HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-03-22 TranscriptionPage 1
Council Present:
Staff Present:
Others Present:
Alter, Bergus, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Weiner
Davies, Dulek, Fleagle, Fruehling, Fruin, Goers, Havel, Hightshoe,
Jones, Kilburg, Knoche, Nagle-Gamm, Sovers
Miglin, Van Heukelom (USG)
Teague: And we are adjourned into our work session on, for the City of Iowa City on
March 22nd, 2022.
Forest View Relocation Proposal
Teague: And this is going to be, um, it's just around 4:26 and the first item is the
Forest View relocation proposal. And I'm going to ask that our City Manager,
Geoff Fruin, lead us in this conversation.
Fruin: All right. Thank you, Mayor and Council. Um, I have have, uh, slides to get
through, about 10 of our, uh, 10 slides, uh, this afternoon, but I, I really want
to direct your attention and the public's attention to the, uh, more detailed
memo that's in the packet, um, obviously we can only kind of put some
summary bullet points up on these slides. Um, as you know, this is an
incredibly complex issue and, uh, the memo will do a better job of providing,
uh, the needed, uh, background and context on, on everything we're going to
discuss. So, uh, a little bit of, um, uh, background, back in September, uh, of
last year, uh, we presented some staff recommendations for priorities in the
use of American Rescue Plan Act funds, and, uh, the Forest View relocation
was, was mentioned as one of the emergent priorities, uh, during that
discussion. Uh, since that, uh, since that time, uh, we've had the good fortune
to meet with the, uh, tenants a couple of times to better understand, uh, some
of the, uh, um, challenges, uh, that they have and, and, and better understand
from their perspective what the issues are and in their neighborhood, um,
and have had a really good, uh, back and forth dialogue with the tenants, and
I want to just take a moment to, to thank them and, and the staff at the Center
for Worker Justice and the board there for facilitating those meetings. Um,
we're still not probably in a, a hundred percent agreement on, on what this
relocation recommendation looks like. I can tell you, uh, the feedback they
provided was, um, very meaningful, uh, and, and did help us understand
things a little bit better, and some of that feedback is incorporated into the
final memo that, that you saw. So, um, the memo goes into detail on the, uh,
the, the redevelopment project itself, uh, we've been talking about the
redevelopment of the Forest View area, which I will say, when I say that, I
mean, more than just the, uh, manufactured housing part, but the, the larger
73 -acre, uh, ah, parcel of ground out there all the way back to 2015. So, um,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of March 22, 2022.
Page 2
it's, it has an extensive history and, um, some of those summaries are up, up
there, but again, I'd reference, I'd have you reference the memo if you want to
learn a little bit more, uh, about that, uh, about that project history. Uh, the
important thing to note, that is in 2019, the Council, uh, did approve a
conditional zoning, uh, agreement for the site. And basically what, what a
condition zoning agreement says is before a building permit can be, uh,
obtained, um, these conditions, uh, have to be met. Uh, so it was, it was, uh, a
very project specific type of document. And, uh, I want to go through some of
those, uh, those bullet points with you. So you understand back in 2019, what
the expectations were, uh, the shared expectations were from the tenants,
the developer, the City, and the larger community. Um, as you know, there
was, um, uh, a plan to build approximately 57 new modular homes in a
neighborhood, uh, and, uh, the, a conditional zoning agreement, outlined
conditions related to the design of those homes, uh, and actually provided,
um, the pathway, uh, for residents to transition from the existing, uh,
manufactured housing park into this new Forest View neighborhood, uh,
with the ability to build equity, starting at the current lot rate lease that they
were paying so that they would kind of transition into these new homes
under the same, uh, rent structure, and then those rents would, would
gradually increase and, and, uh, during which time they would build equity
and eventually have the opportunity to purchase, uh, the home, if that was a
goal of theirs. Um, the re, the conditional zoning agreement anticipated three
different types of replacement housing, um, the first being what I just
described this new Forest View neighborhood with 57 modular, uh, housing
units at the time at, at the time in 2019, they were far more than 57, uh,
mobile home units, uh, in existence. So there was also alternatives outside of
the 57, uh, planned homes, and that was multifamily property on that same
redevelopment site, and then also offsite, um, assistance. So if a resident did
not, uh, or, or saw a, a better opportunity somewhere outside of that Forest
View redevelopment area, they would've had the ability to, um, uh, obtain
seven, $7,200 per household to assist with that, uh, relocation. Um, certainly
the, a conditional zoning agreement was a lot more detailed than what I just,
uh, described, but that's the, that's the basic expectations. Uh, the conditional
zoning agreement, um, also required the execution of an affordable housing
agreement. So those general terms that I just described were just that they
were very general. Um, certainly when you're getting into the issue, you, uh,
you can anticipate, uh, a lot of details, uh, that, that had to be worked out to,
to figure exactly how folks would transition, how they would elect to what,
uh, of the three housing choices, uh, they preferred, um, and that was a
condition of the, uh, of the conditional zoning agreement was to, um, uh,
execute an affordable housing agreement that you all would've approved
prior to getting that building permit. That was one of those, those issues. Um,
those conversations stalled back in late 2019, we weren't really, weren't
getting anything from, uh, the owners, uh, uh, that would suggest they were
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of March 22, 2022.
Page 3
moving forward on the development of that affordable housing agreement,
so that was never, uh, never executed. Also, they, they lacked a traffic study,
um, uh, that was required, and, uh, there was still some, uh, uh, platting that
needed to be done as well. So they, they, they still had several steps they had
to go before they could have pulled that building permit. Um, I think we all,
uh, know now, and it's, uh, it's a disappointing realization, but, but the
realization is the project's not moving forward. Um, uh, and since 2019,
we've seen a great reduction in the number of households actually living in,
uh, the Forest View, uh, neighborhood. Uh, we estimated at the time of the
conditional zoning agreement, there were maybe 90 to 100 units, uh, last
estimate that I had received from the tenants, uh, out there now is that it's
probably between 50 and 60 right now. So a very sharp decline in, uh, um,
the number of, of units out there. We've seen, uh, I'd say accelerated
deterioration of the area. I think everybody anticipated that this
redevelopment project would happen. The owners were investing a lot of
money into plans, uh, so, so everybody felt this was going to move forward,
as such the, the upkeep of the common areas of the private infrastructure
have not occurred. And of course from a resident standpoint, you're going to
be hesitant to put money into your home, uh, knowing that it's a, it could be a
very short term, uh, specifically a matter of months, um, uh, type of a living
arrangement. So we've seen kind of that dual, um, uh, dual disinvestment.
Nobody's investing in those individual units, the owners aren't investing in
the park, and as a result, um, you're seeing, uh, accelerated deterioration
there. There's been some generous community partners to step up and try to
help, um, winterize units the last two, um, seasons, uh, the City has sponsored
those efforts, uh, financially. In 2020, it was the Iowa City Federation of Labor
and the Center for Worker Justice, and then this year we're working with
Habitat for Humanity, uh, uh, on this, on this, should say on this past winter.
Um, clearly that's not a sustainable solution, you know, that's, that's a true
band-aid approach, and, and we can't continue, uh, to do that, frankly, the, a
lot of the units out there, um, are, are well beyond that kind of, um,
temporary solution. So there's a couple of, there, we wanted to make sure
you are aware of some history that the City's had with relocation efforts. Um,
we don't have a whole lot of history, but we do have some recent history that,
that, um, uh, could give you a, a kind of some guideposts, if you will. In 2016,
um, there was sudden displacement in the, what was known as the Rose Oaks
housing development, that's now known as The Quarters, um, and, uh, after a
lot of Council consideration, uh, the City Council at the time authorized one
pi, one time payments of $250 to each household that had a valid lease at the
time of that displacement. Total in City, uh, City investment, um, was around
$34,000, and then in addition, uh, we also funded some translation services
and contracted with Shelter House for some case management. Uh, a couple
years later, uh, during a rezoning on Prairie du Chien Road, uh, we had the
Hawkeye Trailer Court, uh, relocation, and as part of, uh, that rezoning, uh,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of March 22, 2022.
