40 years old, like we sometimes will run
into. Those are really new in- in the- in the kind of the-the-the span of zoning codes.
Five, six years old zoning code, that is pretty new zoning code material. So we set these
cooperatively with- with- with the owner. Urn, that owner knew what he was inheriting
with those land use regulations. And- and the council and the public,urn, hopefully
would have understood that to having gone through the-the multiple public hearings to
get that adopted. Where I have concern is if we say let's- let's- let's call timeout here, and
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 4, 2023.
Page 8
let's change what those rules are now, and let's consider bringing in a third party that
may- it were- it may take. If you bring in a third party, you're going to-you're going to try
to broker a solution over a long period of time. In the meantime, you're leaving somebody
fairly in- in limbo here, um, in terms of what they can and can't do with their property.
We're not the property owner,um, and I think if we want very specific outcomes for a
particular property, we should be the property owner, or we should get our checkbook out
and be willing to incentivize those things like we have on other projects when we've-
when we've seen that we want something a little bit different than maybe what the market
would produce under-under the current rules, we've used Tax Increment Financing or we
could explore tax abatement or anything like that to help us achieve additional public
goals. So if you think about open- extra open space or affordable housing in addition to
what the code requires, we should be willing to buy the property or we should be willing
to, um, again, incentivize to get those extra- extra public goods. So my concern- I- I guess
we're-just so you know where staff is now, we still have the same zoning code, we still
have the same comp plan. If we get another application and we're going to judge it
against that in our- in our best professional opinion and it's going to come back to you.
So,urn, that's where- that's where it's tough here because I don't know that, urn, I'd expect
you all to know how to surgically amend the- the, urn,the zoning code or change the
comp plan in order to achieve what you want, but I also don't know enough about what
you want. I mean, from a staff standpoint, the code that was adopted, the vision that was
adopted,urn, still produces what we thought we were getting at that time when we
adopted those rules. So I just want to make a- draw that distinction to say, if we get
another app., we're going to have to move that through the system and you may be faced
with a very similar project unless you kind of signal to me that, hey, we want to- we want
you to, urn, utilize all the tools in the toolbox to- to try to produce something that might
get you X or Y or Z.
Thomas: I would just say, again, and I'm just speaking for myself here. Obviously, you know, in
the preliminary work that I've been doing, urn, I am- I- I want to make it clear, I- the
vision I have is not, in my view, a radical change from- from what's there now. I've been
trying in my earlier comments to sort of explain where I think, you know, one could
make changes, but I'm not- I'm not at all considering or proposing wholesale change. So
I'm-perhaps there are ways, as, uh, you know, the mayor asked, if I had met with the
developer, I'm happy to meet with if however, we feel it would be most appropriate with
staff and the developer and review those plans. Uh, anything we might do to,urn,
accelerate the- the process on this,urn, and- and arrive at a solution, uh, I'm happy to help
in any way I can. And I- and I understand the gravity. I mean, I tried to explain what I
felt, urn, at the beginning again, that urn, this was a different process and this are the
other sections of Riverfront Crossings in terms of providing an indication of where things
are going within the orchard district, and it wasn't until that full three-and-a-half acres
was shown in a proposal, um, that it became evident what- what that was. And, urn, so
again, I was just looking back trying to understand how-how was it that we arrived here.
Urn,but I'm happy and willing to do whatever we can to, um, see if we can articulate that
vision as quickly as possible.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 4, 2023.
Page 9
Teague: Well, it sounds like you're, um, hopefully planning to meet with the developer and just
have a discussion. And certainly,urn, we're not- we're very used to conditions, right,
when-with developers, but I think having a conversation with the developer is probably
the next appropriate step.
Thomas: You all.
Dunn: Okay.
Bergus: Yeah. And I- I just think it's a weird procedural position that we're in because there was
four counselors who were okay with it.
Thomas; Yeah.
Bergus: And so-.
Thomas: You had the majority.
Bergus: And so I think yeah, that makes it a little harder to know what the next step might be,
but that- that makes lot of sense to me to talk with him and see where you can get.
Thomas: Okay.
Taylor: I think Councilor Thomas, I would hope that if- I would be willing to meet also with you
with the- with the developer, I think a big question and I appreciate all Geoff s comments,
but kinda boiled down to not the entire comp plan, but what do we really mean by the
transition, you know, and the compatibility with surrounding zonings or neighborhood?
And I think if we can kind of make that clear to the developer that this is sort of what our
vision is for that as far as the city. So I think making that more clear too. I think those
not- not the entire comp plan or the entire uh, zoning for that area, but those points, what
do we really mean by being compatible? And yeah.
