HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-01-18 TranscriptionPage 1
Council Present:
Staff Present:
Others Present:
Alter, Bergus, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Weiner
Davies, Dulek, Fleagle, Ford, Fruehling, Fruin, Havel, Hightshoe,
Jones, Kilburg, Ralston, Sovers
Van Heukelom, Miglin (USG)
Discussion of Johnson County Direct Relief Program
Teague: I want to welcome everyone to the City of Iowa City work session on January
18th. It is just 4:00 pm. Our first item is going be to discuss the Johnson County
Direct Relief Program. I know that this was, um, something that Councilor Bergus
had initiated that we kind of bring back up. And I know our councilors are
wanting to have this discussion. I'll probably invite Geoff just to give us, uh, kind
of a start us out on this.
Fruin: Yeah. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, and good afternoon to you and the Council. Um, in
your packet, uh, you have a memo from our Assistant City Manager, Rachel
Kilburg, providing you just an, a, a quick update on all of our previously
identified ARPA initiatives. Um, so, uh, with the new Council being seated, we
just thought that type of, um, lookback would be, uh, helpful. We can certainly
answer questions on those, but you're right. The focus of the work session, uh,
was to be on the, uh, direct payment program that the, uh, staff and elected
officials at Johnson County, uh, have been working on diligently the past, uh,
several months. Um, really, uh, real quick in your packet, um, we included, uh,
some of the early direct assistance program information that was prepared, uh, uh,
uh, by the staff at Johnson County for their electeds. I want to just make mention
that was prepared back in December, and we all know that conversations are, are,
are still ongoing. Matter of fact, I believe there's a meeting, uh, with the Board of
Supervisors tomorrow on this topic. Um, one significant thing has, uh, changed
between, uh, when this, uh, document was created and, and today, and that's that
the final rules, uh, from the U.S. Treasury came out on January 6th. Um, I can tell
you there's several hundred pages of rules to, to sift through, and I'm sure, uh, like
our staff, the County staff is working hard to, to review those and see how that
might, uh, change their approach, uh, if at all, to, uh, the direct assistance
program. So just keep that in mind as you're, uh, discussing things tonight. Um, I
do wanna thank the County team. You have, uh, several County, uh, staff
members here in the audience, uh, tonight that can probably answer questions
about their program better than, uh, than we can as City staff. So with that, I'll just
turn it back over to the Council for discussion, and, uh, we'll do our best to answer
questions as they come up.
Teague: Great. And thanks to the County members that are here today, really appreciate
your presence. And we'll just kind of dive into this conversation. Um, the hope, I
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of January 18, 2022.
Page 2
think the hope today is really to, to zone in on the direct payments, um, to eligible
adults. And how do we, I think there is certainly this, um, desire to partner with
the, with the County in all intentions. And I think we are at this point, just trying
to identify what amount and how do we get that, uh, to them, if I'm to follow kind
of what you wanted, um, as an initial proposal to Council.
Bergus: Well, Mayor, I'm, I'm happy to jump in, um, just cause I have been thinking a lot
about this and also have had the opportunity to talk to a couple of our supervisor
colleagues today, um, on where they are in the process. So the memo that was in
our packet, um, indicated that the County is looking at $1,400 payments to
eligible adult individuals. So not households, but individuals, um, with some
eligibility criteria including having lived in Johnson County since, uh, March of
2020, um, and still being a resident of Johnson County, I believe. And please, uh,
staff, please jump in if I get anything wrong. Um, and that people who have not
received, uh, any of a number of the previous, um, COVID relief or stimulus
benefits such as the, what we called sort of the stimulus checks, the $1,400
payment, the $600 payment and, um, enhanced unemployment benefits. Um, and
so I, I do think based on our conversation in September where this was first
presented in terms of, we want to allocate some amount of direct payments to
individuals, and then the joint meeting that we had with the County in November,
I guess I can just kind of give my pitch on what I'm imagining we could do and
hope we could do, and maybe that'll start the conversation. Um, I think we should
allocate $1.5 million. Um, I think we should use that money to increase the pool
for the County's program. I think we've been clear we wanna work with the
County. I think that that money could be best used in terms of benefit-- benefiting
the largest number of the most vulnerable people in our community by, uh,
considering just adding, adding that to the pot and knowing that it'll be distributed
in a program that is, um, the same for everyone who would be eligible. I know
we've had some very preliminary conversations about, well, could we have a
program that's just for Iowa City residents and then one that's kind of for everyone
else; I would urge us to look at this as a rising tide lifts all boats situation for our
contiguous community and knowing that we can contribute to a pool that would
benefit, uh, everyone. If they've landed on the amount of $1,400 per individual,
based on what I understand to be very rough estimates of the numbers that, that of
people that that could serve. I think we should consider saying, okay, we wanna
add our money and make that a higher number per individual. Um, I think we
should consider $2,000 per person and have that be eligible for, or have that apply
to everyone throughout the program for the County of Johnson County. We've
been talking from the beginning about, um, what kinds of proof or documentation
would people have to show for their eligibility, and I will say again, as I've said
publicly before, the more, the more self -certification we can have the better, um, I
understand stand, there are risks involved in that. I understand that there's
concerns that, that people would, uh, defraud us, that they would try and, you
know, come in and, and, um, double dip or make it more, um, complicated. Given
the unprecedented nature of this moment, this emergency, the pandemic that we're
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of January 18, 2022.
Page 3
in, the nature of this funding and the funding source, um, I honestly am not, I
don't see that to be a high concern. And I think that getting funds to people who
have been left out of all these other programs that started, you know, almost gosh,
you know, 18 months plus ago, um, is really my, my top priority. I do. I think
there's some, uh, details of the program as it's been presented that there'd be a
application period running from, for example, March 1st through April 15th. At
the close of that application period, there would be kind of a lottery to determine
eligible individuals and then processing the applications, uh, after the end of, of,
or after the selection of the individuals, I would urge if it's logistically feasible
that, that, uh, we let the County know that maybe, maybe there could be some
rolling eligibility or some processing as a certain number of applications come in
or something like that, just so that there's not, uh, that entire window of time when
there wouldn't be any, uh, processing or payments going out. That's kind of my,
where my head's at.
Taylor: Okay. Thank you, Councilor Bergus, I, you obviously given this a lot of thought,
which is what I hope up all of us have done, because it is a very vital, important
decision that we have to make. And, and I can't personally dispute how, how vital
the money would be, uh, to help the most vulnerable, uh, individuals in our
community, especially the ones, as you had mentioned, who seemingly were left
behind by, uh, a lot of the other programs and, and still need some assistance. And
this is our chance I see as elected officials, uh, to help those folks, uh, get their
feet back on the ground. And I see it as imperative, actually, that, that we provide
a fair and reasonable method of distribution of the, of the funds as you've talked
about. And I'd like to thank the Johnson County Board of Supervisors and their
staff for the information you put together for the direct assistance program. And
I'm glad to see that you're planning a series of application, uh, clinics to aid
people in the process, cause as most people know, I'm, I'm technically, uh,
challenged and, and there, I know are other people out there, other folks, who
don't even have technical abilities and, and it's good to see that the Library folks
and supervisor folks can help these people out, uh. Because it is essential to
provide a, a process whereby uh, these individuals don't have to jump through a
lot of hoops, uh, to apply for this. And I would certainly agree, uh, as Councilor
Bergus said that it would be beneficial for the City to, uh, join, uh, funds and
partner with the County to provide these additional disbursements. And, uh, I
think, uh, the amount she quoted, the $1.5 million to make it up to $2,000 per
person sounds reasonable to me.
Teague: I do have a technical question and that is, do we have the ability to extend our
funds beyond, uh, individuals that have an Iowa City address?
Fruin: Yes, I think we could. I think we, we would be transferring our funds to the
County. We have to work through some of the, the logistics there, but I think we
would, um, basically transfer our $1.5 million, if that's a number that the Council
lands on to the County, uh, for this purpose, we still have some obligations when
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of January 18, 2022.
Page 4
it comes to reporting and monitoring, uh, those, but I think it can be done. And if
any of the staff in the audience, uh, have concerns with that?
Brooks: Good evening, Donna Brooks, Grants Coordinator with the Johnson County
Board of Supervisors. Something that we've discussed with our ARPA leadership
team, which includes the County Attorney's office, um, would be looking at
participation from the City of Iowa City, possibly through a reimbursement model
so that we can ensure that those benefits or, or ARPA funds provided by the City
directly benefit Iowa City residents. And given that this program is being
developed to, uh, select as a lottery or, or a random selection, I think it might be a
better idea to see what some of those selection numbers look like in terms of
disbursement of county residents based on communities, um, before, uh, the City
puts in, um, or, or agrees to a large amount. And again, I know that you guys are
elected officials and, and we're just staff. And these are decisions that elected
officials will ultimately make, but being the people that, um, live and breathe,
both the interim final rule and now the fmal rule, we do have concerns about
whether or not the City of Iowa City could provide their local fiscal recovery
funds to communities outside of the City of Iowa City. Um, the, the rule is pretty
clear that these funds should benefit only those residents of the recipient. Any
other questions?
Alter: I have a question. I have a question about the lottery, um, is that based on a, a, a
speculation or projection that there will be more people needing this money than
we have?
Brooks: Yes. Absolutely.
Alter: So that's, that's the rationale for the lottery?
Brooks: Well, um, it, we looked to other local governments, such as the City of St. Louis
and the City of Boston. We had a very good meeting with the City of Boston last
week regarding their program that they stood up with ARPA funding that
provides this type of direct relief where cash transfer is the expenditure category
under the U.S. Treasury. But, um, ultimately the lottery, what it does at a capacity
level is if we were to receive 7,000 applications, and we know that $2 million
divided by 1400 is about 1400, rather than having staff review all 7,000
applications, it allows us to pre -select those numbers that approximately fit with
the budget and then review from there. So it just feels like a fair, um, approach.