Page 4
the City Council stipulated that there'd be a $4,000 relocation payment, uh,
for those residents that were living in that, uh, mobile home park, and that
cost was split between the developer and the City, um, at $2,000 each for a
total of four. And then there was also some case management, uh, assistance
that the City paid for, and it was provided by, uh, the Shelter House. So those
are the two recent examples where the City directly, uh, got involved. Um, uh,
another one that, um, is detailed in the memo is the federal, um, relocation,
um, I'm sorry, the Federal Uniform Relocation Act, uh, often referred to as
URA. Um, that provides a methodology for relocation, um, that I think's
important for, for you to understand. Um, it, it would apply if there were
federal dollars, if it was a federal project that was causing the displacement,
or if the City received federal dollars and were, were doing something that
caused the displacement, this is the law that would govern that situation.
Um, that is not the case here. Um, we are, we are looking at a strictly
voluntary situation. The City does not have, um, a legal, um, requirement to,
to step in with relocation here, but nonetheless, we can look at the URA as, as
a potential model to use. That's detailed in the, um, in the memo, if you want
to see kind of specifics on how that works, but the, the, the basic logic is you
take what the current rents are, you look at what a comparable, uh, unit
would be, or whatever leased unit, um, that the resident has secured. You
take that gap, you, you ti-, you multiply that by 42 months, and that's the
assistance, except that the assistance is capped at $7,200. So that's the max
assistance that you would get under the federal URA. And, uh, that number
should sound familiar because that was the number that was contained in the
conditional zoning agreement for those homes that may potentially move
offsite, um, again, so that conditional zoning agreement said, if you're going
to seek housing outside of the Forest View area, your assistance will be
$7,200, borrowed directly from this, uh, federal legislation. Again, you have
the flexibility, if you choose to move forward with the relocation program, to
craft things, uh, any number of ways, uh, depending on how you do that, uh,
we may have to look at different funding sources or, or modify things a little
bit, but, uh, because this is voluntary, you do have, uh, the ability, um, to, to
be creative in how you pursue this. So some key issues that, uh, you all will
have to discuss, and staff is here to kind of help you walk through that.
Number one is the amount of assistance, what is going to be a meaningful
amount of assistance that will truly help residents, uh, uh, move into safer,
uh, uh, housing. The funding source that we're going to use, uh, we, we
certainly, uh, would like to maximize use of the American Rescue Plan Act
dollars that we've received, uh, and depending on the program parameters
that you set, uh, we may have to find supplemental sources, uh, if, uh, if
needed. Eligibility is a big question, who's, who's eligible for this is it, uh,
everybody living there now, uh, is it, uh, folks that were living there back in
2019, how big is that pool of eligible residents is something we'll have to
discuss. The relocation timeframe, um, how long can will you provide for, uh,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of March 22, 2022.
Page 5
someone to, to relocate, uh, currently, right now, the owners would have the
ability to close the park in 60 days. That assumes that there are no, uh, leases
as far as we know, they're all month-to-month leases, or that, there may not
be actually written leases at all. So that would be a 60 -day timeframe. The
federal URA allows, uh, provides a 90 -day timeframe. So we'll have to
discuss, do you want to use, you want to look at that URA standard or, uh,
you'll see staff recommendation is, is that more time is needed than 90 days
to, to give people, uh, a better opportunity to explore all options. And then
finally, we want to talk about any future affordable housing that may occur.
Um, obviously we, we do hope that at some point development, uh, is, uh, on
this, uh, is realized on this site and we know the expectation will be that, uh,
there'll be significant affordable housing when that development, uh, comes
forward, and we want to talk about, uh, you know, what right, if any
residents, uh, currently in Forest View might have to some of those housing
opportunities in the future. Okay. So, um, I'm going to walk you through
staffs relocation proposal. I know it's a bit of a broken record, but please
refer to the memo for, for some of the details. The summary points are, are
right here. Uh, staff is per, uh, um, proposing that, uh, the eligibility, uh, date
back to September 1 of 2021, so last fall. Um, September is the month in
which we presented our ARPA recommendations to you. And, at which time,
um, the concept of Forest View relocation, uh, was, was floated. Um, we do
believe that, uh, the, uh, least intrusive path forward and the, the most
effective path, path forward is for, excuse me, um, income, uh, verification
and the, the, uh, dollar amount in the American Rescue Plan Act, um, is
$40,626. So if, if a household made more than that amount, they would not be
eligible unless they may be eligible for other federal assistance programs. So
there's a whole list of federal assistance programs, whether it's food support,
um, insurance support, things like that, that, uh, someone may be eligible for,
even if they're not enrolled in that program, we can check to see if they're,
they're eligible despite having a higher income, and that, that could still make
them eligible for, uh, this relocation program. We believe, uh, actually
encouraged by the Treasury is, uh, self -certification of income. So we think
we can, uh, uh, develop a, a very simple process for residents to self -certify
their income, and we will have to prove, uh, residency, uh, but we would look
to do that in a, in a simple, straightforward, uh, manner. The, uh, staff, uh, we
are proposing relocation assistance, including a moving allowance of
$15,750. Um, we, uh, utilized the, um, uh, the, the federal or, uh, Uniform
Relocation Act methodology, but we essentially lifted that cap that, that cap
of $7,200, we didn't feel was, um, realistic, uh, uh, to use in this situation
where you have probably some of the lowest rents in Iowa City. It's our
understanding that the lot rents remain at $310. That is very low, uh,
compared to what other housing opportunities would provide in our market.
So we felt like, uh, um, uh, we needed to bump that up and you can see we've,
uh, almost doubled what that cap, uh, is. And our recommendation is
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of March 22, 2022.
Page 6
$15,750. You can see the calculation actually in the, in the memo. Based on
some feedback from the tenants, um, we would, uh, think it's reasonable to
provide some of that money up front. So that could be used for, uh, any
number of things, could be security deposits, could be first month rent, uh,
anything, uh, moving expenses, uh, that, that, uh, may need to pay, be paid
before actual move -out date. And then the balance or 75% would be paid, uh,
upon move -out. And we are looking, uh, or recommending to you a December
9th, move -out deadline for this, really looking ahead to that winter and trying
to get as many people out, uh, uh, by December 9th as possible. Again, it's
important that I just reiterate this a couple of times, the City cannot force
anybody to move. Um, the owner certainly could at some point, but the City
does not have standing to, to force somebody. So this would be a voluntary,
uh, a voluntary, um, program. Um, and there is clear, clearly a risk that even if
we looked at this December 9th, uh, move -out deadline that the owners could
choose, the owner could choose to, um, uh, close the park earlier. I don't
anticipate that that would be the issue, but we have to, we have to think of,
we have to know that that scenario could be out there. Um, certainly we
know that there's a lot of troubles with private infrastructure. You could have
a major infrastructure failure out there, um, that would, uh, perhaps, uh,
move, uh, move folks in that direction. So that's a summary of the, the staff
relocation proposal. Obviously there's a, a lot of details, um, uh, that, that
need to be discussed with this, but hopefully that gives you, um, good
indication of where staff is. Regarding the future of affordable housing onsite,
um, we are trying to do everything we can as staff to ensure that, um,
whatever comes of Forest View in the future, and that's likely with a new
ownership group, but we don't, we don't know that for sure, includes
significant affordable housing. We don't want to lose sight. That that was a, a
kind of key cornerstone of the redevelopment proposal. A lot of the density
that was approved back in 2019 was done so because this, the City knew that
we were also getting, um, uh, uh, significant investment in affordable
housing. So we want to work with the current owner, um, or future owners,
uh, on, on making sure that that, uh, affordable housing commitment is
honored in whatever, uh, proposals come forward. Uh, there's kind of two
different scenarios we're, we're going down. Uh, one might be a land
dedication from the current owners. If we can get the current owners to
dedicate the land that was going to be the new Forest View neighborhood
then the City could, could control that, uh, could control the future of that. We
would have the ability, uh, to develop affordable housing in a way that we
thought was most effective, uh, and most beneficial for the community.