Alter: I would just say also that it sounds like if I'm understanding it correctly urn, from the city
manager that in having that conversation,urn, it will be a negotiation of sorts because
four of us did pass it, and it conformed to existing code, right? So if you- if there's, uh,
more of a back-and-forth and talking about what you would like to see, urn, I think that it
also means there does need to be a conversation among Council about what are we
willing to pull out of a toolbox to use, right? Because I- for what it's worth, the developer
and the property owner, you know, they were together with staff saying we think we have
something that can move forward, right? Um, so in order to get sort of more of a vision of
perhaps.what transition looks like, I think that's a conversation that all Council has to talk
about. What are we willing? What tools are we willing to put out there? Because I'm not
sure that- Do you see where I'm going with that?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 4, 2023.
Page 10
Thomas: Well, yeah, I would say I think in my experience, if we can articulate a vision that we
all agreed to, then that vision will help inform us in terms of do we need to consider, you
know, investing-the city investing in whatever way we need to in order to achieve safe or
affordable housing, uh, as a part of the project rather than, you know, the- the idea of a
fee in lieu. What will it take to-to get us to be able to do this in a way which makes sense
on the property that you're on in the district itself Urn, but you know, I think once that-
once you have the plan, then, you know, some of these other pieces start falling into
place.
Teague: Before we move on- it sounded like we're probably at the end of this conversation, but
before we move on, I just wanted to at least acknowledge that you did ask counsel if we
kinda support as you go into the developer, but any counselor can go to any developer
and have a conversation. And I just don't want it to be misconstrued and we're actually
asking you to represent this body. So you will be going independently, you and counselor
Taylor on your own with your own thoughts. So just wanted to make that clarification.
Thomas: Good enough.
Goers: Mr. Mayor, if I can offer one additional clarification to that. Well, maybe two. One is that
there has been some discussion of the developer and also separate discussion of the
property owner. Uh, I'm not sure that developers who presented to you are- are still on
the picture. Uh, it so it might be that those conversations should be directed to the owner
of the property, uh, line weight. The second thing is uh, the only kind of caution I would
offer for Council members to I have discussion with, say, the property owner as to what
they'd like to see there, is to not be so specific in that, again, the Council's decision or the
Council's vote is whether their rezoning application is consistent with the comp plan in
the code. What we'd want to avoid is saying, you know, I'd like this building here and this
building here, and then, you know, that- again, unless as a city manager said, you're
willing to kind of get out the checkbook and- and- and pay for that. Because otherwise
what comes before you in an application for rezoning is just whether it's compliant, not
whether it's perfect, you know, in your mind. That's all.
Harmsen: Am I correct in understanding to one other layer of this is, um, because this failed the
last time because of the signatures, urn, and made- require a super majority. The one
other layer of this that we can't actually control or predict is whether or not there would
be another petition- like, you know, there's also that- a complication there, right? I mean,
anything you do as a best guess of will it spark another round of- of neighborhood
opposition. So just-just I don't know that there's an answer to that question, but I think
it's worth noting that- that the dynamic in this particular issue was- is even- it's strange.
Thomas: Well- well, my thought would be in a way similar to meeting with the property owner. I
could meet, and if any other counselors were interested, meet with representatives of the
neighborhood as well. And you know, see where all these- these conversations lead. But I
certainly, urn, uh, would want to have some sense of, you know, the reaction or response
from the neighborhood as well.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 4, 2023.
Page 11
2. Rochester Avenue Reconstruction Project Discussion
Teague: All right. We're gonna move on to Item number 2, Rochester Avenue reconstruction
project. And this is also one that he brought.