And there certainly, our program includes the opportunity for in the event of an
incomplete application or, or lacking documentation, there's a seven day
turnaround period for staff to reach out to residents and help them, um, complete
their application. Again, the goal is inclusivity, not exclusion. So staff will be
doing everything they can, but I'll tell you that the City of Boston had a pretty
good laugh about the fact that we were trying to administer this in-house and not
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of January 18, 2022.
Page 5
going with a third party provider. They had put out an RFP and split their $1
million budget to 900,000 and 100,000 reserving that 10% for administration.
Teague: So that I'm clear on, um, the answer that you gave us as far as if our funds can be
utilized with other people outside of Iowa City. Did I understand that the rules
would say no?
Brooks: Uh, that's our reading of the final rule. And we, we think it would be better to,
um, maybe establish a 20/80 agreement where the City of Iowa City was
reimbursing for any resident of Iowa City that received a direct assistance
payment.
Forsythe: But, but -- my name is Ray Forsythe, and I'm the Special Projects Manager --
based on the demographics of Iowa City, I think you would be safe to assume that
your $1.5 million would be completely absorbed. It would just be then the, the
pool size and the number of approved applicants to get to that $1.5. So it would, it
would really depend on the lottery, but having that bigger pool opens it up to
more residents. And you would assume that more residents of Iowa City are
gonna apply because your population is a significant portion of the County.
Teague: I'm not sure if you can answer this question, but if the County was to do the 1400
and the City of Iowa City wanted to do the 600 on top, is that something that you
foresee being an option?
Forsythe: I think so.
Brooks: Yeah, I think we just wanna work with the County Attorney's office and the City
Attorney's office and make sure that we have the proper, um, kind of agreement in
place, whatever that looks like. And just making sure again, that we're kind of
cross-referencing against the fmal rule and maybe even doing some outreach, uh,
to the U.S. Treasury or to NACO or League of Cities and kind of getting the go
ahead before we, um, start mixing dollars, I guess, in a, in a pool, so to speak. I
tend to like the idea of delineating -- delineating it by resident address, but, um,
again, open for discussion and ultimately elected -official decision making.
Forsythe: And we will defmitely go back and report to the Board the desire of a $2,000
payment versus 1400.
Alter: Does creating that extra -- it's not a layer, but that the extra, um, uh, distinguishing
mark of, of Iowa City residents and that -- does that slow down payment?
Forsythe: No, because we're -- part of our application process is residency,
acknowledging the residency. So we, we're gonna be tracking where every
applicant comes from. So it shouldn't at all.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of January 18, 2022.
Page 6
Brooks: I will say if we stay with a model of a set application period, and we double the
budget, then obviously there's gonna be a requirement for more staff capacity, urn,
to review those applications. So m the time period allotted.
Weiner: So Count-- County money, that's allocated, that's allocated toward this, um, can
it, it can go to anyone who lives in Johnson County, is that correct?
Brooks: That's correct.
Weiner: So essentially we would, um, the, the City by, by, um, providing funds would be
stretching the money pretty much for everyone in that sense, even though what
you're saying is that the City funds could really only go to city residents.
Forsythe: Absolutely.
Brooks: Unless we targeted those City dollars to city resident, or city applicants, city
resident applicants.
Bergus: As far as the, um, residency of the applicants, the, would we be solid on the
address being actually based on municipal boundaries rather than, you know,
there's lots of Iowa City addresses that aren't within our boundaries, is your
system set up that way?
Brooks: Um, I think we would be safe if it's an Iowa City address, it would be an Iowa
City resident. I think that's a pretty safe assumption to make.
Weiner: No, there, there, there are plenty of people, so for example, out North Dubuque
Street, who are residents who have an Iowa City address, um, but who are not
actual residents of the City of Iowa City.
Brooks: Then they're unincorporated residents of unincorporated Johnson County --
Weiner: -- County. Yeah. Although they have an Iowa City address and a 52240 zip
code.
Brooks: Okay. Then they could be, and Johnson County has a GIS system that has layers
for qualified census tracts and the unincorporated areas. So we would be vetting
applicant addresses through our own GIS system.
Weiner: Thanks.
Teague: Okay.
Harmsen: I just --
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of January 18, 2022.
Page 7
Bergus: Go ahead.
Harmsen: One of the, of the, the things that I think probably all of us have is the idea of
trying to get people their help as fast as possible.
Brooks: Correct.
Harmsen: Um, is the lottery system, uh, at, at least on paper and all the deadlines and
stuff, it looks like it would still be into this summer, um, at least if you do the
math that I was reading it, unless I was doing it wrong. Um, is that a pretty solid
estimate of the time? And is there a way any way to, to, to speed that up, do like
a, um, I, I think somebody had just mentioned some, uh, starting the distribution
while the lottery applications, you know, some, I don't, I don't know you, you
work with that. So, so what's the fastest way to get people help.
Brooks: We believe that this is the fastest way to get people help. Um, if we were to
process applications as they were received and it took the first-come first-served
basis, we believe that there are some, um, issues there with, uh, with equity,
frankly, because we know that there are certain populations and groups that can
more readily, readily complete an online application who are more familiar with
the program who have paid attention as it's been developed. And we need time to
do outreach to some of those marginalized communities that have not yet been
involved in the process. That's the goal of these application workshops of
identifying community partners of trying to hold these clinics sometimes offsite
when necessary to make sure that we're not creating technological barriers,
language barriers, um, outreach barriers, that type of thing.
Forsythe: But I think, you know, also in response, if the City of Iowa City was partnering
with us and they were helping us with the technical assistance and the reviews, I
think we could definitely speed it up. But at this point, the Board of Supervisors
is, is doing this in-house with existing staff. So resources like that could definitely
help speed up the review on the backside.
Brooks: Absolutely.
Taylor: I'm still confused on as to the answer to Councilor Weiner. So if, if the person has
an address of Iowa City, are you going to consider them an Iowa City person?
How, how did we -- again, for me?
Forsythe: Our GIS system would tell us if it was a resident of the city of Iowa City versus
a resident of unincorporated Johnson.
Taylor: So you would list them as having the funds from Iowa City.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of January 18, 2022.
Page 8
Brooks: Well, we, if they're, if they're a resident of unincorporated Johnson County, we
would use Johnson County's local fiscal recovery fund. If they're a resident of
Iowa City proper, we will use, we would potentially use or could potentially use
the City of Iowa City's local fiscal recovery funds. Okay.
Harmsen: On top of the County.
Brooks: I don't think on top of, I think just delineating to make sure that it is clear, um,
that we have a process that is clear upfront, so that there's less questions should
we have to report or, or provide additional documentation. Um, but I would say,
um, my, my opinion would be, or I guess my understanding would be not in
addition to the Count -- what the County is providing, but to cost share for Iowa
City residents.
Forsythe: Unless you went the approach of that, of just doing a supplemental to Iowa City
residents, then we would use all the County money first and then anybody in Iowa
City could get the supplemental payment. Does that make sense?
Harmsen: Which I think that's what we've been talking about, right. Doing the
supplemental, or am I mistaken to get, or Iowa City residents up to 2000?
Weiner: I mean, I mean, it sounds, it sounds to me like what, one of the things that you're
saying, and please correct me if I'm wrong is that there, there is potentially a large
enough pool to use up both the, I if, if we were to allocate $1.5 million, in
addition to what is it, $2 million that the County is that, that all that would get
used up with one point with $1,400 payments, is that correct?
Forsythe: Potentially that's right. We don't have good numbers 'cause we don't know how
many people are actually going to apply.
Bergus: As to the timing of payments. I, I wanna be clear about this in talking with, um, a
couple of supervisors today. I think their understanding was the application period
and then the lottery. And as soon as those that were matched in the lottery were
processed, which would be happening on a ongoing basis that those payments
would be happening --
Forsythe: -- correct.
Bergus: At that time that it wouldn't be a two-month or six-week processing period and
then payments, right.
Forsythe: It would be a rolling payment based on the review of the application. So if the
applications were complete and met all the criteria, then we would start
processing payments.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of January 18, 2022.
Page 9
Bergus: So if the,
Forsythe: We wouldn't hold 'em all till and do one,
Bergus: okay.
Forsythe: one massive run of checks.
Weiner: Yeah. So, so in other words, you know, you, you end up with say all applications
due by, by April 15th, um, the, you go through the lottery, pick out however,
however, many, um, any of them that are complete, complete at that time you start
paying out, correct?
Brooks and Forsythe: Correct.
Weiner: Okay. Thank you.
Bergus: I think we should, um, just on this question of what our money could be used to
support, um, if there is a hard line that our dollars could ha-- have to stay within
the municipal boundaries of Iowa City, which, you know, I haven't read the final
rule, but it seems to me that having intergovernmental transfers being, you know,
allowed that there would be some flexibility for intergovernmental transfers to,
for example, you know, a county from a city within that county. But I think the
administration cost is something we should be talking about. It would make sense
to me that Iowa City would be willing to support things like promoting to the
vulnerable communities. We talk about translation, we talk about these clinics,
right. I would hope that our dollars would support that, but I, you know, we need
an answer to that question, I guess, or we need to be willing to say, we believe
that this meets it. Um, because I think that would benefit not just Iowa City
residents, but is a really important piece of this program.
Brooks: Yeah. And in terms of transfer authority, I should say that I am familiar with the
County's, um, eligibility, and we know that our transfer authority is limited to
certain things and we can give it back to the state. We cannot transfer our local
fiscal recovery funds out of the boundaries of Johnson County. I'm not as familiar
with the City's, um, transfer authorities. So certainly your, you know, your City
Attorney can, can do more research there. I didn't mean to speak on that, um, as
an expert for lo-- for city government, because I'm not.
Weiner: So Sue or Geoff, do you have any or, or Rachel, do you have any wisdom on
that?
Fruin: Well, I, I think it's, it's -- we can figure it out. Let me just say that we, we I'm
convinced that we can figure that out. Um, what I would try to focus you on today
is what is your primary objective? Is it to reach as many people as possible? Is it
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of January 18, 2022.
Page 10
to, is it to lift up that proposed $1,400 amount? Um, I think we can accomplish it,
but whether it's a blanket transfer, a reimbursement, um, I, I think we can, I think
we can defmitely, um, figure that out as we, as we go through the rules.