Obviously we cannot compel the owners to do that, um, but they are open to
those discussions. And, uh, I, I fully expect that we'll continue to, uh, discuss
that option with them. If they, uh, decide that, you know, the best thing for
them is to, to sell to a new owner, then we would lean on that 2019
conditional zoning agreement and, and with, with, uh, any new owners and
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of March 22, 2022.
Page 7
say, this is an expectation of the community. We realize that the market has
changed and this exact proposal is, is not, uh, viable in this day and age, but
with whatever you put forward, we expect, uh, a similar, uh, affordable
housing commitment will be reflected in that future proposal. And I think, uh,
you know, we would certainly do our best to, to realize that with whatever
ownership group, uh, came forward on this property in the future. Um, I, I do
have reservations of making commitments to the Forest View residents
about their ability to transition into that future affordable housing if and
when it happens. Um, one is because I think it's really important that the
residents make their housing decisions now, without that, um, potential out
there. I'd hate for them to, to make decisions thinking, again, that there could
be a housing option for me in, in another year or two or three at this site.
Frankly, they've, they've been given a lot of hope, uh, over the last five or six
years, and it hasn't materialized. And, and, and, and that's, um, uh, you know,
I'm not pointing fingers or, or anything like that. These, these, these issues
are, are, uh, developments like this are incredibly complex and it, it's not
uncommon, that very complex projects don't move forward. But the reality is
they've had a lot of hope and I, and I don't feel like we have the ability today
here to extend that hope. I do think the Council can say when that time
comes, when we know what that affordable housing situation looks like, and
we know what funding sources might be there, uh, we know whether we own
it, or we don't, um, that we can explore that opportunity, but I think you need
to be really careful about making guarantees or promises on first right of
refusal. You could end up making achievement of that affordable housing, uh,
a lot more difficult, because it could eliminate some funding sources or, or
otherwise constrain, um, different options that otherwise might be, um,
beneficial for the community. So to, to, to wrap up, um, you know, this is one
of those examples where just because something was approved, uh, you
know, a rezoning is approved by Council, um, the project doesn't always
move forward. As I just said, oftentimes the more complex the project is, the,
the tougher it is to actually get the financing and move things forward. And,
and unfortunately, uh, you know, that's led to a disappointing situation here
where a, a vision that was you, un, you know, unanimously supported by a
Council, was largely supported by the community, the tenants and the owner,
uh, just wasn't able to, um, to get to the finish line. Uh, the existing CZA, you
know, I, I can anticipate, uh, folks just saying, well, you've got the CZA, just,
just use that, kind of force anybody into that development, uh, proposal. The
reality is that that is, is not likely viable. Um, that had a lot of commercial
space, it had hospitality space, uh, and the markets have changed drastically.
If you were to take a hard line and just say that CZA is it, and that's what
we're going to, uh, lean on, uh, for the foreseeable future, you just have to
realize you're not going to see development, and that park will eventually
close, and that will sit vacant. And there's, um, there's challenges that, that
provides not only, uh, with, with the current residents, but as you know, a
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of March 22, 2022.
Page 8
major component of this project was flood resiliency for Iowa City and
getting that secondary access, uh, from the Peninsula neighborhood. So I
think there is an interest, uh, for the City to want to see development move
forward there, um, uh, but we're going to have to expect, it's going to be a few
years. Just as this Forest View project started in 2015 and didn't get the last
rezoning it needed till 2019, you could see another project come forward that
takes an amount of time to, to get through. Hopefully not, but, uh, we have to,
we have to expect that that's a possibility. So, uh, in the memo, I left you with
a couple of, um, concluding questions there. These are guidelines for you. I
think this is some, some of the things that staff identified that would be really
helpful for you to talk about, um, you don't have to follow these questions.
You can, you can carry your discussions, how you best see fit, but maybe
refer to those to make sure we're covering these areas. Anything you decide
to do will be memorialized in a formal resolution at a later date. So, um,
certainly any, any guidance you can give today is helpful, but understand
you're not making any final decisions today. That vote will come, uh, down
the road. And if you need multiple work sessions, you know, you can
certainly schedule those. Uh, this is a, this is a tough issue to tackle in, in one
night. So with that, I'll just, uh, I'm going to take my seat. I can still answer
questions, um, but I'll turn the discussion over to you, Mayor.
Teague: Thank you, Geoff, for taking us through a lot of information right now. And,
um, I do want to welcome everyone that is here present and, and, uh, that's
present in this building today. Council, I just open it up to us to just kinda
engage in conversation, and I will also, um, just reiterate, um, we certainly
can go anywhere with the discussion, but I think some of the key things that,
um, we can start to discuss is the amount of assistance, the funding source,
the eligibility, timeframe to move, as well as the future affordability, um, on
this property or the future of housing, affordable housing on this property,
Alter: If I can just leap in.
Teague: Yeah.
Alter: If I can just leap in, I think that, um, in many ways, discussing eligibility is a
good first move, because then that leads kind of into then us being able to
talk about, um, sort of the amounts. I'm open to other suggestions, but it
seems at least in that kind of sequence, it, there's a certain logic to it. And I
guess with that also, I'll just put my first foot forward and say that, um, pretty
simply, I, I honestly believe that, um, while the City is grappling with a lot of
different parts to this and, and the, and money as well, I ultimately think that
we need to honor, uh, the original, uh, agreement that was entered into in
2019, um, in terms of the original, uh, tenants who entered into and fostered
this agreement.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of March 22, 2022.
Page 9
Taylor: I will get to my opinion on some of those questions that you posed in our, in
our memo. But I had a few things that I, I wanted to say. Um, I have to admit
since I've been there since day one, it's been, it's been very disheartening, uh,
for me to see that the residents, uh, of Forest View, uh, have had to live
through yet another winter in, in that mobile home court. And I want to
thank the Carpenter's Union, the Teamsters, Habitat for Humanity, and the
many others for their efforts to provide some of the needed repairs. But
these, as we know, were only temporary fixes and not really viable long term
solutions. I, I also want to say that, um, and for those of you out there are
listening in, I, I admire each and every one of these residents and their
families for the strength and courage that they have shown through this very
long process. I can't believe that it's taken this many years, uh, and we're still
back to square one, basically. Um, on page seven of the memorandum in our
packet, it stated that there is no legal obligation to pursue a relocation
package, uh, however, in staffs view, such action is prudent. And if by
prudent, you mean, wise and sensible, I, I agree. We need to treat this as a
matter of extreme urgency. These individuals should not have to continue to
wait for what was promised to them. They should not have to worry about
the possibility of going through yet another winter in their current homes or
their infrastructure collapsing. We as a City need to show some integrity and
do what we can to help fulfill what was promised to these individuals. They
need financial help for whatever it would take to relocate to a safe and
affordable home. And they should not have to jump through a number of
hoops to receive it. The question of eligibility has come up about those
persons who moved from the court, uh, after the CZA was signed and before
the September, uh, of last year date. Uh, my belief is that they should still
qualify to receive at least some compensation for having to have had to leave
their home. For all we know, their homes were just not livable and they had
to leave as soon as possible. They should not be penalized for that. We just
need to do the right thing as a City for each and every person that has been
struggling through this. That's all.
Bergus: I guess I just have a, a preliminary contextual kind of, uh, framing comment,
which is regardless of where this conversation goes tonight, cuz there are so
many interdependent and complicated issues in my mind. I just want to
acknowledge and celebrate the fact that we're here talking about a
collaboration between the City, uh, led by our staff, and those tenants, those
residents who have worked so hard and so long, and who came with a joint
application with the property developer, um, when, at the time that the
conditional zoning agreement was entered. So wherever we land tonight, I
think we should acknowledge and celebrate the fact that we're talking about
significant investment from the City to honor something that was not our
responsibility to do right by those who work so hard to try and, um, have a
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of March 22, 2022.
Page 10
path forward for affordable housing when their houses were deteriorating.
So again, I, I'm not going to take a position on any particular thing at this
stage. I want to kind of hear how the conversation goes, but I do, I do just
want to make sure we're framing it that way, as I know we're going to nitpick
a million things go forward.
Teague: Also wanted to acknowledge, uh, alongside with you, uh, about the tenant
association and the City, how collaboratively, um, they, the tenant association
expressed, uh, that they've been working with the City. Yesterday, um,
Councilor, um, uh, Taylor and Councilor Harmsen and I, um, was it yesterday?