Thomas: Thank you. Um, well, councils I'm getting a dose of emails on this one, urn, but I was- I
did wanted to try to summarize, urn, you know, by way of a timeline and points of
discussion what happened over the period from mid August 2022, and, urn, where we are
now. Uh, it's- it's about the same length as Shawn's email. You know, so I'll try to- I'll try
to be as brief as possible, but there were certain points along the way, urn, that I did
wanna mention. And I sort of begin by saying I was not expecting this- this issue to last
as long as it did or be as complicated as it was. Urn, but so this is- this is just trying to
articulate perhaps what happened that caused it to last as long as it did. Uh, so in mid
August of 2022 three council members, myself, Pauline, and Janice Weiner met- began
discussions with staff, uh,prompted by the Rochester neighbors concerned about what
the cost and impacts of the proposed retaining wall. Um, portions of which would be
around five-and-a-half feet tall is a variable height wall, but some- some portions would
be around five-and-a-half feet. I think the council members were unclear as to how that-
why that was necessary. We are widening the road by 18 inches. And, uh, you know,
how-how did widening the road 18 inches result in building a wall that in some cases
was five-and-a-half feet tall? And staff explained that the embankment slope along that
stretch, er, exceeded the maximum slope allowed in city code, which is 3.5-1, which I
know-what does that mean? Uh, 3.5-1 means for every three-and-a-half feet of
horizontal distance, you have a rise of one-foot. Uh, 2-1 slope, uh, two feet of horizontal
distance to one foot of vertical rise is- is roughly what a stairway is in terms of
relationship. So if you see a slope that more or less aligns with a set of stairs, it's probably
around 2-1. And some of the slopes that are existing out there on the embankment are 2-
1. So that was mid August. In mid September uh, Martin & Whittaker, surveys and
engineer's consultants to the Rochester neighbors, submitted a value engineering
assessment to city staff, evaluating the need for retaining walls and the disturbance to tree
and landscaping and the natural area. The letter detailed potential changes to the extent
and height of the wall. Uh, the assessment noted that the existing embankments slopes
exceeded city code and appeared stable. Thus raising the question as to whether slopes
steeper than code could be utilized, possibly in conjunction with other various erosion
control measures, less expensive and impactful as retaining walls and tree removal. Uh,
the assessment ended by noting that most of the changes proposed could be done with
very minal-minimal redesign or just finalized with field engineering. Contractors would
be paid based on an as-built quantities previously-previously approved a unit prices. A
couple of weeks later in late September, city- city staff responded to the Martin&
Whittaker assessment. They agreed to shorten the wall by a two locations, reducing the
overall length by 95 feet. The rest of the wall would remain as proposed. Staff cited
Snyder& Associates recommendation which reference these city's slope requirements,
which stated- and stated, increasing the slope of this embankment will increase the
likelihood of slope failure. Uh, in late November then, um, Whittaker and Martin- Martin
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 4, 2023.
Page 12
&Whittaker responded in a letter to a number of questions from the neighborhood-
Rochester neighbors. The response confirm the location of an existing 16-inch water
main below the proposed retaining wall, and also confirmed the need for the four foot
concrete slab between the wall and the street curb, which is to give further structural
support to the retaining wall. And also noted that building a retaining wall over the top of
an existing water main would result in removing and replacing it when the water main
breaks and needs repair. The letter also affirmed the use of 3-1 slopes is typical in their
engineering practice. They also noted, uh, that they never found the city code referencing
the three-and-a-half to one. So, you know, they were basically working and proposing,
uh, you know- their approach was based on their own professional practice. They just did
not find anywhere the three-and-a-half to one slope. I would say anecdotally as a
landscape architect we would use 3-1 too. I mean that- that's sort of a standard-uh, in my
experience was a standard slope in areas that were not planted and lawn. Urn, so in early
January of 2023, urn, I found the city code reference. It was referenced in one of Snyder
& Associates letters. So in- in the code it stated as- as we all now know that the slope of a
cut and fill surface shall be no steeper than it's safe for the intended use and shall no
steeper than three-and-a-half to one, unless the owner or a responsible party furnishes a
soils or a geology report or both, stating that an investigation of the site reveals that a cut
and fill on a steeper slope will nonetheless be stable and will not create a hazard to life or
to property. Um, so at that point, urn, council members met with staff to determine if a
soils or geology report had been prepared for the project. Staff stated that they were not
sure and we'd look back into it. Uh, a month later, in early February, staff responded to-
to council members, Thomas, Taylor, and Harmsen, stating that a soils report was
completed in 2020. According to staff, the report indicated possible instabilities in the
soil that ultimately led to the recommendation for the retaining wall. Uh, I asked for the
report and upon reading it, I- I disagree with staff on whether the report included soil
testing in the embankment area. And my disagreement is based on what is stated on Page
8 of that report under the section of retaining walls, which states that the report- the
report states that the scope of work did not include exploration and evaluation of the soil
on the existing slope, i.e retains as own. So that- that's sort of where it is now. Um, you
know, I still feel that, uh, requesting the soils test would- would verify what was stated by
Snyder& associates back in late April. You know, when they said that the embankment-
if we increase the slope on the embankment, it would increase the likelihood of slope
failure. Soils report would tell us whether or not, um, there is that likelihood. So again, I
just feel if the geotechnical report states that no three-and-a-half to one is really as far- as
steep as you wanna go, so be it. Urn, but again, what's the public benefit-potential public
benefit? Urn, if we went to steeper slopes, if it was- if it was acceptable? Uh, it would
minimize the environmental impacts in the naturalized area. It would minimize the
maintenance conflicts with the water main below the retaining wall. And it would reduce
the future financial obligations incurred by the project. And this- this for me is sort of
more of a general point and that is, urn, you know, I feel we really need to understand
that particularly with infrastructure, it's an ongoing obligation. It's an- it's an obligation
that recurs. Rochest- the project on Rochester is a reconstruction. Um, you build- you
build the road, and then eventually you have to replace the road. So that will hold true
with the retaining wall and the concrete slab eventually. Um, in addition to the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 4, 2023.