Thomas: Well, I'm, I'm certainly in support. I think we're all in support of the, the $1.5
million and it, at the same time seems to me until we have a clearer idea of what
the actual number of recipients are, um, in Iowa City as to how, how those funds
will be distributed on a per -person basis. Um, but for now, I mean, I think it's, it
certainly seems like a good start. And once we have a better idea of the, the level
of distribution or the number of distribution, I would, I would think we could
revisit it, uh, you know, the program at that point.
Fruin: Well, I, I think we're gonna need to be clear up front when we're promoting the
program. You know, especially if you're looking at potentially increasing the
amount, you're not, you're not gonna want to do that probably after you receive
applications. So well probably need some of that up front. Some of it you may
need, you may be able to decide at a later point, but ultimately the County's gotta
put this program together and then build the infrastructure to support it before it
goes out the door.
Alter: I also am in favor of the $1.5 million. Um, and because I'm rela -- new, um, these
questions may have been asked and answered already, but have there already been
conversations among staff and the capacity for City staff to be able to help
support, um, the, it was mentioned a few minutes ago about trying to get some
more support for the, the County, um, logistics and, um, reviewing process. Is that
something that's been talked about already and, um, is there that capacity within
the City to help, um, does that come out through some kind of, I, I guess I just
wanna leave it at that as a broad question.
Fruin: Yeah. We haven't discussed, you know, essentially loaning staff over for this
program. I'd have some hesitations with that, just knowing everything else that,
that we're juggling right now. But, um, I think it's completely reasonable to expect
that some administrative dollars may have to go with our transfer, um, to, to
support any added hours that they may need or translation expenses, things like
that. Um, I think that's a very reasonable request. Should Johnson County make
that.
Alter: Yeah. Support is a big bucket, so <laugh> yeah. Um, my other question is to
circle back to, um, sort of, uh, ensuring as much, um, well, I'm not gonna come
out with it in the right phrasing, but, um, I guess as much, um, safety and
protection for those who are most marginalized. And if there is, um, concern
about the additional demarcation of Iowa City, um, because I'm just, you know,
we are trying to make this as easy as possible for, um, as many people as possible,
but I do have concerns about that. And I just wonder having that extra delineation,
if that introduces any, um, potential, um, risk,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of January 18, 2022.
Page 11
Brooks: Um, not to my knowledge off the bat. I can tell you that John the County has
developed this program diligently as a negative economic impact or a relief
program to reduce, um, some of the reporting requirements in terms of, um, um,
income that, uh, 1099, social security numbers, that type of thing, uh, by building
this as a negative economic impact or relief program, we reduce a lot of those,
um, requirements that protect the identity of recipients and residents. And I don't,
I, I feel like the model of the program, um, has its own safety support and, and
Iowa City's participation would not change that.
Alter: Thanks. I also wanted to just point out that I was fairly well impressed with the
templates of the, that people would have available to, to be able to attest to their
status, their employment.
Forsythe: Thank you. And I think the other advantage of a partnership with the City of
Iowa City is you already have a lot of social networks and social agencies that
you fund that would also be of assistance to, to get the word out. You know, we're
looking at having, um, workshops and, but being, having, you know, the
additional support from Iowa City could broaden that outreach. And I think we
would get to the, you know, the larger pool would be really beneficial. The more
outreach we give, the more respondents we're gonna get.
Teague: All right. Any more questions or we can continue discussions.
Harmsen: Just one last, uh, couple just quick comments and questions. First of all, forgot
to say, thank you for the work you've been doing on this. Uh, I know we all here
appreciate that. And, and, uh, cause we all feel very firmly that this is something
we need to do to help people and, and, uh, just even learning more about the
scope of, of the challenge presented. So thank you for that. Uh, it's much
appreciated. Uh, I also would be absolutely in favor of the $1.5 million, uh, one
thing from this discussion, and maybe this is more for, for Council, is just to make
sure that we're, we're clear whether we're talking about covering the $1,400 within
city limits, or if we're talking about stacking on and, and I think that's something
that, that well talk about and well talk about the supervisors. Am I -- I'm new. So
I'm making sure I understand where we're, what our next steps are. So
Teague: Sure. Great.
Bergus: What I heard from staff is we should kind of pick a number and they can figure
out the logistics. Is that fair, Geoff?
Fruin: Yeah, I, I think, I think it'd probably be a little easier for us to work out some of
the, the, the transfer mechanics, uh, or reimbursement mechanics, whether we're
looking at 20/80 agreements or whatever the case may be. We can work that out
in between meetings and report back to you. Um, what, what I would love to get a
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of January 18, 2022.
Page 12
sense of before we wrap up the conversation is whether you're hoping that Iowa
City's contribution of $1.5 million is what I'm hearing from, I believe a majority,
um, is intended to increase that dollar amount. Are you, are you looking to go
from 14 to, uh, 2000? Is that, is that the primary objective? Um, uh, and if so, that
gives us the direction we need to work with the County to see how to make that
happen.
Teague: Yep. And I, I do think the, as something that we need to discuss, um, if it's the,
you know, the, the extra 600 on top of the 1400, uh, we did hear that there could
be quite a few residents that would qualify based on the application criteria and
they wouldn't be able to receive any of the funds, because of the lottery. And so I
do think that --
Forsythe: And that, and that's a great point, Mayor, because if you look at, if we're gonna
keep our pool to the same number of people, only some residents get more money
and than people that are outside of the city, by making our pool bigger, we're
guaranteeing that more people will get a payment, whether it be the 1400 or 2000.
But if you're, if you're just adding $600 to anybody who lives in Iowa City, you
probably won't run outta money based on the pool size that we're creating. Does
that make sense?
Teague: Mm-hmm.
Bergus: And just to kind of anchor this in numbers, uh, if we're contributing $1.5 in the
counties at $2 million, that's $3.5 million, if it's 10% administrative costs, that's
$350,000. Um, so if we, and if you take the difference and divide that by $2,000
per person, it's 1,575 individuals. So I, I had a conversation with, um, Mazahir
Salih of the Center for Worker Justice, our former Mayor Pro Tem, and she
indicated, you know, that their best guess is that the numbers will be in the
hundreds of households, not thousands. Um, and Supervisor Sullivan indicated
that he thought, you know, an estimate was 600 to 800 households with maybe
two individuals per household as an average. So that was kind of where my brain
was and hitting that number, um, was that, that would allow for everyone who,
again, we don't know who all would be eligible, but that, that should meet the,
um, anticipated need.
Forsythe: Right. And I would add that at this point, the supervisors are not taking an
administrative fee that we're absorbing the cost of administration at this point, that
$2 million is $2 million towards the program. It doesn't have an administration in
it.
Bergus: Okay. And is it --
Forsythe: -- that could, you know, obviously that could change, but right now it's not.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of January 18, 2022.
Page 13
Taylor: And is it your understanding that it's per household or per individual? So if there
are two, um, like adults in a household, each one would get
Forsythe: Correct. Per individual.
Taylor: Thank you.
Teague: I guess for me, we're, we're doing estimates of how many people would need it.
And thanks for giving us some numbers and I've heard in the hundreds potentially
not in the thousands, but we don't really know. Um, I guess because we do need to
kind of move forward and as a council, make some determinations, I guess for
me, I would say certainly we can do the, the, the 2000 for Iowa City residents, but
I still hear Council Bergus, um, maybe making a claim to do 2000 across the
board.
Bergus: I understand, if we think that's possible, I think that's the best
Wells: I will say in terms of the number of people who might be eligible in the final rule,
the U.S. Department of Treasury defined what they meant by low to moderate
income, and it is much, it was a higher number than we had anticipated. So for
our program to be eligible for a family of one, they just have to make less than
$45,370 a year. So, and then that goes up there from there based on size of the
household. So a lot of people, you know, we think more than several hundred
people would be eligible.
Bergus: But it's also only those who haven't also received --
Wells: No, That's how we've, we've structured it to be focused on low to moderate
income. And so that is the, the biggest hurdle to reach.
Forsythe: One of the eligibility requirements is that you didn't receive previous stimulus,
but that's not, not the only --
Wells: correct. Right.
Forsyth: -- the only category.
Weiner: So in other words, there's both a, the, the not having received previous stimulus,
is an eligible, is an eligibility requirement and it's a higher, the threshold. The
income threshold is higher than you thought it would be.
Wells: Correct.
Brooks: I think requirement is an exclusive term. Um, this program is open to any
resident of Johnson County that is low to moderate income. One of the eligibility
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of January 18, 2022.
Page 14
facets is also exclusion from previous federal stimulus that -- we're, we're
qualifying that as a negative economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. If you
lost a job, if you had housing insecurity, if you lost childcare, if you did not --
Wells: -- qualify for other federal programs like WIC
Brooks: -- yes. Qualify for other federal programs. So again, it's to make multiple, as
many people eligible to access the program as we can under the U.S. Treasury's
final rule.
Bergus: Okay. That was not clear to me at all. I'm sorry, but, totally did not understand
that.
Brooks: I think that there's been a narrative that this is an excluded workers' fund. This is
not an excluded workers' fund. This is a negative economic relief program for low
to moderate income residents of Johnson County who experienced an economic
impact as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Bergus: Thank you.
Teague: All right. Thank you all. Um, we'll continue with the conversation. What are
people's thoughts now?
Taylor: Are we, are we just focusing on the individual disbursements or there were other
items in the memo from, from Geoff, um, such as the one on repair and relocation
of individuals, is now a time to discuss that or some other time.
Teague: Um, I mean, we can,
Taylor: I mean, it doesn't have anything to do with the County, and their,
Teague: Yeah. I think we should focus still on the County relief funds.
Weiner: I mean, I guess not knowing the numbers of people at this point who would be
eligible and having, and having just understood that there's a larger pool of people
who would be eligible than, than I had originally thought. Um, I, I guess I would
be in favor of doing $1,400 dis-- contributing our $1.5 million and having $14,
$1,400 disbursements across the board. Should there be leftover money at the end
then I think we, we all need to circle back and take a look, but I'm concerned that
if right now that, that, uh, with the, with the greater number of people, if we, um,
asked that they'd be plussed up to $2,000, as much as I would like that, that we
might end up excluding people who really could need it.