Taylor: Sunday.
Harmsen: Sunday.
Teague: Sunday. Okay. Sunday we were, um, over at the, over at Forest View and um,
we actually had the opportunity to, to uh, walk through the neighborhood as
well as, uh, talk to some of the tenants that were present and they gave the
City an award, which we accepted on behalf of the City. And what they really
said was thank you for listening and working with us. And I, I think that's a
great testament, um, to the collaborative efforts that the tenant association
has been having. And so, as for me, since I am talking now, um, I'll, I'll tell you
that it was, it is humbling, you know, to, um, walk, and see, uh, the need, um,
to be in a more livable, um, environment, but it was also great to see the
hope, uh, that was expressed by everyone there. The community spirit was
very evident in so many ways, even through the good food, um, that was
present and all that good stuff. But, um, as I think back to this and I was a
new Councilor here in 2018, when this came before me and it was all new,
but I remember the Council room being filled, uh, with residents and they
came and they made their case, uh, to us and just like Councilor Bergus just
mentioned, they were successful in being co-signers, um, with the
developers. And that was such a great feeling and so much excitement. But
that soon, you know, has, uh, kind of been dimmed. 57, new mobile home,
um, modular homes is what was expected. Um, everyone was excited to, uh,
have the opportunity to lease -to -own the properties. And you know, that now
is definitely, uh, faded away. You know, I, I do need to be, um, reiterate and
reiterate and reiterate that the City don't have a legal obligation. Um, but I
also want to iterate and iterate that we, I personally feel, and I can tell you
that my colleagues do as well feel morally that we do care for each other and
we want to have a discussion and we may not always see eye to eye and
agree to things 100%, but I believe that we can as a Council and as, um,
residents find a way to move forward, um, in unity. And so as I am, you know,
thinking about this, I'll tell you that, um, I, I do have some, some thoughts and
some position statements that I think, um, I'm comfortable kind of sharing at
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of March 22, 2022.
Page 11
this point. Um, eligibility, I think is, you know, a good starting point, um, you
know, who, who is eligible. Um, I don't know, um, at least for me that we need
to get into how much money individuals make, um, out there, personally. Um,
and so the, for me, I think we take that off the table, personally. If, if someone
was out there, I'm okay with, um, September 1st, last fall for various reasons
and, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was
the relocation plan when it was $7,200, um, at the time that the agreement
was created, it was for anyone that had it to move once the plans move
forward. I don't recall it having, um, been for past attendees or residents of
the community. Um, so as a baseline, there's still room for negotiation and
conversation. I, I'm comfortable with the September 1st that's when we
started to have the discussions, um, of our, you know, with our, ARPA funds
and that type of stuff. Um, as far as, um, timeframe to move, I think that that
can certainly be, uh, a moving target. We don't know where the developer is
as far as a timeframe. I, I don't, uh, know that the tenant association has
officially heard when the park will close. Um, so I think that can certainly be,
um, a moving target. What I do know is, um, you know, the need to, um, move
for many is very vital. So if I don't focus in on the timeframe, I think focusing
in on the amount of assistance and when it's available, it becomes more
important than the timeframe. And so as a, as a baseline, the $15,750
thousand is what the City, uh, staff has laid out for Council to consider. And
it's not a, um, you know, a final place, but I do, I, I saw how it was all laid out
as to how they came up with that figure. The $7,200 was the original amount
with the relocation plan. And so the $15,750, I am comfortable with. Um, the
funding source, I certainly think that we have the opportunity to use ARPA
funds, and I would support that. Um, when it does come down to the future of
the affordable housing on the property, I think there are so many factors that
go into what's going to happen. Will the developer actually give the, um,
property to the City, will the developer keep it himself or keep it themselves?
Will they sell it off? It does have that affordability, you know, catch on it. Um,
and so, you know, I think that's where the Council, um, does have some
latitude when a project come before us where that affordable piece is
certainly there. I think the part about ensuring that, um, the current residents
of Forest View neighborhood have first op, um, as much as I would love that
idea and love to make that stipulation. I sit here with the reality that the
tenants have been so courageous in, um, all of their efforts to, to date that I
don't want to be in a position where, cuz we don't know when this will be
here. There could be a totally new Council, uh, when this project come up.
And so I don't want to set up, um, the hopes to a degree where it is totally
dim. So for me, I think, um, the future of the affordable housing, you know,
who would be there, um, I'm not comfortable at this point, um, saying that it
would be for the Forest View residents as first right to refusal. Um, but with
that being said, I do think that, um, the affordable rates are going to be very
important and whichever Council is here during that time, um, will have to
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of March 22, 2022.
Page 12
really key in and, and be zoned in to really respect all the hard work that the
Forest View, uh, tenant association has laid, the foundation that they laid, I
think is going to be, um, a great opportunity for this Council to have a, a
standing, uh, ground, uh, from the start. And so even though right now in this
moment, I not supporting that, I, I do believe that the hard work of the tenant
association, um, gives the Council, um, a, a good baseline moving forward
with whatever project comes before us. So for me, I know that this isn't us
voting on anything, but I, I wanted to get out my thoughts so that my fellow
Councilors can hear. I do see some of our, um, uh, Forest View Tenant
Association members here. Um, and again, I, I so appreciate all that you all
have done and, um, and will continue to do.
Harmsen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I'll go ahead and, unless someone wants to
jump in first. Um, first of all, I wanted to, uh, say thank you and echo some of
the things that the Council member, uh, Taylor has said and Alter and Bergus
and, and Mayor Teague about thanking the people that have worked so hard
for so long to try and make Iowa City a better place, um, you know, in
general, as well as for this, the residents of Forest View, uh, um, members of
the community member of the Forest View, uh, previous and current Council
members and, and City staff all have worked well. It is nice to be in a position
where we are here, fine tuning, how we're going to help people and not
arguing whether or not we should be doing that. We've, we've answered that
question, um, I've lived in a lot of places and covered a lot of City Councils
and I would be willing to say that it would be a very different discussion in a
lot of places I've lived before. Um, uh, kind of going through and kind of
running through the, the list. Um, I think I'll just kind of follow the Mayor's,
uh, lead. Uh, I agree, uh, taking the income off the table, it makes sense. I, I
think when we talk about who qualifies, uh, figuring out a way not to go
through all of those steps, if we can streamline it, they'll make it, you know,
hopefully simpler for City staff, but also, you know, let's face it. If you're
raising a family and your, your household income is $41,000, you're not
rolling in it, um, you know, and to kind of split those hairs just seems kind of
cruel to me. So, so I, I agree with that. Um, I actually think we should, we can
cover back further. Uh, I kind of agree with, uh, uh, Councilman Taylor and I
think Alter, maybe said this as well. Um, going back to the original date, um, I
know I was looking at it and I don't know if, if anybody else this was shared
with anybody else. I don't know, but, uh, a letter, even from our, our previous
City Attorney, a letter that was actually to the original developer, which
basically indicated that the, this should go back to the, the, to the date, the
CZA was, um, was, uh, uh, instituted was passed. In terms of, it was actually a
question similar to this, who would get that $72,000, sorry, $7,200, gotta
remember where to put that decimal point, uh, moving relocation. So even
though we're talking about a different amount now, I think there's some
precedent for even the City's involvement looking at that is an important
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of March 22, 2022.