Page 13
maintenance, there will likely at some point be a replacement cost. Uh, and then in the
interim, if the water main breaks, you're gonna have to remove and replace the wall for
that reason. So- so for those reasons, it seems to me appropriate to, um, to do the test at
this point. More generally, one final comment I would make is that a general goal in my
view, and I think it particularly relates to infrastructure projects, is, uh, applying a policy
approach that emphasizes careful thought followed by minimum action. I just really feel
we, um, you know, we- we literally cannot afford to do more than what is necessary on
projects. And because as we know, we have- we have capital and- and infrastructure
liabilities and obligations that are gonna be difficult to meet as we move forward. So I'm-
I'm concerned that as- as we embark on these projects that we try to understand through
careful thought, what the minimum action is necessary in order to successfully complete
them. So I just wanted to leave that with you. You know, I'm sorry that,urn, it took so
long. Urn, you know, again, I could- I could try to do a postmortem here, but um, you
know, I think there were just- I wish we could all in retrospect, sat around the table. We
never had that opportunity of the neighbors, their consultants, city staff, council members
to have a chance to-to discuss this. I think perhaps we would have found out about the,
you know, the caveat on the three-and-a-half to one slope earlier than we did. Urn, and
that might have made a difference. But anyway, I just thought I needed to bring it to
counsel and have- have-make those comments.
Taylor: As Councilor Thomas has mentioned, I've been involved with the discussion on this for
quite some time and what it's still just all boils down to me is that soil testing needs to be
done, should have been done and needs to be done to,uh,justify the- the need for this
wall. And I- I have no doubt that, uh, any testing will show that a retaining wall is
possibly necessary. But- but my question,uh, also would be that, urn, what- what is
appropriate, uh, for this, uh, and attractive for that area? This is Rochester's a very, very
busy street, a lot of traffic. Uh, what do we want it to be visually appealing to folks to
see. Uh, and- and I don't, my personal opinion is not a concrete slab that could also prove
to be, uh, dangerous from what we've heard from some of the biking community. Uh, if
someone were to hit the curb and hit this concrete that-that's not a good thing. And- and
also the height of the wall, um, as we'd seen. I keep talking about the park road bridge.
You know, who would've ever thought that folks would,uh, climb that or skateboard, I
don't know, whatever. If- if you build it, they're gonna-they're gonna do. There's
someone out there that's going to-to try to- to climb this and- and we need to be, um,
cautious of that and perhaps modify this project. Um, I looked at the approach and- and I
have something more appealing or- or smaller or not at all. But depending on the soil test,
I think that's absolutely necessary.
Harmsen: Um, and I also have been-having been working with this for some time and- and uh,
meeting with the homeowners and walking on the site and going through the reports and
neither which, uh, uh, Councilor Thomas has mentioned and uh, I did share what the
council I had put together after kind of like, reflecting all upon that, um, the letter that I, a
response back, the detailed response back. Um, and thank you, Councilor Thomas,
because I had forgotten one of these changes that have already been made has been the
shortening of the- the proposed wall. So I think I'd let that out of my letters, so- so you'd
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 4, 2023.
Page 14
definitely ad- added in something that I had forgotten. Urn, Ism going to push back a little
bit on- on- in- in- I'm not gonna go through and read through the whole thing. That's why
I've put it in the council packet. Urn, but I- I think, you know, one of the proposals is, uh,
to just- to lower the wall just a little bit further. But when we're looking at, urn, you
know, that's just like-there still going to be a wall there. Urn, and our engineers, uh, and I
think they have. And as I said, the soil samples weren't on the actual slope, but other soil
samples that were taken nearby, while not conclusive, certainly don't lend, urn,
themselves to a re- to me to read that. There's a good likelihood that there's gonna be
something very different about the soils right there. Urn, the fact that the slab has to be
there, I think is-to me is consistent with the engineer's report that we have for the city
that- that needs to be there for the support. And I think that will actually gets to that- in a
different coming from the other direction to Councilor Thomas' comments, very wise
comments about looking to the long-term expenses for the upkeep. And so if we don't
have proper support for a retaining wall there and if we don't have the proper slope
behind it and all that goes into that, you-not only will we have to replace it, but we will
have to replace it sooner potentially. Uh, and so to me that sort of-these things, you
know, balance off of each other. And so that's why I said that, you know, when I shake
all of these things out and again, I won't rehash an entire letter, um, but I just don't think
it rises to the level of requiring the council to step in and make yet another change on- on
this. Even though I understand,uh, I wanted to agree with the homeowners on this, I get
that they're aesthetic concerns,um, you know, when those are hard to- hard to gauge. But
I- but I understand that and I appreciate that. And I think that's, you know, it's certainly
an important consideration. But just at the end of the day, not one that rose for me to a
level of- of yet going back in and doing some more changes to this. So that's why that-
that- I've kind of felt that way.