Thomas: Yeah. That was my concern as well. So I'm at this point $1,400 seems to be the,
for me anyway, the, um, baseline that I would like to, to work with,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of January 18, 2022.
Page 15
Teague: If, if the $1,400 is the baseline, the question that I would have, and maybe this
would be a, um, conversation certainly that the County will have to have for those
that don't actually get selected within the pool. Can our funds then be given to
those individuals, the, for, that are City of Iowa City residents.
Fruin: Yeah. I, I think if you are, if you can articulate that's your, your primary goal,
we'll, we'll work with the County staff to do our best, to make that happen. So if
your goal is to reach as many people as you can, by contributing our extra $1.5,
then we, we'll try to structure that. I don't know that we can work out all the
details and get through all the assumptions, uh, tonight, but it seems to be that's
the key decision we need. You've made the decision that you wanna transfer the
$1.5. Um, the next thing that I think we could really is debating those priorities. Is
your priority, the higher check amount, or to cover as many people as possible.
They may not be mutually exclusive, but if we just knew what your top priority is,
we might be able to structure the program to address that first and then potentially
look at that secondary objective second.
Teague: I think because the applications will go out with some information, um, attached
to it. It becomes a little tricky if we do a, my mind would be a and -but: we, you
know, we would, um, anyone that wasn't a part of the lottery, a Iowa City
resident, they would get $1,400. And then if we still have money beyond that, you
know, getting all our residents accounted for, then we can do, you know, on top of
that, I, the, you know, up to $600 or something like that, but I don't know how
that can all be worked out, but at least for me, that would be kind of my, um, my
desire is to do the, to make sure that everyone is included, because then we could
have some individuals that didn't make the lottery that, you know, is a part of the
excluded workers, um, that, you know, really have come before us and asked. So
that's how I would, you know, picture that we do it, that we give direction to the
County to, you know, go with the $1400. And then after the lottery is done,
anyone, look at all Iowa City residents and can we do $1400 at that point for
them, it could be, we can do $2000 for, for the, for the people that weren't initially
a part of the lottery and then another $600 for those that were it. I know it's a little
complicated, but I wanted to get it out there.
Bergus: We, we must have estimates on how many low to moderate income people there
are in Iowa City. I mean, some, some extrapolation, but I think if, if, if income
alone is an eligibility, that's a totally different pool than I think what we've been
discussing up until this point. So,
Teague: And income alone is a -- they're eligible just by income alone.
Bergus: So even if they received prior, uh, COVID relief funds, if they meet the income
eligibility, they would get a payment if they're in the lottery and they fill out the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of January 18, 2022.
Page 16
application. Okay. Yeah. So that, I guess that's, I just, didn't under, I did not
understand that including in my conversation with the supervisors today.
Forsythe: So if you think about it this way, the fir -- you're gonna, we're gonna build the
pool by anybody that's low to moderate income. So you have that pool of people.
And then the, the other criteria, it's an and, you've had a negative, a negative
economic impact. So it, it could be a layoff, that you belong to a food pantry or
delivery program, uh, WIC, SNAP. Um, you've gotten general assistance from
Johnson County, an eviction or foreclosure notice participation in a housing
recovery program or proof of exclusion from federal stimulus programs. So, so
you're right. There's a lot of people that are low to moderate income, but they also
have to show the negative impact. And one of those negative impacts is not
receiving federal stimulus program. So it's, it's a two-pronged approach.
Thomas: And we only need one to qualify under one of those additional criteria.
Forsythe: Right, it's just one additional category besides the low to moderate income.
Thomas: Cause yeah, this, at 1400 each, that would be a little over a thousand at if we
were to contribute $1.5 million, we're talking about a little, roughly, a thousand
people --
Forsythe: Additional people, correct, to the County's program.
Thomas: Min-hmm.
Brooks: And I just wanna make one last comment to reiterate the reason for building this
as a negative economic impact program and using that low to moderate income
eligibility is it reduces the reportable income, the requirements of 1099s and
social security numbers. This is presumed eligibility by the U.S. Treasury, if we're
responding to a negative economic impact. So this was the broadest and most
compliant way to help as many people in need as we can.
Bergus: Thank you for that explanation, Donna. Really helpful.
Teague: All right. So I, I feel like we need to either marinate on that <laugh> or try to
come up with some directives for staff.
Weiner: I mean, I guess my in my inclination right now is to try and make it as easy as
possible in the, in the sense that if you, if essentially you add to the pool, as
people who are pulled out in the lottery, turn out to be Iowa City residents, um,
we would, we, we fund them until we run outta money. Presumably the County
might, since they have a larger pool of money and maybe fewer, fewer people,
they, they would fund county people and then eventually end up funding, Iowa
City people, um, once our money runs out. But yeah, so cuz I think it would, for
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of January 18, 2022.
Page 17
me, it might be a little bit too complicated to sort of hold our money for, for Iowa
City people. So I'm, I'm, whatever we decide, I'm really in favor of the greatest
simplicity that we can convey.
Alter: Well, and that approach seems to go also with reaching the broadest amount of
people, given that the parameters are different and I am right there with Council
Bergus I did not understand the, the, the, so thank you for the explanation. Um,
but it seems now that is, that's a kind of a different ball game. Um, and that being
the case than I think it, it makes sense that this pool is going to the, the eligible
people are going to be much bigger than, than the pool we were envisioning. And
therefore it makes sense for us to be able to help more people as simply as
possible. So I, at least right now I would be in favor of, um, putting it in to the
pool rather than the, sort of the, if/then statements of, we can always return to it
as, um, Councilor Weiner had said, and that we could maybe layer on top, but at
least initially it seems to me, let's just put the money in there and allow it to be,
uh, reaching as many as possible.
Teague: I think one thing we still have to determine is if the City funds can go, uh, to a
non Iowa City resident, that hasn't been totally established. So --
Weiner: Right. But, but I mean, I think, I think we could that that's, that's true. And I also
think that they, that that's probably not administratively that difficult if they are
saying this person isn't, you know, at least until you run through the $1.5 million
or whatever it was that, that this person is an Iowa City resident, therefore their
funds are coming out of the, the, the pool of money that Iowa City gave. Um,
the....
Teague: So with that scenario, I just wanna be clear that if I, if, if the County is running
the program and then the County wouldn't use any of the County funds at the
initial start with the lottery, is that what I understand?
Weiner: I'm saying that the County wouldn't use initially the County funds for Iowa City
residents until we run, until they would run through the Iowa City money. Okay.
For Iowa City and then the County money. I don't know.
Teague: Yeah. I, at least for me, I think, um, we would want to have the County use their
funds with the lottery and then we come on the back end. But, but I think today, if
we can, we've, we've already made the decision. It sounds like for majority of
$1.5, we'll go to the County. Um, and then the next question that we haven't
determined is how we want them to use our money. Is it going to be, they use
their money up front and then after the lottery has been spent, we asked them to
go back and look at all the Iowa City residents that didn't make the lottery and we
give the $1,400. Um, or do we have the $600 on top of everybody that made the
lottery, but even with that, the numbers wouldn't work out that all of our $1.5
would be used.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of January 18, 2022.
Page 18
Harmsen: So I, I think, um, as we entered into this discussion, one of the things that was,
uh, a priority or important for me is to make sure that we're helping the excluded
workers, um, you know, whatever that sort of classification, people who were not
eligible. Um, it sounds like I, I too was a little bit confused, but now that this has
been clarified, that that's one of the requirements, not necessarily all of them. So if
that, with that understood now, um, I'm in favor of the path that still gets us
helping as many of the excluded workers as possible. So ideally I really like the
idea of boosting up our number so that our Iowa City residents who would've
been in this group could have had $2,000. However, if it makes more sense, we
can actually end up on the back end helping as many excluded workers as
possible by saying, we're just gonna kick it in. You know, we'll just basically give
the County the ability to get $1,400 into more people's hands understanding that,
you know, just the, where the population is, we're probably gonna burn through
that, you know, well burn through our $1.5 million and then the County will end
up putting in, you know, covering some additional Iowa City residents. Um, you
know, maybe that's, I mean, I don't know other people understanding that in that
way, that the way to get the most help to the biggest number of ex, uh, people
who haven't gotten any help yet up to this point is to go with the lower number,
but in the broader pool. I mean, that's, yeah, that, wasn't really what I was hoping
we'd end up at. But I, I that's, if that's the mechanism that, that we can get those
people who haven't gotten help, the help they need. I mean, that's what I would be
supporting, not have to worry too much about splitting, you know, uh, trying not
to make the process more complicated and then slowing it down.
Bergus: I think they need to know our kind of dollar amount at the front end, because
that'll determine how many people
Harmsen: Mm-hmm.
Bergus: -- pass through the lottery. So the difference between, you know, again, based on
my math, assuming some administrative costs, but you know, the difference
between 1500 people and 2200 people. So I, I think, yeah, I'm with you, Sean, but
I think the lower amount, more people.
Harmsen: And I think if we got all the way through this first round and we didn't use up
the funds, I mean, I don't know if this might be, you know, this might be not be
doable, but a round two.
Bergus: Mm-hmm.
Harmsen: You know, um, where we could say, okay, well, we end up with this, this much
money left over, all the people. So if, if we use up all the money or we don't use
up all the money, we've gotten through everybody that got in the lottery. So
everybody had gotten something, right. So if we have money left, we, we go until
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of January 18, 2022.
Page 19
the money runs out. If we have money left over and it's a significant enough
amount to help people out, we could say, okay, you know, here's round two. Um,
I, I, I would think we could do that. I mean, I, again, don't know if that's
administratively possible, but that might get us off a dead center here a little bit.
Forsythe: I think it absolutely is because our we're using an electronic system that's gonna
track all the applicants, so we're gonna know who applied. And if we, we, we get
to the, the opening and closing and we have less applicants than, than the pool of
money. That's when you can decide if you want to increase the, the individual
payment or if you wanted to do a second round or op- extend the period for
longer.