Page 13
date, uh, to fix on. Um, and so I th--, you know, I would certainly be, be, uh, uh,
supportive of the idea of let's look how we can get that back, in what ways
and what mechanisms or combinations of funding sources, uh, if we have to
do a different funding source for anybody who moved to say pre-COVID, um,
you know, maybe that's something that has to be done. And so that would be
something that I would support looking into that, um, you know, using the
ARPA funds and looking back further than September, because we do see
that, that, you know, in that certainly since COVID has started, um, that
neighborhood has been impacted in a way that has been sort of like this, uh,
um, microcosm of, of society, but all of it located like everybody there was
affected. It wasn't a part of the neighborhood, it was the entire neighborhood
that was impacted. And so the argument about looking at the neighborhood
as a, as a whole, as sort of a package makes sense to me, um, I think that's
arguable, um, supported. Um, uh, in terms of the, uh, amount, I think if the,
uh, we'll hear right later, I'm sure we'll hear from some members and we've
heard from some members of the, of the, uh, residents' association, uh, but
for those kinds of details, if they're comfortable with it, I'm certainly
comfortable with that. Um, uh, you know, uh, in terms of the, uh, uh, the split,
25 up front to help them with moving expenses and the rest after the move. I
think that sounds like something that's been negotiated and that, I'm
supportive of that. Um, again, what I like about this is a lot of these issues
have already been worked through with City staff and, uh, the residents and,
and their allies. And so, um, so that's, that's good. So we're not just making
stuff up, we're actually doing this part of a, an ongoing collaborative process.
This is just the part in front of the cameras. Um, and so, yeah, I, so I, I, I think
all of those things. When we get into the issues of the future of, of the
development, um, you know, I don't know that that's as pressing of an issue
tonight. Cause I think we really, in my mind, uh, the first issue is to make sure
that people that need to get into safer housing get that funding and know
they can do that, or if they have had to relocate, but they're struggling to get
by, that we get them that help too. And so we kind of get them, everybody
that, that has been impacted from Forest View onto solid ground. So to me,
that's, that's the priority. Um, looking ahead to the future development, um,
maybe, you know, I, I would love to be able to, to give the, the same
guarantees that they've had all along. If for some reason we think we can't do
that, and I'm not convinced that we can't, but if, if we think that, perhaps we
can do something like guaranteeing a seat at the table, um, so if decisions are
made that we're not, you know, that, that they're being made with the same
people who are going to be most directly impacted and have been most
directly impacted since day one. So that's kind of my starting point, um, on
some of those. And of course, like I said, you know, we'll be getting the
benefit of some more input here. I'm sure. Uh, um, at the beginning of our
next meeting. So that's, that's kind of where I'm at.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of March 22, 2022.
Page 14
Thomas: Well, I, I, um, certainly I'm sympathetic to what everyone has said. Uh, you
know, I, I was on Council when this project first was being considered and,
um, it was a visionary project. I mean, I think we all felt that this was
something that Iowa City would be not only proud of, but could very well be
a project that would be, have, uh, interest beyond Iowa City as a model of
how to develop land, uh, with, with the challenge of incorporating into that
development affordable housing, it was a really significant achievement. So I,
I feel we need to salvage that vision. I mean, that is critical, uh, that we, we
don't lose that sense of vision, you know, and how, how that influences, you
know, this question of the, you know, the part for providing assistance in the
short term, uh, I think it's seems clear to me that, uh, you know, that we
should make every, everyone who signed the CZA should be eligible. It
should go back to that agreement. You know, I think there is a question as to
what the, um, the level of payment would be, um, for those, you know, if we
go back to the beginning, um, certainly this $7,200 would be the baseline
since that was the, the figure in the agreement. It does seem to me one of the
critical points in terms of the ARPA funding is when the, uh, impacts of COVID
came into play, which seemed to my, my sense of how that would translate
into the calendar would be perhaps March of 2020. I mean, that's when the
impacts began to hit. And so I, I would think that, that, again, this is maybe
something that requires further, further investigation and discussion, but it
seems that, um, that may be an, a worthwhile date to, to determine how the,
the funding amounts are determined. Uh, so that, that's, you know, one, one
thing to consider there, um. On the question of, um, you know, the, the big
picture looking forward over into the long term, um, I mean, this is an
interesting, you know, getting back to the vision, the, the crux of this project, I
felt in some ways, at least in terms of the community's interest was over the
affordable housing element. Uh, but I think there are other things that are
make the project of interest and, and importance to Iowa City. One is the, you
know, the flooding issue. Foster Road is, um, as it stands now, cut off, should,
should flood levels rise to a point where, uh, Foster Road at the low point is
flooded. It also has an important environmental element. There's a lot of
natural area on this site. So when you, when I combine all three of those
things, the, the thought of the City, perhaps considering purchasing the
property comes to mind, because it, uh, do we want to put the fate of this
piece of land in the hands of a private developer? Um, you know, a lot of
these question that we're talking about seem to revolve around, you know,
how much control we have over the outcome, if that were the case. So I
would at least be interested in considering that, um, you know, the Peninsula
development just down the road was a City project. That was a City
sponsored process. We developed the vision for it. Uh, we put out an RFP
and, um, you know, we can now see the results. I think it's one of the more
interesting and successful residential neighborhoods in Iowa City. So we do
have evidence that that approach can be successful and, uh, that's the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of March 22, 2022.
Page 15
approach that was taken, uh, in that instance. So that's a possibility.
Otherwise we need to make sure that affordable housing is a priority and it,
whatever happens there, I, I don't, I don't doubt that the original design
would not have been approved by Council if there hadn't been the affordable
housing element. So that, that is essential to anything moving forward on this
site. Um, I think those are probably my main comments for now, and I'll
leave it there.
Bergus: I have a number of questions based on this. I think a lot, um, a lot of 'em will
be for staff, but also maybe for some of the Councilors who were here in the
past. So the, the 2019 conditional zoning agreement was signed between the
City and the developer. And I hear you, Geoff, that, um, it wouldn't be
probably viable today, but we're not going to preemptively remove that from
the property, right?
Fruin: No, it would be expected that if another proposal came forward, a, a
replacement, conditional zoning agreement would, would be considered
through the rezoning process.
Bergus: And if the property changes hands, if a, if the current owner had a buyer and
they just purchase the property, the CZA attaches to that, right, it goes
forward with that transaction?
Fruin: Yeah. It kind of transfers with the owner, so to speak.
Bergus: Okay. So the starting point would be that's what's in place now, but I hear
you saying it wouldn't be realistic at all to kind of just be like, okay, we'll wait
for that because it would probably not ever happen.
Fruin: That's correct.
Bergus: Okay.
Fruin: Yeah. I don't, I think the owner would have a very difficult time even selling
the property if, if the City's position was, this is the only, you know, project
that we'll accept.
Bergus: And the, I'm just going to tie in a lot of things, so anybody like interrupt me
if we have other thoughts or questions, but I'm just going to kind of go
through my list here. So the, um, this right of first refusal question. So part of
what I'm thinking about is the, the expectations of everyone at the time of
2019 versus now. And I think what I'm hearing my colleagues say, and what I
totally understand is wanting to meet expectations as best we can. At the
same time. I think circumstances have changed to the point that we know we
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of March 22, 2022.
Page 16
can't fulfill those expectations. The City's not getting what we bargained for
out of this deal, um, in terms of the affordable housing under this plan. Um,
and, and certainly the tenants aren't, aren't getting, um, what they bargained
for in the form that they, they thought it would be. And so on the right of first
refusal piece, the way that I understood it from the CZA was there were these
modular homes and there was multifamily, um, and that there would be an
option, including a path to sort of a purchase on contract, like rent -to -own
kind of option that would be for a modular home or one of the units in the
multifamily, or the relocation assistance. And so in my mind, if we're
providing the relocation assistance, I don't feel comfortable kind of
additionally layering that right of first refusal, cause I think in the, in the,
what was contemplated at the time was that it would be kind of an either/or,
not that you're getting the relocation assistance and the option, uh, to
purchase. I think absolutely, hopefully the negotiations that have happened
to date and the conduct of the City staff in particular, regardless of who sets
up here has shown that, um, the tenants would be listened to and would, you
know, be able to come back and say, Hey, you know, we want, as, uh, Shawn
said, a seat at the table in this conversation, but I don't, I don't think having
something formalized in whatever we come up with makes, makes a lot of
sense to me. I have concerns with the tying back to June 2019 residents if
we're using ARPA funds. I, I'm not comfortable. I, you know, I, I, we got some
correspondence on kind of how that might be justified. I'm not comfortable
with saying that this pot of money that is pandemic relief should tie back to
impacts on, you know, based on this residency of 2019. Um, and I, I think I
agree with the Mayor that the September 1st of 2021 date, uh, makes sense.