Teague: So I- I know that the concern is that the soil wasn't tested, um, according to Councilor
Thomas, and I know that's what we talked about. But it is my understanding that the soil
was tested, urn, in 2020, and I looked at the report at one point, I found it. I can't put my
finger on it right now, urn, and the report, um, or as cited. Urn, but that decision for soil
testing was done after the city council made uh, a decision to remove the plan sidewalk
from the- from the project. Urn, and it was clear, you know, that the'council really wanted
to limit the impact of trees and yards to be disturbed, urn, so it- so that it was tested. And
I just heard Councilor, urn, Harmsen saying it wasn't tested up the slope,but the
anticipation is that, um, I think is B7 at B9,how those depths- those were tested. They
just wasn't tested up the slope, but they also assumed that the same testing results will be
that of the slope. Now, my thought is if we're going to re-look at this, urn, you know,
we've been looking at our strategic plan as head of our document. This was done before
our strategic plan. Urn, and we said no sidewalk, urn, which in our strategic plan now we
prioritize, um, the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, uh, transit riders, urn, and other forms
of transportation, um, almost greater than that of automobiles. And so if we're going to
re-look at this, I think we really need to open up that opportunity for a sidewalk again,
especially if you're talking about those long-term cost. Urn, but we know that the-um,
the- the sidewalk was not, urn, a favorable option for the residents.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 4, 2023.
Page 15
Alter: One of the things that we've mentioned, um, that Councilor Thomas and,uh, the Mayor •
have mentioned is cost. And I'm acutely aware of cost of delay. The project has already
been delayed, um, and is now under construction. Then additionally, urn, I think about
the- the number of, urn, residents along Rochester who would be and currently are
impacted by the construction and if, how much longer they would have to wait for this.
So at the same time that I am appreciative of the neighbors,really, urn, thoughtfully and
thoroughly going into detail about what they saw the problems to be, and for the
counselors as well to- to go back and read the reports and,urn, talk to the neighbors. I'm
aware also of how many people would be impacted by this, um, in a- in a way that, urn,
in terms of cost and in terms of delay of project and how many more people in the
neighborhood, urn, would be impacted by this. So my understanding is that construction
has started again so that this piece of Rochester can be finished, which also has
downriver,uh, so to speak, a downstream, um, impacts because we also have Courts
Street scheduled and there has to be a way to get to City High, right? So with more
delays, it's not just the impact of this particular situation. It really is impacting projects
throughout the city, um, in ways that are going to impact a great number of people. Um,
so I just wanted to mention that as well, um.
Bergus: Yeah, I had the opportunity, John to talk with you about this, and I- I think, urn, where I
come down as kind of the proportionality of the impact on the changes that have been-
like the changes that could be made. Let's say this soil was tested. Let's assume that it
shows a steeper slope is okay. That was kind of my thinking. Let's proceed that way.
Okay. Well, I operate on the assumption that our staff hear our direction and understand
that they need to be operating with careful thought, and with, you know, minimal, urn,
action, right. If that's the right term.
Thomas: To save energy.
Bergus: Yeah, to save energy, to save materials, to save those costs, to save labor, um, and so I
think, you know, my understanding of the whole issue is that the- the question of exactly
where and how tall the wall is or could be and how steep the slopes are or could be is all
within very reasonable interpretations by professionals. And so, you know, it's not so
much a matter of, urn, it- the- the code. I mean, and I- I think I said to you, I understood
that the code said it could be a steeper slope depending on what occurred. And so I was
operating on this understanding of, let's assume it can be a steeper slope. At this stage
with every, you know, the plan as it's preceded, what would we need to see in order to-
for this to rise to the level that we would intervene. And so I just don't- I don't feel like
it's proportional given the- the potential of delay and additional cost of re-engineering and
all of those things.