Weiner: Well, I mean, actually that's a good point because if you, if you're closing the
applications and you have all the applicants, you're gonna know what the
maximum amount of applicants are, and, and if we have the money to cover it, or
if we would then be able to plus it up based on the money that that's in the pool.
Forsythe: Exactly.
Taylor: Exactly.
Teague: So I wanna make sure that I clarify your position. You're wanting to use City
money from the beginning for the lottery. Is that correct?
Harmsen: I, from what I'm hearing, it sounds like that would be administratively the most
simple, is to just say, here's the $1.5 million, let's get it to as many people as
possible, um, you know, split out at this $1,400 level. Um, and that, that would
capture more of the excluded workers that we've been talking about helping out
than if we tried to get too fancy with, with --
Teague: Okay.
Harmsen: Just, just, just by the speed and then we can get things out faster.
Teague: Sure.
Harmsen: Now the real concern isn't necessarily that we're gonna have money left over.
It's that we're gonna run out before we hit the number of the, um, you know, the,
the end end result. And I think at, at that point in time, you know, maybe we come
back and, and talk with the County about seeing, you know, how, how much are
we running short? And we put in a little bit more and make it to everyone, but
there's no way to know that at this point, for sure. So, okay.
Teague: I, I heard Councilor Weiner and Councilor Bergus agree with giving the money,
um, having it used at the initial pool. Is there anyone else in agreement with that?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of January 18, 2022.
Page 20
Thomas: Yeah, I would support that.
Teague: Okay. Awesome.
Alter: I would as well.
Taylor: I would too.
Teague: All right. So that's the direction that we're gonna give is that the $1.5 million,
um, be used at the onstart of the initial lottery and that will expand opportunity for
everyone in the Council -- in the County at that point.
Fruin: Yep. Understood. Thank you. Great.
Taylor: And I, I would just mention that. I mean, I appreciate the excluded workers and
the list we've gotten and those that have come before us, but I, I would hesitate to
have the community think that it it's just for that group of folks, 'cause I think
we're talking about a broader number of people, those that, that are in need that,
that haven't received any help that might not necessarily be classified as the
excluded worker. So I would be hesitant in, in sort of throwing that term around.
Weiner: I mean, and I, and I think that what was at least, what was just explained to us is
really helpful in the sense that the way that they're able to structure, the fact that
they can structure the program this way reduces the amount of, um, proof and
paperwork and documentation that anybody who's applying has to produce. And
so that's a, a win all around.
Forsythe: That's a great point. And we would say this is an inclusive fund rather than an
exclusive fund. So you're absolutely correct.
Bergus: Yeah. That privacy piece is really important. Thank you for structuring it that
way.
Forsythe. Right.
Teague: All right. Thank you all from the County. Really appreciate that. If nothing else
on this topic, we'll move on to the next one, which is a continuation of our budget
discussion. And I know today we have talk, talk about levy.
Continuation of Budget Discussion
Fruin: Yeah. Um, well, you're right. We do need to in the next week, determine if the
levy that staff has proposed is, um, indeed the max levy that we want to build our,
our public hearing around, which is required by, um, state law. So if you have a
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of January 18, 2022.
Page 21
desire to raise the levy, we probably at least need to be aware of that and
potentially schedule additional session to, um, set what that would be. But, um, I
did want to call your attention after Wednesday's, uh, Capital Improvement Plan
meeting, um, Council directed staff to look at, uh, ways to move the Market -
Jefferson Capital Project from '26 to, to '24. So, um, we, we put together a memo.
It just came in your late handouts, uh, today though. So I'm not sure if everybody
had a chance to read that. If you want, I can walk you through, uh, what we feel
would be the best path forward, but ultimately, uh, you know, if you don't wanna
start there, if you just wanna ask questions, that's, uh, that's your decision as a
Council to make.
Teague: At least for me, I mean, there's a lot of stuff to read here right now. Urn, for me
to give that final direction or feel like I'm prepared....
Alter: I would appreciate a walkthrough.
Fruin: Sure. And, and, um, this would not affect a, um, your, your max tax levy decision
for this fiscal year. I think it's important that we work this out, but, um, this isn't
something that would influence the, the debt. We wouldn't be bonding for a '24
project this year. So, uh, you may have some time to, to work through that. Um,
but essentially, you know, there's a few things to consider when, when moving up
a, a, a capital project a couple of years, um, one is, um, the funding source. So
these are bonded funds. We typically aim to bond between $10 and $12 million
per year. And that gets us a fairly stable, it's kind of our bond forecast modeling
gets us a fairly stable tax rate in our debt service levy. So if you deviate too much
from that 10 to 12, you could put pressure on that tax rate, um, to either go up or
down, depending on what side you were erring on. So, um, to take a two and -- a
$2.6 million project, we can't just put it in '24 without moving something around,
um, without causing a little bit of disruption to our bond modeling. The second
piece is, is staff workload. Um, we build a CIP at kind of a max staff workload.
So to take a large project like this and move it forward, we really need to
deprioritize something else that the, that the staff, uh, particularly the Engineering
staff will be working on. So we have to kind of evaluate those projects and
determine what could, what could slide, um, you've got other projects, you know,
especially as you're starting to look at, um, years '22, '23, and '24. Um, we're
starting to get those, uh, projects under contract for design. So some of these
projects already, uh, have, um, design agreements with them that we're working
on. Other projects may have grant funding tied to them. So some projects may be
a little bit more flexible, uh, than others. Uh, when we looked at this, um, we, uh,
proposed a, a solution that involves juggling, uh, half a dozen or more projects to
kind of smooth all those factors out. So I'd just, uh, real quick walk you through
that year by year, um, and then I can answer questions that you have. But in, in
'23, so this is the year before you were targeting the, the Market -Jefferson project,
we would remove the Dubuque Street reconstruction, and then we would actually
slide a couple of things forward from '24. So we're, um, looking at, um, a fire
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of January 18, 2022.
Page 22
apparatus replacement of over a million dollars and moving that up a year and
then moving up some, uh, money that we had projected for parkland, um,
acquisition as we grow on our west side, um, knowing that well need to probably
acquire some, some parkland out there to serve a growing population. Those
were things that we would really have liked to seen in '23, but we didn't put 'em in
there in our initial proposal because of the bonding constraints. So again, take
Dubuque out and then push a couple things forward. Um, the Dubuque project
would go all the way back to '26, that would kind of fill the, the space vacated by
the Market -Jefferson project. In '24 though, um, because we, we created some
additional capacity by moving that fire, um, apparatus replacement up and the
westside park acquisition up, that created about $2 million in bond capacity. So
that's, that's how we move the Market -Jefferson program up. And then, um, just to
help kind of fine-tune that number a little bit more, we would actually bump back
the Lower City Park shelters and restroom projects, and that's roughly $2.6
million of bonding capacity that would open up then. And in '24, uh, don't have to
do much in '25, but there is a little bit of domino effects. We, we did move those
Lower City Park shelters back to '25, uh, from '24 to create that little bit of
bonding capacity, that caused the domino of the Hickory Hill Park Conklin shelter
restroom project to go back one year. Um, and then in '26, um, that's where the
Dubuque Street project lands. Um, and, uh, that is also where the, um, Hickory
Hill Park Conklin shelter and restroom replacement lands. The, uh, the only
project that would fall out to the unfunded would be the North Market Square
playground. Um, that's in pretty good shape right now. I wouldn't, I, I think you'd
see it introduced again next year in '27, but again, just trying to smooth out the,
the bonding numbers a little bit there. So that's our, that's our thoughts on the best
way to accomplish the Council's objective, if you want to move things up. Um,
the Dubuque Street project is not under contract, if I didn't say that before. That's
one that we're actually negotiating a design contract with right now, we could put
a stop to that and then turn our attention to initiating design on Market -Jefferson.
So another reason why that one, um, works out. I will say, you know, still from a
staff perspective, we feel like the needs, um, are greater for the Dubuque Street
project. We feel like there's, um, more significant utility and surface deterioration
issues on that Dubuque Street corridor, which is why our initial, uh, proposal
included that, um, before Market -Jefferson, um, but delaying it to '26, um, is, is
not a concern and, uh, we don't have a, you know, a significant concern that
you're gonna get a big water main break or anything like that. Um, uh, so I think it
would be a safe move if you wanted to do it.
Thomas: Well, I was, I was the one who initiated this request and, um, you know, since
our meeting on Wednesday, you know, I really, that was one of my focal points
since Wednesday was this, this question. And, uh, you know, as I noted in our
discussion on Wednesday, there are a number of other projects, uh, that concern
me as well. Um, I think it's important with respect to advancing, uh, two things,
really. One is safety, you know, we've been emphasizing the safety aspects of
these projects. The other that I think, um, needs to be emphasized is, is how these,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of January 18, 2022.