Where staff was coming from, if I understand correctly on that, was the
trying to capture everyone who maybe had to move out last winter and make
sure that they were included, um, because obviously this has been a multi-
year process. I see Geoff nodding your head.
Fruin: Yeah, that's correct.
Bergus: I appreciate the comments about, um, maybe having different funding
sources if we're going to have different timeframes, right. So maybe we
would have ARPA funds that could be used for residents after a certain date
or other funds before a certain date. Um, I'm worried about our need to move
with urgency. I, um, we all witnessed and participated in the, what, what
occurred with the direct assistance program with the County, that was even
lower stakes for the individuals who were receiving the funds. Um, and I
think -- just in terms of the actual dollar amount to households, and I really
fear that we could get caught up in a lot of back and forth and a lot more, um,
kind of negotiating by committee here. So I just want to plant that, like, that's
something in my mind that I believe the parties have been negotiating in
good faith up until this point, and I think we've kind of narrowed the issues.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of March 22, 2022.
Page 17
So I'm not really interested in like opening it back up, if that makes sense to
folks. Um, and so just kind of going along with that, I think the, I think the
upfront money we're agreed on, that makes sense. I think the dollar amount
in my mind ties to the eligibility because we're talking about the total, um,
well, it also ties to the funding source, but I think, you know, at the time, what
was contemplated was a $7,200 cap plus moving expenses. And so if we're in
more than twice that, I think the expectation in my mind would be that
maybe it is, you know, more to the people who have that, the more
immediate acute need, rather than those who maybe were able to find some
alternative. Um, a couple of years ago, I did read the memo from Eleanor
Dilkes, um, that was referenced, the prior City Attorney. And I didn't read
that as a promise that individuals would receive the $7,200 payment. I read
that as at the time of implementation, the CZA, you know, the, the, the
agreement stemming from that obligation, the CZA will need to be carried
out. We don't want to lose track of people. I don't think it was making
promises beyond, beyond that. So I didn't read it myself as that, creating that
sort of tieback, um, obligation. So I think, yeah, I think the, the eligibility time
period being certainly within the pandemic is important for the ARPA funds,
because I believe that we're confident those relief dollars are not going to be
taxable income to the recipients, correct?
Fruin: The, the ARPA dollars. If we have to use another funding source, it's very
likely that those could be taxable.
Bergus: Right. So if we want to make sure it's not taxable income to the individuals,
there's, I'm sure there's nuance, but we're confident that the ARPA funds
would not be taxable.
Fruin: Correct. There's clear guidance from the IRS on that.
Bergus: Okay. So I guess I'm just kind of repeating myself, but I think where I'm at is
I agree with a significant amount, like the, the intent of providing two years
of stability, um, or you know, that the relocation assistance being an amount
to provide for two years of housing, I think is, is excellent and will really, uh,
assist those people who were in a tremendously precarious housing
situation. I think the upfront portion makes sense. I think the timeline makes
sense. Um, there was discussion about the income eligibility. My
understanding from the memo was that tying eligibility to income and
allowing a self -certification, which would be a simple sworn statement that
your household is within this income and not requiring additional proof
would be the simplest way to administer this. And I think I kind of heard the
opposite of we want to simplify, so we don't want income eligibility. So I just
want to kind of flesh that out among us, if we can.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of March 22, 2022.
Page 18
Teague: I, I guess the question would be, is it required through ARPA funds to have
income eligibility associated?
Fruin: Um, it, it is, in our, in staff s belief, it is the simplest most streamlined
approach to implementing the relocation plan. There, there is a path forward
to, um, uh, kind of declare this particular neighborhood as disproportionately
impacted from COVID, but you have to have, uh, data to support that. And,
and that's where we, we would have to go and collect information, we would
have to, to, to do -- I don't, I don't know what that looks like. To be honest, it
could be surveys, it could be resident statements. It could be, um, any
number of different things. There's clear guidance in the, in the, um, final rule
about what exactly those steps are. It just says that you have to distinguish
this neighborhood from, from all others. And, you know, simply stating that,
you know, there was loss of employment, there was, uh, educational
interruptions, there was, uh, serious illness, I don't think general statements
like that are going to satisfy the Treasury. We would probably have to get in
touch with the Treasury and try to get more precise guidance. But our read
on it right now is that we would have to get into a more intrusive data
collection process. And the whole point behind the income certification is
you self -certify, you prove your, your, your residency and, and you're eligible
and we move forward, um.
Teague: Is, is there a higher limit, uh, 40, um, $40,000 for a, a household is still not a
lot of money. I think we would all agree to that. Is there, I'm assuming that
this, that number is something that we probably, um, look at.
Fruin: We can, I, I think we can explore whether there's another avenue to, to, to
push that, to push that figure up higher. I don't, I, I don't know the answer
right now.
Teague: Sure.
Fruin: But we can explore that.
Thomas: Yeah. A couple of thoughts I have on that would be, it sounded like there
weren't very many of people just numerically, very many people who would
fall under this category. I, I'd be interested to know how many there are. Uh,
the second point would be, you know, in thinking about this, it seems that
the, the residents of Forest View were hit by COVID in terms of their public
health, their employment, and what I think is arguably perhaps unique to
Forest View in that the project was impacted. So that is, to me, a pretty easy
one to justify. I mean, it really suggests that the entire community, because
everyone in that community was in some way or another tied to that project,
um, would make it a relatively easy argument because it, that, that is kind of a
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of March 22, 2022.
Page 19
unique condition, and aside from all the more typical ways in which, um, our
community has been impacted by COVID. The other approach I would, I I'm
inclined to at least consider would be if it's, we're only talking about a few
people maybe, and we don't want to go through that data collection, we just
find another funding source. Um, you know, if it's, if it's not that many, um, I
don't think the, the cost of including them would be that significant.
Harmsen: I think Councilor Thomas, I had a similar thought too, with this project,
having the developer state repeatedly, that the reason that they couldn't
move forward was because of COVID. So I think it is sort of a unique situation
where we have at least, you know, they, everybody was depending on that
person or, you know, small group of people would've specifically, that
person. And they said like, okay, well now this we're scrubbing this because
of COVID, which may have simplified things for us. I know it'd be a question
for Treasury, right, so to me, in my mind anyway. Um, but I'd also like to sort
of, the idea of, as we talk about the majority of the residents that we're trying
to help in terms of like, just numbers in a pool. And I was thinking to kind of
combining that with the idea of what's the start date. And I was looking back
two years ago today, Iowa was closing salons, barber shops, medical spas,
massage, uh, therapists, all kinds of places. It was like second or third round
of closures. So we know that if we went back two years to March of 2020, and
instead of September of, of, um, 2021, we'd still be very much within the
COVID impact timeframe. Now I, I would, going to guess, and I don't know,
but I'm going to guess from the time of the CZA in 2019 to March of 2020,
probably not a lot of people moved in that time period. I don't know. Uh, but
that's something that, that might be worth finding out because if we're
talking about everybody that was there two years ago today, or roughly Mar -
- two years ago, this month to now being covered would seem eligible for
ARPA funding. And if there was just a handful of people, we had to cover with
other funding from March of 2020 back to June of 2019 or whatever that date
was, that might be a small enough pool that it's not going to, the big, the big
needle is from September possibly to, to March, um, September of '21 to
March of 2020. Um, and that's, you know, I think, and that would still seem
within the whole, like, you know, since the pandemic started. So that, that
seems a little easier to me, uh, possibly.
Alter: I would definitely just to, to piggyback on that and then, sorry, Pauline, I just
cut you off, but, um, it goes back to what Laura was talking about and what I
noted in the memo and had a question about is that even if it's that smaller
group, and I think that that's a, a really interesting and potentially very smart
way to look at it, to say, probably parsing it out, the residents who had to
leave before COVID are relative smaller than, than, than this larger group that
would be affected and potentially covered by ARPA fund, ARPA funds. Um, I'd
be interested in knowing exactly about that taxable income. Like if we found
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of March 22, 2022.
Page 20
it from a different source, what does that mean for potentially say, let's just
call it five families. What would that mean then? How would they be
negatively impacted by the funds that, or is there a way that we could search
out funds that would, um, preclude them from, from having that money count
as taxable income?