Thomas: I- I did mention, I- I'm- I know there's concerns about project delays, which is why I
mentioned the, um, reference by the- the engineer to the- to the neighborhood that, um,
you know, making these changes, either redesign or just field adjustments, it would be a
relatively simple process. I- you know, um, ball isn't moving, it's- it's in the same
location. We would be, er, reducing the height perhaps in some locations and eliminating
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 4, 2023.
Page 16
it entirely in others. That's a subtraction in the scope of work, which suggests to me, and
it's not changing any alignments, urn, could very well not affect the schedule. Again, it's-
it's like with soil testing, we could confirm that. We don't need to speculate about it. But,
um, you know, I- I- I hear what you all are saying, urn, and, you know, I- I understand
that this is partly just because this thing has been so drawn out, urn, it just seems to be
burdensome. Urn, but as I said, we build this wall. It- we own it- it- for the rest of time.
So that's the-that's all I would say.
Alter: I can also say that I- I have personal experience with the retaining wall starting to crumble
because it was not sufficiently supported, so.
Thomas: Oh, absolutely. No, I have no doubt that this wall is gonna stand I- urn.
Alter: And it was painful. It was very painful.
3. Clarification of Agenda Items
Teague: All right, so it doesn't sound like there's majority to do any changes on this project, so
we will move on to Item number 3, which is clarification of agenda items. I do want to
make one, urn, er- er, one acknowledgment, urn, Councilor Bergus reached out to let me
know that Item 6d, she has a conflict with and so she'll be recrusing herself And that
item just to state what it is, is the loan agreement with the Downtown District, so she'll be
recrusing herself And I will, um, first have us do, urn, I'll get a motion for items 3
through 8 with a separate consideration for 6d. So we'll all vote. And then Councilor
Bergus will have to remove herself from this area, and then we'll consider Item 6d at that
time.
Alter: Counselor
Teague: Okay.
Bergus: Thank you, Mayor.
Teague: Any other urgent clarification- clarification of agenda items?
Bergus: Mayor, I was gonna maybe just talk with you, but I may- I could address it with the
whole group. You all know that I'm intending to make an oral motion relating to the
budget. And so I talked with Eric right before the meeting and, urn, this time I'm like
procedurally, where exactly does that happen? Um, because we could have a motion to,
er, approve the resolution, a second public hearing, and then an amendment proposed
during, er, council discussion. But also, I think since I'm trying to kind of forefront this
and be as transparent as possible, I think I would intend just to make it right off the bat. If
there is a second, we can proceed, if there's not, we would fail and we would go on. Does
that sound okay, Mayor?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 4, 2023.
Page 17
Teague: Let me make sure I understand you correctly. So when will this be after public hearing
or you're thinking that you will make comments prior to public hearing?
Bergus: Not comments,just the motion. Is that- Eric am I-
Goers: Right. The motion to amend. Because the motion instead of the resolution is to approve
the budget. And so what Councilor Bergus is discussing is when is it that she would
propose her motion to amend the budget? And, er, the- the- the question kinda comes
down to whether that should be done before or after the public has had an opportunity to
make comment. And so my suggestion to her was that she should make her motion right
off the bat and before public comments so that at the public wishes to weigh in- in favor
of or opposed to,uh, the motion to amend then they could do so.
Dunn: Question. Are you referring to when we get to that item or when we start the formal
meeting?
Goers: Oh, when we get to the budget item. And to be specific, that budget for next fiscal year
because we have to budget items. Three, sorry. When we get the- the plan- fiscal plans as
well. Yes.
Harmsen: So we would have a motion and a second on the budget and then a proposed-
Alter: A motion for a propo- oh, a motion for amendment.
Goers: The- the motion and a second to approve the underlying budget, that's your starting point.
Harmsen: Right.
Goers: And then Councilor Bergus, er, would presumably make a motion to amend that budget,
er, in the way that she will articulate, and then either it has a second or it doesn't, and
then, er, move to public comment at that point.
Harmsen: So then if the- if the motion doesn't get a second- the amendment doesn't get a second,
we have public comment, but then the motion is still dead.
Goers: The motion will be dead, if there is no second. That's right.
Harmsen: I think with that in mind, it make more sense to hear from the public first before we
have, doesn't it?
Teague: Well, I- I think-
Harmsen: Because otherwise it could potentially just without- without presupposing any
outcomes, it could potentially not have the public or meaning- it just seems like it would
be backwards.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 4, 2023.
Page 18
Teague: What I-what I- what I think is the intent, which I agree with- with- from Councilor
Bergus, is to be upfront and transparent as to what we'll all be talking about when it gets
to council discussion. Because when it gets to council discussion, the public is done.
Harmsen: Right.