Page 23
these streets, um, which, which have their auto orientation to them. Um, we are
after all, essentially, by and large, an auto -dependent city, disproportionately
impact the and transportation choices of youth, persons with disabilities, persons
with low incomes, the elderly, as well as those who just would simply prefer
either walking, bicycling, or taking transit to, to driving. And, and my sense is, is
if that is something, the Council agrees with, the approach we need to take needs
to be a systemic approach. Uh, the, the system is interrelated. Our transportation,
our road systems are interrelated. It's, it's not a matter of improving safety and
addressing the equities on Market -Jefferson; it's really trying to take a, a
comprehensive approach so that we as a City have kind of a coherent, uh, strategy
with respect to meeting those goals. Um, so with, with that in mind, uh, and this is
perhaps something we could address during our strategic planning, uh, exercise,
which I guess will be in about a month, is to try to look at it that way. Um,
because I do feel we are, you know, um, I, I would wanna say perhaps at an
inflection point, uh, with regard to issues of, you know, how do we, as we are
trying with affordable housing, address the inequities that we have in our
transportation systems. Uh, we, we put a lot of emphasis on affordable housing
and, and reason, you know, reasonably so, uh, but the same issues apply to our
transportation systems. They are as exclusionary as our housing policy. And, and
so my feeling is, is we, we just can't look at this on a project by project basis. It's
something we, we need to look at systemically. Uh, those places that have been
the most successful at promoting alternative means of transportation take that
approach. It's, it's not sort of identifying areas within the city where we wanna
improve access and so forth. It's citywide and, and the, the remedies are gonna
vary depending on where you live in Iowa City, but as an overarching approach, it
needs to be a systemic approach. And, and so I'm not personally, you know, I, I
didn't really think of this as, uh, being quite so complicated. I, I'd seen in, um, just
under the street, downtown streetscape plan projects, moved back and forth, their
budgets increased in certain instances, the playground just sort of popped up. I
mean, that wasn't even in the, uh, the streetscape master plan. It was, um, in fact,
we did a resurfacing of the, the playground as a quick fix. Well, that, that re,
resurfacing is gonna have to be ripped up to do this project. So it seemed to me,
we, we, it just, I wasn't expecting it to be quite so complicated, um, because we'd
been making adjustments, uh, just within the streetscape plan it, itself. Um, but at
this point, as I, as I've been trying to emphasize here, is it's not that project. Yes,
that's an important project. And, and thankfully we only have four, one-way
streets, multilane one-way streets in Iowa City. We're not talking about, you
know, a long list of streets, which would need to be corrected. It's, it's really a
very short list. Um, uh, so, so that's, that would be, that's where I'm, I've landed at
this point is, and I, I hope you agree that, um, you know, I, we, we can leave it
where it is, but I hope we, Market -Jefferson, but I hope we understand that we, if
we're really going to be successful, uh, promoting equity and promoting choice
for all our residents in terms of how they get about Iowa City, it has to be a
comprehensive approach.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of January 18, 2022.
Page 24
Teague: The one thing that did come out of the discussion was for the, um, for Market
and Jefferson, there needs to be some community outreach.
Thomas: Right. So that's precisely, you know, um, what I mean, I, I, I, I view the time
between now and whenever we want to start thinking about these projects, if we
agree that we, we really need to look at this in a broader way. Um, and in, and in
fact, maybe that's helpful, you know, if we're gonna be looking at, at Burlington,
if we're gonna be looking at Gilbert, Market -Jefferson, the Dodge -Governor
couplet, um, that we, we think of our, our approach toward, you know, addressing
it to the community in that, in that comprehensive framework, uh, rather than
here's a project we're doing, um. That's just gonna draw a reaction to that
particular project without, you know, that fuller understanding of what I, I would
think we are really attempting to achieve. So it, it gives us in that sense more time
to develop a strategy, um, so that we can be successful with this, because I think if
it's properly framed, we will be. Uh, you know, one thing I, I did look at, um, in,
in preparation for tonight was the, the meeting we had with the Council back in
April of last year, and, um, you know, in my mind there seemed to be some
confusion as to what the intent and benefit of the Market -Jefferson conversion
really was. It really wasn't framed in the way I was describing it. It was really,
um, you know, it was called for in the master plan and the, the Downtown District
endorses it and so forth. But I don't know that we emphasized, uh, accurately what
the real benefits would be for that. Um, and I think to be successful, that's what
we're going, going to need to do.
Teague: I did want to just make mention, um, that, you know, when I look at this and
you're talking about systemic approach and how things are interrelated, um, I, I, I
get the, I get the picture as far as like looking at the big picture. Um, when things
do come down to the organization of CIPs, you know, the interrelated may not be
so much there. Um, although I do believe that staff give consideration to other
projects along the way, like, you know, something may have been postponed
because --
Thomas: Mm-hmm.
Teague: -- of something would be better in place here than, you know, to make it
complete here. I, I, I, I want to at least acknowledge the work that the staff has
done to look at this, I think systemically there's something to be said about them
coming back today and, you know, giving us a path, pathway forward, um, which
I really appreciate. When Council does have our strategic meeting um, I think
that's what we're supposed to be doing, is looking at the, all of the systems, you
know, on some level and trying to create a paragraph <laugh>, that's gonna
encompass, um, how we want to move forward as a city, what our priorities are.
Um, and so certainly I can wait and, um, you know, not move forward with this
and have this a part of the, again, this won't be a part of the strategic plan. Um,
specifically it may come up, um, 'cause strategic plan is bigger than a project, uh,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of January 18, 2022.
Page 25
which we know, but examples come in, into play, um, all the time when you're
talking about a strategic plan. So if the proposal, I mean, it, it, there's something
to be said to at least get this, um, in the hands of the public, because it'll be, I
think 10, 12 years by the time this comes up into the public -- well, at least for
them to have these community --
Thomas: Well, I mean this leaving it where it is, it's 2026. Um, the Dodge Street project
is 2025. So there are two, two major projects, uh, that fall under this program that
I'm suggesting. Um, and the Burlington Street project may not have, could very
likely not have any capital cost. It would be more just a planning exercise. And
the same with Gilbert, Gilbert is not envisioned as a major capital project. It's, it's
just a, you know, a road diet executed by, um, revising the, the lines of paint in
the street. Um, so the two major capital projects that, that at least we've discussed
at the up to this point would be Market -Jefferson and Dodge.
Alter: Can you provide, can someone provide the backstory on Dodge because I'm not
seeing it in here?
Fruin: Yeah. The, um, Dodge -Governor couplet, I don't know if Jason or Scott, Ron, I
can't see who's all back there, but wanna walk us through the Dodge -Governor?
Havel: So the Dodge Street project would be reconstruction of Dodge Street, essentially
from Burlington Street to Governor. So it would be similar in layout to what it is
today. We'd probably look at tweaking it somewhat. Um, another piece of that is
not only pavement, but utility repairs as well. So water main storm, sewer,
sanitary, sewer, that kind of stuff as well.
Alter: So it's basically, it's Dodge, just that chunk that was done with Governor.
Havel: Yep. And --
Alter: -- parallel --
Havel: -- we've gone through and done a functional design. So we haven't started the
preliminary or final design for the project. Um, I guess one thing I would know is
Dodge Street is joint jurisdiction with the DOT. So that does add another layer of,
of complexity or, or coordination there as well.
Alter: Thank you.
Weiner: I mean, going, going back to what the, the focal point of, of this, which is, um,
Market -Jefferson, my understanding when it was initially in the CIP before it
came back on, is that one of the reasons that the Downtown District and others
supported it was because ha-- turning the one -ways into two -ways would really,
um, knit together the downtown with the Northside in many ways, because the,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of January 18, 2022.
Page 26
the, the one, one -ways, uh, people go faster, they're more of a barrier. Um, and
that's one of the reasons that there are, main reason that the Downtown District
supported it. So as a sort of part of, and so I view that somewhat holistically as an
overall, overarching planning goal, which is how do we essentially increase the
walking area, improve the, expand, what we consider to be the core downtown,
um, and, and move forward as a city. So I don't, I mean, I don't feel that strongly
as to when it, when it takes place, but I, that was my understanding of what the
background of it was.
Thomas: It, it also is where our bike lanes are. So, you know, that, that, uh, I think is
another important consideration is, and this is the sort of thing I've been looking at
over the last several days is that, um, when you have a bike lane, you really don't
want it to be on a multi -lane one-way street. Uh, if you were to, if you were to
place it there, there would need to be significant separation. And our, our current
bike lane on Market and Jefferson is not physically separated. So those are the
sorts of, you know, if we're promoting bicycling and we're putting it on a one-way
street, there there's a conf -- we're, we're putting it in a place where there's
inevitable conflict and, and high risk, you know, these, the, the one -ways increase
vehicular speed, uh, so the, you know, the li-- if there is a collision, it could likely
be a fatal collision. So, so those are the, that, that's the other overall lay with
Market -Jefferson is it's, it's part of our bike network, um, that we need to
consider.
Bergus: Yeah, I appreciate John, what you're saying about, um, holistic approach and,
you know, rolling this into our strategic planning. And I think having a little more
time, you know, making sure that Market -Jefferson stays on the CIP, which it is,
you know, back now and having a little more time to kind of frame that all up and
say, okay, how'd all these projects, these bigger, really significant projects that we
know are planned, how do they fit that goal? Are there any, you know, tweaks,
recommendations, that kind of thing, rather than, you know, the moving it up to
'24, I feel like is too rushed like that. I don't feel like we're being intentional and
we can't, you know, kind of pull in what you're talking about if we do that. And
also, I think if the understanding the complexity of this puzzle and that if, if, if it
would mean delaying the Dubuque Street reconstruction, I mean, I think that's one
that people are relying on, you know, happening in fiscal '23 people being, you
know, people on that street. And it is a major undertaking as far as, you know,
the planning of, reconfiguring the traffic pattern and all of that. And, and I think
that one, we know, you know, one of the big issues in that block long
reconstruction is that there is so much vehicle right-of-way <laugh> and so little
pedestrian right-of-way. And that's a lot of, what's going to be changed if I
understand that --
Thomas: Mm-hmm.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of January 18, 2022.
Page 27
Bergus: -- that project correctly. So I think that still fits with the direction that we're
going, but can make sure that that happens at a time that people are already kind
of planning and then move forward.
Thomas: I, you know, I Nancy's out there, <laugh> listening in, you know, that was
certainly not my intention to start re, you know, reprioritizing among the
downtown projects. Um, I mean, that's, that's, that's the sort of discussion that,
you know, would require significant effort on everyone's part to make sure we
were in this reshuffling of the projects that, you know, we, we reach some
consensus on that. Um, I, I, my perception of, of the moving it up, the value of
that is, is diminished if we all agree that there's this larger picture, that this then
gives us more time to, to understand, to prepare ourselves for, and, um, achieve.
Because as I said, if, if we're just doing a piecemeal approach on this, um, the, the
public will be confused as to what are we, what are we trying to say as a city, in
terms of our, uh, priorities with respect to mobility in Iowa City, it, it needs to be
a consistent message. And, you know, the best example worldwide is Holland.
And there are many, many who, and they're in fact, exporting their expertise in
regard to this. And they were in the same position, um, cities in the United States
are 50 years ago, but they made a conscious decision to go in a different direction
and it's a systemic approach. And, um, it made perfect sense to me when I began
to see how it's, it's very important to, to maintain that, that coherency, um, rather
than pockets of, of, um, walkability, which is kind of what we have now.