Fruin: We can explore that, but I, I would say with pretty good certainty that any
alternative funding source is going to be taxable. We, we'll certainly explore
that and do our best, but it's the unique aspect of the ARPA disaster recovery
funds that we're using that make it non-taxable. So local funds are surely
going to be taxable and then there's, you know, forms that have to be filled
out and provided. I mean, it just be, gets, gets to be a more intrusive process,
but, um, we, we would certainly look at that. And I also want to just clarify,
we don't, I can't sit here with any certainty today and tell you, you can use
ARPA funds all the way back to, um, March of 2020. I, I don't know that, the
legislation was in March of '21. That is something that we would have to, to
further explore and get back to you on. Um, I think, I think there may be an
opportunity to move, move back with greater certainty to, to March of, uh,
2021, going back to 2020, you might be in that alternative funding source
realm.
Weiner: Yeah. Yeah. So my, my question, this exact was exactly how far back can we
use ARPA funds. Because that seems to me a really important, um, point
when we're looking at eligibility and funding sources. I think ARPA funds,
particularly because it's non-taxable is, is, um, is really by far the, the best
option for everyone.
Fruin: Yeah. Staff would feel comfortable probably say in March of '21, uh, is, is, uh,
fairly certain. Anything beyond that will require some time.
Teague: What I might, um, suggest is, you know, certainly this can be researched by
staff, brought back to us. Um, in, in as far as, you know, when, uh, the date of
eligibility, um, from my perspective, I can certainly, um, be persuaded. But
the one thing that I will say is that even when we are thinking about March of
2020, uh, that's two years ago, people have, you know, anyone that moved
back then, they have moved. And so, um, having the same level of, even if you
did it, um, by the proportion, by the months that moved, or even just a small
percentage, I, it, it becomes a little complicated and it's not that we can't get
complicated because certainly these individuals have lived through
complications. Um, but I think that'll be a discussion that we'll have to have
the last thing I wanted to just mention, um, or ask, because the original
agreement was with the, uh, property owner or with the developer or the
property owner, of the $7,200, uh, plus moving expenses, is, is the City
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of March 22, 2022.
Page 21
contemplating this, or is the City proposal based on land being dedicated to
the City? Or does this have nothing to do with that?
Fruin: The need for relocation is here, regardless of whether we, uh, are able to
negotiate that or not. I think we have to move forward with that being a
separate issue.
Teague: Yep. All right. I just wanted to make sure that, um, we are clear on our
position as Council, what we're discussing. And I also wanted to make
mention that, um, we are only about, uh, 15 minutes away from ending our
session time. So wanted to just make that acknowledgement.
Alter: May I just make one more comment and then we can move on? Or, or what
have you, I guess one of the things that, um, I was very struck by the
thoroughness and the thoughtfulness of this memo, uh, with the history, um,
and everything else, but, you know, I, I absolutely agree that I mean, the use
of ARPA funds for this, I mean, it's, it's, it's a perfect use for what, um, the
tenants of Forest View are dealing with. But I think I don't want us to get
caught in thinking about the scope of, of the relocation needs. Um, and again,
I, I just want to go back to the people who got us to this dance are the, the
ones who are most impacted, right. They had to leave early, um, before this
agreement happened, um, before they were able to get relocation funds. And
in fact, that was something that was being built into that agreement, right.
And so I feel like at the same time, I just, I want to encourage us all, um, to, to
think as expansively, as possible, as creatively, is probably a better word for
it, about how we might be able to get all of the tenants, um, the, the assistance
that they need. And, and to honor that, and as is true, we do not have a legal
obligation, but I really think we have an ethical imperative to do it as a City.
And that's been really well stated by so many, all of the Council members.
And I think also from the hard work that the staff has gone into doing this as
well. Um, but I just wanted to put that out there. I don't want us to, um, at the
same time, I think that ARPA funds, the, the more expansively we can do it as
is allowed the better, um, to cover as many people as possible. But I don't
want to feel like if, I don't want us to feel limited, um, in only using ARPA
funds.
Teague: I do think Council has, um, had a good starting discussion. This discussion
will to you. Um, we will move on in our agenda item. Um, we're going to do
clarification of agenda items, and then we're going to move to University of
Iowa Student Government updates.
Bergus: Mayor, could I, I'm so sorry to interrupt. Um, can we just have a plan for
what our next step is on this item? Cause I don't know if, unless staff has
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of March 22, 2022.
Page 22
direction on where we're are going. I just want to make sure we don't just let
it sit or make sure it's on our next agenda or....
Teague: Yes. Yes.
Fruin: Uh, okay. So let me just kind of summarize what, what our takeaways, uh, are
Eligibility, I'm hearing a, a call, uh, to explore options, to push the date back
as far as possible. So if we go back to the CZA, clarification on what, if ARPA
funds can be used, what alternatives that, you know, that may be. And we'll
kind of look at three different dates, the CZA date, the March 20th date, I'm
sorry, March of '20 date and March of '21 dates. And we'll try to understand
what the ARPA rules are with all three of those dates. I'll also contact the
residents association and see if they can provide us a count of people from
the time of the CZA to now with move out dates within those ranges, so that,
you know, you know, how many may fall into each category. Um, I hear
concurrence on the amount of relocation, the fifteen -seven uh, amount. Um,
I'm a little unclear what, what you want from us regarding the income
requirement. Uh, we can certainly ask Treasury to see if they would give us
more guidance on what declaring the class, uh, disproportionately impacted
may, may be. December 9th, there doesn't seem to be any disagreement with
that. Um, and future housing, I'm sensing that we'll just treat that separately.
Um, but there's an expectation that communication channels will remain
open. Did I summarize everything okay?
Teague: That's a good start, yes.
Fruin: So we can, we can try to come back at your next meeting. I, I, I really doubt
we'll have answers to all these questions in two weeks.
Weiner: May -- maybe we'll able to reframe some of them at that point.
Teague: Well, we'll probably have it on the work session, um, depending on where,
where staff is. Thank you all,
Teauge: Just a quick comment. You'd mentioned Geoff, something about the group
and we had gotten some information about that. Uh, would you be able to
follow up maybe with the legal department, what that would entail, or if that
is a possibility that they could just be encompassed as a group having been
affected, um, by COVID?
Fruin: Yeah --
Taylor: Because of the development backing out.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of March 22, 2022.
Page 23
Fruin: The City attorney's office has been working with our, our, our staff --
Taylor: That would be helpful
Fruin: -- closely. We'll continue to do that. And --
Taylor: Thank you.
Fruin: -- see if we can get some clarification.
Teague: Great. All right.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of March 22, 2022.
Page 24
Clarification of Agenda Items
Teague: Clarification of agenda items. This would be for the formal meeting. Hearing
none, we're going to move on to USG with some updates.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of March 22, 2022.
Page 25
University of Iowa Student Government (USG) Updates
Teague: Hello.
Miglin: Hi Council, long time no see. Um, so as you all have received, we got, uh,
11,000 copies of the magnets that we made, um, super exciting, uh, and we
are working to distribute them right now. Uh, we brought some to y'all as
well as they are currently in, um, a few, um, IMU offices, such as Student
Legal Services and the Food Pantry, as well as outside of the Student
Activities and USG's office. So, um, we're also working with the City to, um,
distribute them to local businesses, as well as bars, um, and just other places
where students might be able to get them. Um, and, uh, and another point,
thanks to the work of our Health and Safety Director, all the Diva Cups that
were stocked at the Food Pantry have been taken, and they plan to restock
that as well. Um, their, uh, our Health and Safety menstrual equity work
continues, uh, especially going on into Pride Week happening this week. Um,
information on Pride Week events is on the university website, which I will
include linked in our announcements. Um, on the subject of Pride Week, uh,
the queer/trans closet is happening March 24th through the 27th in the IMU
room, uh, 351, which is a chance for students in free gender, to find free
gender -affirming clothing. Anna and I will be volunteering on the first day,
want to say on from 6 to 10, so feel free to stop by and say hi. Um, April 5th,
um, so at the next City Council meeting, um, I will be outta town for the big,
uh, Association of Big 10 Conference happening in Washington DC, but Anna
will be here to come at the beginning of Council to give announcements. Um,
that might mean like having to move up announcements or something, I'm
not totally sure. Um, I would talk to them. Um, the move -in checklist created
by USG's GR committee, um, has passed the Iowa House, uh, this past week
and is now moving on to the Senate. Um, battery fires have decreased in Iowa
City, uh, um, or decreased, uh, due to, uh, the success of the Iowa City's
recycling program. Um, and, uh, that has included with more battery drop-off
locations. So a little round of applause for that. That's pretty cool. Um, and
finally USG is sponsoring and event with Judy Heumann, a, uh, internationally
renowned, uh, disabilities, right, rights activist, um, as well as with, uh,
former Senator Tom Harkin, who will be speak, they will be speaking at the
Hancher Auditorium, uh, the on next Wednesday, the 30th, um, and seems
like a super cool event, I would encourage you all to go. Thank you.