Teague: So I appreciate the opportunity to kinda, urn, put it out there upfront, that proposal that
she's gonna do. Um, and I think, urn- I- I believe it will get a second. I mean, I'm more
than willing to give a second on just to have the discussion because I think we're gonna
hear about it. So,urn, well, I can't give a second. I'm- I'm-But anyway, yeah, urn.
Alter: I think if I'm understanding your furrowed brows, in question is that if the motion doesn't
get a second, that then there is no opportunity for public comment. Is that what-
[OVERLAPPING]
Harmsen: Before would- because there would be a defecto to proceed.
Alter: Then it would be- right-right.
Harmsen: If there's no second, that's a defacto of decision. [OVERLAPPING]
Alter: So you're just wanting to make sure that whatever procedure we'd- whatever procedure we
go through is to be able to give the public an opportunity to comment?
Harmsen: Yes. [OVERLAPPING] So it would be relevant to-to that decision- to be relevant to
our decision making process. That's- that's- that's my- my only desire.
Thomas: With the second we'd still then vote as a council as to whether we support-
Teague: The amendment or not. But we wouldn't- we would- wouldn't vote on that until after
we've heard the public comment.
Thomas: Correct.
Bergus: Correct.
Harmsen: So and that's kosher?
Goers: Yes, I believe so
Thomas: And then, if that failed, we would then take up-
Dunn: We- we wouldn't vote on the amendment until after public comment?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 4, 2023.
Page 19
Alter: Yeah.
Bergus: Correct.
Thomas: And if that failed, we then would vote again on the budget without the amendment?
Teague: Right.
Bergus: Or another amendment. [LAUGHTER]
Goers: The budget amended or not, depending on council's vote. Right.
Teague: Because the original motion would still be there- the original motion will still be there.
Any questions-
Bergus: I'm glad I brought that up. Okay. [LAUGHTER] Not hard it all. [OVERLAPPING]
Harmsen: Maybe time to hash that up.
Bergus: Yes.
Teague: So any- any questions about that?
Alter: I'm just gonna follow leads. [LAUGHTER]
Teague: All right. [LAUGHTER]
Teague: Anything else about the formal agenda?
4. Information Packet Discussion [March 23, March 30]
Teague: Moving on to Item number 4, which is the informational packet discussion, March 23rd.
Moving on to information packet March 30th, there is an IP5. A memo fro - a memo
from our city clerk in relationship to the joint entities and meeting agenda. And so we just
have to talk about what items, if any, this council wants to submit for that agenda.
Bergus: I don't know that it needs to be a full agenda item, but I guess I'd like your input, urn,
just with the understanding that the- we talked about transit the last two, urn,joint
entities meetings and that there is the bus rapid transit study, feasibility study, the RFP
for a consultant to undertake that study was released. And I think, the proposals were due
back already last week. So if we get an update on just the status of that, I think it'd be
worth mentioning, but I don't know that there needs to be a lot-
,
Teague: Discussion.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 4, 2023.
Page 20
Bergus: -a whole agenda item, but I'm happy to provide that update.
Teague: I think that'd be great. Do- I - I imagine that [LAUGHTER] the school district, they-
they are a part of this. So if they wanted to put something on the agenda, we will just
leave that up to them and we would not initiate that. So it's not like Iowa city would just
have one item submitting. Okay. And Councilor Bergus, you'll give the update?
Bergus: Okay.
Teague: Thank you.
Alter: I actually had, ah, um,just if we're moving onto other, urn, IP numbers, I would just like
to, um, let me see it's IP3 for pending work session topics. I would like, ah, to get a sense
from council if you'd be willing to revisit, urn, the preliminary plan to restructure the
police that was put out in,um, 2020. And we haven't had a-well, we haven't gone back
to it and I would like very much for that to be a pending work session. We can look at,
um, where we're at, urn, and- and what steps might we need to finalize that. So I just
wanted to put that forward to see you if others would be in favor and we can put that on
the- on the pending topics list. Hopefully with -with some sense of,um, you know,
sooner rather than later.
Taylor: Yeah.
Teague: We can put that on the list, um, and get update because there has been some update, but
we won't deliberate.
Alter: Right.
Teague: So yes. All right. Anything else from the March 30th information packet?
Thomas: I'll- I'll just mention IP4 where there is an update on the Affordable Housing Action
Plan update and- and looking at that and, you know, Geoff referenced it as well. And, ah,
that is going to be a mammoth undertaking [LAUGHTER] as I view it in the- the devil
will be in the details. That is a very, you know, looking at how other cities have
attempted to make revisions on- on that level, that comprehensively it's- it's going to be
challenging. But just wanted to react to it in- in that way.