Teague: I want to get to other budgetary items, unless there's more comment. Um, I guess
maybe we need to, to give direction to staff as to if we're wanting to go with this
revised schedule or are people...
Weiner: Sounds to me like not.
Teague: Just wanna make sure I get a, yep. So there won't be any changes to the CIP and
then other budgetary items. Any desire to, uh, change the levy by any councilor?
Now will be a good time to have that discussion. Seeing no one --
Weiner: I would just say that I'm not willing that I, I'm not particularly interested in
changing the levy right now, because we have to see what the discussion is gonna
be and where, where taxes are gonna end up on the state level after the, after the
state legislative session, because there may well need to be changes next year.
Um, we may need to raise the levy next year, if, if we, if the state's not no longer
gonna produce enough income tax revenue to cover what, what we need to. So I, I
personally favor leaving it where it is for that reason.
Teague: I think is a very pivotal year <laugh> that will be paying attention to, um, 'cause
a lot of changes corning down the pike. Anything else on budget.
Continuation of Meeting Protocol Discussion
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of January 18, 2022.
Page 28
Teague: Going down to continuation of meeting protocol discussions, um, Eric isn't here,
but I did want to just mention that, um, Councilor Weiner and Mayor Pro Tem,
um, and I all met, uh, with Eric and as of now we're, um, we're gonna want to
come back <laugh> and, um, have some presentations, um, by the City Attorney
the next time around. We just didn't get through all of the needed information, uh,
before today. So we'll hold off and come back to that.
Clarification of Agenda Items
Teague: Anything else on, on that, uh, clarification of agenda items. And we will have
the item number 11. I know that Councilor Bergus will recuse herself.
Bergus: Yep.
Teague: That's about it.
Information Packet Discussion [January 6, January 131
Teague: And then information packet discussion January 6th,
Bergus: Um, IP4 and that, just very glad to see the, uh, security deposit assistance, um,
allocation again. So sounds like we blew through those funds and are allocating
more, um, to help with that need. So thank you for that.
Teague: Okay. January 13th and we have some IP items there, right?
Weiner: I mean it, yeah. Looks like there's a couple items there on which we need to give
them direction.
Teague: Yes, yep. So we want to start with the, um, IP5, I believe. No, yes.
Weiner: Yep.
Teague: So the memo from the City Manager.
Fruin: Yeah. Just looking for some direction on timing. If you're ready to jump into that
in the next month or two it's typically when we would start, would be once, once
the budget is more or less, um, uh, done. So late February, early March would be
typically when we start. And, um, I've got a couple things here that I'd like you to,
to consider. One is, um, whether you want a facilitator or not. And, and two,
whether we try to, uh, coordinate with the Better Together 2030 visioning process
sets that's going on. Um, I think that could be really beneficial, um, but wanna
make sure you're comfortable with that. Uh, and then, um, I'd like for, I'd like for
you all to consider a, a larger window for your strategic plan, we've historically
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of January 18, 2022.
Page 29
done two-year plans, but, um, I think moving to a five-year, year plan would be
really helpful, um, be helpful for staff. It, I think it would allow you to think a
little bit bigger in terms of what could be accomplished. And as I look back over
the last 10 years of strategic plans, most of them have just been fme tuned from
every, every two-year period. Um, and so by putting, um, a longer range, uh, to
that timeframe, I think it just may allow us to approach some of these situations a
little bit differently. Um, currently a lot of our focus is what can we get down in
this two-year period? Um, or what can we make substantial progress towards in
this two year period as opposed to thinking a little bit bigger. So, um, any
feedback discussion on those items would be greatly appreciated.
Alter: I just wanna hop in right away to say, I completely agree with looking at a longer
year, uh, strategic planning window. Um, I think five years allows us to do the
kind of comprehensive, more, um, connected and coherent kind of vision. Um,
and it also allows for scaffolding along the way. Um, two years to me does both
feel, and I think in practice end up being a little bit more chunked out into a
project based kind of, um, outcome. Whereas a strategic plan allows you to have
projects that work in service of a vision. So I would be in favor of a five-year
strategic planning window.
Weiner: I, I would agree with that. I also think it would be a, especially since we're
gonna, if we're gonna be looking larger and more comprehensive perhaps, and,
and for some shifts, I think it would be, could be really helpful to have a
facilitator. Uh, and I would just point out that it, whatever do we decide to do with
the 2030 visiting, visioning process from Better Together that ECICOG is also
finishing its, essentially, 2030 visioning process that's gonna be rolled out on, on
March 1st. So it might be worth our while to at least consider those, um, results as
well.
Harmsen: A question if we switch to five years, would that change how often we, we go
in and, and work on the strategic plan or would it stay the same?
Fruin: No you could, um, you can really go in and amend that or refine it, uh, any time
you want. Historically, the councils really revisited that every two years and I
think anytime you get new council members situated, it's gonna be a good, good
exercise to, to revisit the strategic plan. So I don't think it's a, let's do the plan and
revisit how we did in five years. I think you still continue to look at it if not
annually every two years.
Taylor: I would think that'd be important cuz along those lines, I was thinking that too,
uh, as far as the terms of the council and it's like, you could have a totally new
council come in and then they've got five years worth of something that others
have planned for them and they might have different ideas. So I think revisiting it
again is important and it's good to point that out that we can do that.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of January 18, 2022.
Page 30
Bergus: I'm in favor of us using a third party facilitator. I think that would be helpful just
especially if we're broadening the scope a little bit or trying to look a little bigger,
having that kind of fresh professional perspective would be helpful to me. Um,
and I do agree that we should tie in the, the project Better Together 2030
visioning and anything we can learn from the ECICOG process as well. I think
the more, you know, having that understanding of what some of those regional,
um, ideas are, would be really helpful and yes, to five years.
Taylor: I think Councilor Thomas had mentioned that when he and I came on the
Council, oh gosh, six, seven years ago now, uh, we met as a group and it was even
the outgoing and the, and, and the incoming together. Uh, and we did have a
facilitator then to help us with our budget discussions and to formulate our
strategic plan. And, and I think, uh, at first I was thinking, oh, that's kind of a
waste of money, but at, uh, hearing, uh, Councilor Bergus and, and thinking back,
uh, that person, I think it was through the university, someone through the
university seemed to be very helpful in, in helping us to focus and kind of
gathering our ideas together and say, now is this what you're really trying to, to
get towards? So, uh, I would be in favor of that.
Thomas: Yeah. I, I support the idea of a third -party facilitator and, um, the bringing the,
um, aligning our strategic plan with Better Together 2030, I think, uh, the third
item, conceptually, I think the idea of having a more expanded strategic plan
framework, um, makes sense, but I would, I would also, uh, at the same time, I
think want, uh, that strategic plan to be, uh, revisited every year, just to see where
we are with progress on those items. Um, I mean, I, you know, the, the way it's
structured now, it it's a little bit awkward because it doesn't quite align with our
election cycle. And so if you're new coming in, Sean and Megan, you know, the
first shot you have of really, um, seeing things implemented is, is a year and a half
away. You know, it's a, uh, you know, 'cause we're, we're right now approving a
budget that doesn't go into effect until July of, of this year, and it runs through
June of the following year, uh, and so there's, you know, between now and the
end of June is history and, uh, we've already determined, uh, you know, the
budget for the first year, you know, the year after. So, um, you know, it's, it's a
little bit awkward that way in my mind. So it seems to me having that annual
review, uh, is important. I know there were, there were certain items in our
strategic plan that we developed two years ago that we never got to. Um, I think it
might have been useful to have had, uh, an opportunity at least, you know, a year
in to sort of check in to see where are we with with our strategic planning goals.
There may be very good reason why certain ones haven't been addressed, but it, it
would just be an opportunity to look at it in terms of, you know, where things
stand after a year. Um, so I think both the, the broader, the broader concept makes
sense, but I think there need, I would, I would like to kind of formalize a review
period that's more on an annual basis.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of January 18, 2022.
Page 31
Teague: Sound like there is a majority for one, two and three. Um, and I would agree that
on an annual basis it should be, um, reviewed at least just by giving a update. All
right. Anything else on IPS, moving on to IP7, which is the joint entity's agenda
on that meeting. It's gonna be on the 24th of January. It'll be by zoom and it's
hosted by the Johnson County Board of Supervisors. So for the new councilors,
um, we have opportunity to put anything on the agenda. Uh, sometimes, um,
people, entities do, sometimes they don't Iowa City historically has, uh, put
something on the agenda that's for the broader community to kind of be aware or
comment on.
Taylor: I think when this item came up a while back, uh, I'd mentioned that it'd be good
to, to put this on the joint entities. And that was that the opioid crisis, uh,
settlement fund, 'cause I believe that there were a lot of items in there that, uh,
communities could jointly work together on using these funds rather than like
duplicating services. So I think that, uh, it would be helpful to have a discussion at
that meeting as far as what people have in mind.
Teague: I don't know if Sue could kind of tell us if we're at, if we're jumping the gun a
little bit.
Taylor: Okay. Okay.
Teague: Or if we need to kind of wait to get more information on that, um,
Dulek: I'm just not familiar.
Teague: Okay.
Dulek: I, I know there's been discussions between our office and the County Attorney's
office, but I don't know the dis-- I don't know if, Geoff, you know, I don't know
the specifics.
Fruin: No, I, I, uh, obviously you all signed the, the settlement agreement a couple
meetings ago, but um, I'm not aware of any substantive discussions occurring
either internal to Iowa City or, or m collaboration with other governmental bodies.
I, I think it's probably a little premature, unless you just want to indicate that
initial interest to say, hey, a lot of us have probably executed this settlement
agreement. We're going to be getting these funds. Can we pledge to work
together? Um, but to, to get into a level of detail of how we'll spend those is
probably a little bit premature.
Teague: Mm-hmm.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of January 18, 2022.
Page 32
Weiner: I think it's possible that the whole agreement was at least temporarily put on hold
by a court out east. Um, I think it'll sort of get freed up again, but, uh, I think it
may be in limbo right now.
