Loading...
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.