Teague: All right. Any other items?
5. University of Iowa Student Government(USG) Updates
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 4, 2023.
Page 21
Teague: And Number 5, do we know if our USG representatives are on Zoom? Okay. So council
will probably get an update in our e-mail from them and then we'll be able to share that in
our next information packet.
6. Council Updates on Assigned Boards, Commissions, and Committees
Teague: Item number 6, council updates on assigned boards, commissions, and committees.
Taylor: This one particular committee, I- it wasn't really assigned by the mayor. I sort of
assigned myself, Rachel Kilberg gets sent out a- a message to folks and who was
interested in- in participating in the Disability Services Coordinating Committee. And I- I
applaud Rachel for developing that and it meets every other month via Zoom. But one
part of that, which is coming up very soon, tomorrow in fact, she's planned an
accessibility focused listening post and it's going to follow the lines of how our listening
post- council listening posts event. People will just, ah, come and go as they please from
four o'clock to 5:30 a- at the library meeting room A and hopefully, there'll be a lot of
community involvement as far as what they feel related to accessibility and the city. So
but I applaud Rachel for- for establishing that committee and- and doing this listening
post. Thank you, if your listening Rachel [LAUGHTER]. Oh she's down there, I can't see
you. Thank you. [LAUGHTER] Couldn't see her.
Teague: And are you joining at that meeting?
Dunn: I - yeah. I will- I will be in attendance. Yes.
Teague: Great.
Alter: I was hoping to, so it remains to be seen. But I'm going to try and sneak in there.
Thomas: Rachel, will you have some, it's going to be an ongoing sort of thing or do you have any
idea on that?
Teague: And introduce yourself,please. [LAUGHTER].
Kilberg: Rachel Kilberg, city manager's office. Urn, we're kind of, ah,just, you know, planning
this one,just good practice to have it every now and then. And then we're also looking at,
urn,just different accessibility barriers throughout the, urn, city right now anyway. So we
thought it would mesh well. So there's none, it's not like a series planned or anything, but
I'm sure it will happen again in the future.
Thomas: Because I - I'm interested as well. So if, you know, maybe we can rotate that in some
way.
Teague: Yeah.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 4, 2023.
Page 22
Dunn: Would- would now be an appropriate time for an update on the Refugees Alliance?
Teague: Um, we're- we're doing boards and commissions, but you can give that update at the end
of our formal meeting.
Dunn: Cool.
Teague: Great. Any other updates?
Bergus: I was excited for the- my first JEC meeting, but it was canceled, so June
[LAUGHTER].
Teague: Sure.
Fruehling: Mayor, USG is on.
Teague: Okay.
Teague: Yay.
Fruehling: If we can figure out how to-
Teague: Okay.
5. University of Iowa Student Government(USG) Updates (Continued)
Teague: So USG will, kind of, try to get you connected to give us an update.
LeFevre: Hello.
Teague: Hello. We can hear you.
LeFevre: Oh, I'm on. Right.
Teague: Hello. Welcome.
LeFevre: Sorry council, we're having some technical errors. We're trying to- we're watching the
live stream, but we're a little bit behind. But awesome. So this is Noah, Keaton is also
here as well. We'll give our announcements really quick here. So obviously in semi-
disappointing news, but still really good news, women's basketball got second place
losing to LSU on Sunday. First lady Jill Biden has said that both teams may be invited to
the White House. So we'll see on that. In important USG news, USG has had our
elections. Last week we determined the administration for next year. We have a ton of
amazing new and returning senemer- senators, as well as our new President Mitch
Winterland and Vice President Carly O'Brien. And I'm sure you'll see them at least once
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 4, 2023.
Page 23
or twice. Next up is Hawkeye and Caucus Day. Coming up on August 12th, all of USG
will be going to the Iowa capital to meet with elected officials and to discuss university
goals and funding. That's all really announcements are, ah, I hope you guys all have a
good day.
Teague: Great. Thank you for those announcements. And I know that, urn, the women's
basketball team has certainly made this city very proud. Urn, yesterday they had that- er,
that welcome back. Urn, and it was super exciting to see them. So, er, cheers to them.
There will be an event I'll just mention this while USG just may mention about that.
There will be a women's basketball team event on April 14th at 5:30 PM and it'd be at the
Pentacrest. So get ready for that celebration.
Harmsen: April 14th 5:00 PM, you said?
Teague: 5:30 PM.
Harmesen: Thank you.
Teague: Central standard time. [LAUGHTER] All right. If nothing else for the- for this time, we
will adjourn and be back at 6:00 PM for our formal meeting. [MUSIC]
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 4, 2023.