Teague: I think it's a great discussion, but if we can, at least personally, if we can hold off
Taylor: Keep it on the back burner. Yeah.
Teague: Mm-hmm.
Weiner: But I think it would be great to have on, on their, when it, when it gets to be
more.
Bergus: And I, my experience with these meetings is that they're kind of relatively short
and usually not super, I don't know, it doesn't seem like we usually actually have
substantive agreement discussions. So anything that even is putting on the radar I
do think is, is helpful. Um, in my mind I was think about just updates on anything
COVID-related, you know, um, understanding that the school district, I don't
know, like their level of involvement in the, um, the drive-through clinics and
testing that are being, and maybe we'll hear that from Sam tonight too, but I
always think it's helpful to just hear from all the entities of like where we at right
now. So that from an information -sharing standpoint.
Weiner: I think I agree it would be useful to hear that as well as if various entities are
willing to say where they stand on, on ARPA fund decisions, because there are
like, I know some of the entities don't have very large pots, but it's also useful for
them to hear what the others are doing.
Teague: So I hear COVID update and ARPA fund, um, updates from, from cities and it
would just, or municipalities, and anyone can chime in if they want. Anything
else?
Alter: I'd be interested in the spirit of, uh, Council Bergus talked about that these are sort
of like you bring up something in order to follow up with. Um, I would definitely
be interested in fmding out, um, from various entities about, uh, local childcare
solutions, investigations, discussions, um, in order to be able to signal our interest
perhaps in supporting and partnering with, um, work that's already underway from
a number of different, um, the Childcare Coalition is drawing from everywhere in
the county, different entities. So I would be interested in, in putting that forward
just to, uh, be able to signal our interest in, in entering into that conversation.
Teague: I, I think it's a great discussion, but I'm not sure that it would, at least me
personally, if that would be the most, the best place to do it only because I know
that you mentioned the Childcare Coalition and Iowa Women's Foundation seem
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of January 18, 2022.
Page 33
like maybe they can reach out, um, and, and try to get some more substantive
<laugh> type information. Some, sometimes these meetings are really, um, as
Laura would say, they kind of go quick --
Alter: Mmm-hm.
Teague: -- in some manner. And I feel like this is more, this is a more detailed --
Alter: Sure.
Teague: -- discussion.
Alter: Is there a way to at least, I mean, and this is a question to those who have been at
these before, is there a way to signal this interest? So that <laugh>, there's a, I
mean, it sounds like there is, there are a lot of different potential partners theree,
so rather than actually say, could you present us with work that you've been
doing, which is more along the lines of the COVID, um, updates, but rather just to
signal that these are things that, you know, perhaps we can, um, have a
conversation or, or learn more about this at, at a different time, is that possible?
Teague: Um, so --
Alter: I mean, and if this is getting too in the weeds, we can certainly take this, um, you
know, offline, but I just wanted to find out if this is the appropriate forum and if it
isn't then perhaps the next question either here or elsewhere is what, what would
be some, some good directions to, to open that conversation up?
Teague: I mean, childcare is a, is a concern across the board. I, I mean, there, there
certainly could be. Um, that's where I would see like a, maybe the Childcare
Coalition coming and giving, given some type of presentation. But, um, especially
if there was something new corning out through the state or federally some
funding, um, just to make people aware, um, at least that's how I see it. I don't
know that it would be beneficial for people to, municipalities to share updates
unless they have, um, they've taken advantage something.
Alter: Sure.
Bergus: Do we have like a new business that's on that agenda? Cause it seems like, you
know, the, just being able to say, Hey, coming down the pike, at some point, we'd
like to collaborate. My experience in our collaborating with the County on ARPA
just really shows how much intentionality it requires. I think we all were just like,
yeah, well work together. And now we're, you know, so many months into it and
staffs done, you know, almost all the work, we've had three conversations about
it. So I like the idea of kind of flagging, hey, this is an issue that in the future we
wanna work together on, the, district's doing something, the County's doing
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of January 18, 2022.
Page 34
something. The City has talked about that in terms of our strategic ARPA, you
know, expenditures.
Teague: Can we bring, I mean, again, I think we can bring in kind of the Childcare
Coalition or Iowa Women's Foundation to give us like a comprehensive overview
of what's happening?
Weiner: There, yeah, there are a number of players who are, who are really focused on
this, Childcare Coalitionn, Jennifer Banta, um, Dawn, Dawn Oliver Wiand, um,
um, actually Mary Mascher is very, um, Representative Mascher is very involved,
involved in this as well. Um, and, and I think the school district has at least the,
ICCSD has a big potential piece of it. If we eventually step back and look at the
potential for LOST and, and trying to make sure that there's, um, um, universal
pre -K with wraparound care because that all, so there's a lot of pieces. There's a
lot of pieces to it, but so there are a lot of potential, um, uh, presenters.
Teague: So are you thinking with that being said, um, it could be an item and then just
municipalities just jump in or do we, cause I don't feel like the City has an update.
Fruin: Yeah. If we put an item on we're, we're generally expected to lead the discussion
on that. So just hearing you talk what I might suggest, I think you are going this
route, uh, Councilor Bergus, um, try to get some consensus that for a future
meeting, you invite, uh, the Coalition or a group to present and then, you know,
generally explore common interests or areas of collaboration. But, um, I would
frame it like that. This isn't really for today, but we have an interest in this, is
anybody else around the table interested? And if yes, can we invite this guest to
come to our next meeting and the, the, you meet quarterly. So it'll just be a few
months away.
Weiner: And it's gonna be a big, it's also gonna be a big topic at the legislative session.
Again, I feel like a broken record right now, but so there may, it's, it's gonna be a
moving, a moving target in some ways. And I think over the next couple of
months before the, before the follow-on meeting to this one, we'll know a lot
more about what they're going to do and not do at the state level.
Teague: Mm-hm. Any other agenda item ideas. All right. Hearing none. So staff has what
we're doing. There's two.
Fruin: Yeah. I have two updates, COVID updates from governments, ARPA updates
from, uh, governments, and then we'll frame some, some sort of, uh, childcare
teaser in there. If that.
Teague: And, and I do think, correct me if I'm wrong, you're really wanting, um, Public
Health and potentially maybe University of Iowa to give some COVID updates.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of January 18, 2022.
Page 35
Bergus: Yeah. And honestly, Mayor, I was even thinking like, you know, just saying
what the cities are doing. I don't know, does everybody in the joint entities group
know that we still have a mask mandate, for example, I mean, just that kind of
level of information to say here's where we are, what we're doing with our
facilities, programs, that kind of thing.
Teague: Sure. I think we can certainly alert Sam Jarvis, um, to give an update and then
it'll just be an open agenda item for anybody to chime in. All right. Okay.
Council Updates on Assigned Boards, Commissions, and Committees
Teague: Moving on to Council updates on assigned boards, commissions and
committees.
Weiner: Um, well, since I mentioned ECICOG before the, that I'm still part of ECICOG,
just insofar as they're rolling out their version of this visioning, um 2030. So we,
we had yet another meeting the next week. They're, they're getting ready to really
roll out the fmal version, which I believe will, um, be, be likely be a public
meeting in which people can participate. Of course, on a City Council day, it's
gonna be March 1st, um, up at Cedar Ridge, at Cedar Ridge, but I think it'll start
at two. So there's some, some time in there. The thing that I found most
interesting about the last discussion is they were trying to get people to rank a
whole variety of things that had been discussed under different pillars, um, as to
what would be the driving, driver engines for this whole larger region and the,
and, um, it did, it was very interesting to me that the things that people ranked the
highest were the basic, the basic building blocks of, of, of creating a livable place.
They weren't the let's create this a biotech center here, or let's, let's try and pull in
this. They were, let's provide, let's figure out affordable housing, let's figure out
childcare and let's figure out how to make, how to make all our immigrants feel
welcome. Essentially, those were the top three items. So I'm curious to see where
it all, all lands, but I thought it was fascinating. It was really among this, not, not
small group of people from a not small group of counties that, that, that with a lot
of other technical and other possibilities there, those were the top items.
Thomas: And, and what were they? Housing, childcare and what was the third one?
Weiner: Uh, basically creating a, a welcoming place to, to be able to bring the immigrants
M.
Thomas: Mm-hm.
Weiner: So it, sort of put another way, workforce issues.
Teague: I'll just mention that tomorrow I'll be leaving for Washington, D.C. to the U.S.
Conference of Mayors. And typically the Mayor's Innovation Project would
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of January 18, 2022.
Page 36
overlap, um, two conferences at one time, which is typically like 7:00 AM or a
7:30 start all the way to 9:00 PM. So it'd be a little easier, I think this time around
with only one, um, in place, but these conferences do offer, um, experiences from
other cities to present. And the things that you just mentioned, housing, some of
those key things that we are trying to, you know, do better in our own community.
Uh, sometimes there's things that they mention and it's, whoa, this could be very
helpful. So hoping to bring back a lot of new ideas, maybe for our strategic
planning.
Alter: And I got to sit in on my first, um, City of Literature, UNESCO, uh, board
meeting. And, um, the timing of it is fantastic because, um, the, they're in the
midst of, um, looking forward to the One Book, Two Book festival, which is, um,
of young writers in the, um, actually it's throughout all of Iowa, um, and they're
given a fantastic, um, opportunity to, um, express themselves and to be literary.
And it goes all the way from K to 8. I should know this better because I've
actually adjudicated it as, um, part of partnership with ACT, there's a staff of, uh,
writing specialists who get the opportunity to, to read these essays and then
through, uh, a really wonderful rubric that was created, um, to adjudicate the, the
best essays and then the winners read their stuff. And this may all be information
that you already know, but I just had to wax enthusiastic about it. Um,
additionally, they are going to put a skating rink out at Blackhawk, uh, Park,
which is gonna be a really nice way to be able to have kind of some safe
gathering. Um, and some, they've done it before, uh, and they're going to do it
again. So that will be coming up.
Teague: Great. We are at the point of our break and we will be back at 6:00 PM.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of January 18, 2022.