Teague: Thank you. All right. Sound like lots happening and welcome back to all the
students that left for spring break. We enjoyed, uh, rockstar parking. All right.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of March 22, 2022.
Page 26
Information Packet Agenda items [March 3, March 10, March 171-- Council
direction needed on the following items: (1) (3/17) IP1 Memo from City
Clerk: City Council meeting location
Teague: We're going to do just one item before we end. Um, and we'll pick this, we'll
pick up the work session, um, after our formal meeting, but we're going to go
to, um, March 17th, IP1, it's a memo from our City Clerk. Um, and it, it is
really just, uh, talking about, um, moving, um, back to Council chambers and
Emma Harvat Hall, and just wanted to open up that discussion. Um, numbers
are down, um, the City, um, we have the hybrid options for meetings, which is
great, and just wanted to open up that conversation, um, to see what people
thoughts are. Are people comfortable moving back? Yes?
Taylor: Yes.
Weiner: Yeah. I mean, I think it's time and I think that we have, we have used the
hospitality of the Senior Center for a very long time and I'm very appreciative
and very grateful to, to LaTasha and everyone else for allowing us to occupy
this space. But I do think it's time.
[voices in agreement]
Teague: Are we comfortable next, uh, meeting, uh, starting in April?
Goers: If I may, your honor, the one thing I would add about that is there's a number
of items being set on your agenda tonight that are setting a public hearing for
the next meeting here. So if you would be willing to do a two weeks from
now, I'm sorry, two meetings from now, which would be April 19th, that
would be appreciated.
Teague: So considering for April 19th.
Bergus: That's fine.
Teague: All right. April 19th. Great. We are going to adjourn for now and we will be
back at 6:00 PM.
Teague: We are adjourned back to our work session and the remaining items there
is going to be our information packets. We have three. Um, so I'll start with
March 3rd.
Weiner: So I had a question on IP2 from March 3rd, the memo from the Planning
and Zoning Commission about House study bill and the Senate study bill that
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of March 22, 2022.
Page 27
they were concerned could really over, could really override our zoning. Is
that a bill that's actual -- are those bills actually moving forward or have they
died?
Fruin: Yeah, I'm going to look to Rachel and see if she can, uh, provide an update on
that. I think you were corresponding on that one recently
Kilburg: Just on the, the building code? Um, so there's been an amendment filed on
Division 10, which addresses the building code, um, which, uh, doesn't touch
the mechanical, electrical, um, and plumbing codes, but still would create a
statewide building code, um, prohibit local amendments and make it a
legisla--, a process, a, a code that's adopted legislatively rather than how it is
administratively right now. Um, there was also talk about stripping out that
zoning language out of Division 1, um, which, um, which was pretty vague
and, and broad. Um, we haven't seen an amendment that done that's done
that yet, but it sounds like that's a, a done deal.
Weiner: Thanks.
Taylor: I -- I'm glad you brought that up Councilor Weiner, cause I, when I saw that
and I thought there was some mention in there about our Planning and
Zoning codes, and I thought, you know, this is some type of legislation that
we really, we need to keep on top of, it'd be imperative that we, we, uh, make
sure that our lobbyists, uh, keep us posted on any things like this.
Harmsen: Yeah, I think it is definitely it's about, there's just actually a couple of
things in that overarching bill. The, the zoning is a huge one. Uh, the building
code, I think, is something that's, um, has all kinds of ramifications, um, that
we need to, to really be pushing back against, uh, not only can that set us
back in terms of our own climate, uh, addressing climate change, cuz that,
think the states, the state code is like still like 10 years behind where Iowa
City is, something like that. Um, so that ballpark, something like that, which
would also, uh, hurt our ability, uh, efficiency of our, of our homes, for things
like, um, energy and energy bills and things. You know, if we're not enforcing
a more up-to-date environmental code, you know, we're looking at all kinds
of long term ramifications, uh, with that. And so, um, that is something too,
I've also been sort of in touch with some of our delegation about and kind of
voicing my concerns and, and worries. Um, it seems like, you know, at least
our Iowa City folks are aware of that and, and keeping an eye on it, um,
hopefully trying to do what they can to oppose or strip out some of the worst
parts of that bill. So.
Weiner: We should, I, haven't taken a look. We should take a look online and see
who has actually registered as for the bill.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of March 22, 2022.
Page 28
Harmsen: I think the last time I looked, uh, a lot of the cities were undecided yet, um,
on this bill and, but the information's about a week old. So I haven't looked
since I've gotten back from, from traveling. Um, uh, yeah, that is a good thing
to look at. See who's the who's come out for and against or undecided. I don't
know. Maybe that's changed, but I could look real quick.
Teague: All right. If nothing more from March 3rd, we're going to go to March 10th.
Taylor: Um, IP4, the civil service announcement of appointments, uh, to positions of
Community Outreach Assistant in immigration and refugee, uh, communities.
Uh, I, I want to welcome those individuals that were appointed and, and I'm
happy to see this and hope it can be of benefit to, uh, those in our community
who are immigrants and refugees.
Teague: Great. Moving on to March 17th.
Bergus: I appreciated the article that, uh, John, you included about the, um, "where
we've been living all this time", I think it was called, so I think that's a helpful
frame for some of the discussions we had earlier and that we will have in our
strategic planning.
Thomas: Yeah. That, that video was probably the, the most concise video I've seen
on this topic, which, which was, you know, the topic itself was included in our
strategic plan from two years ago. So, um, we'll see what happens at our next
strategic plan meeting.
Weiner: Yeah. I, if you haven't seen the video, I, I commend it to you as well.
Taylor: IP7. I wanted to point out and highlight an item. Um, Elizabeth mentioned it,
our UISG uh, report about, uh, an evening with Judy, uh, Heumann, uh, who is
an internationally renowned disability rights advocate. Um, it's um, March
30th, 7:30 at Hancher. And along with that on March 29th is the actual
screening of the Crip Camp documentary, which is 6:30, uh, at Film Scene at
Chauncey. Uh, that's said to be very inspiring documentary, uh, about, uh, a
summer camp that was, uh, developed for teens with disabilities and a group
of those young people then went on to join the disability rights advocate
group and, um, advocating for legislative changes for disabled people. So I, I
hope that, uh, everyone can get a chance to, to go to one or both of those
events.
Weiner: The, the Hancher event is, um, free of charge. You just have to sign up.
Taylor: Is what?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of March 22, 2022.
Page 29
Weiner: Free, it's free of charge. You just have to sign up.
Teague: Nice. I wanted to, um, IP4 is our pending work session. And I wondered if
Council would be interested in bringing in, um, the Guidelink, uh, we haven't
-- before the year is out, um, but bringing in the Guidelink just to get kind of a
update since they've been operational, um, we haven't had them here. And I
think since before they actually started receiving individuals.
Alter: I'd be very interested.
Teague: So we'll add that to the work session pending,
Fruin: Uh, happy to do that. I might suggest you consider that for or a joint meeting
topic. Um, that seems to me, that would be a great setting.
Weiner: It was a, that'd be good for the joint entities.
Teague: Yeah. And that'd be coming up.
Alter: Yeah.
Teague: I think that I, I would agree that'd be a better space.
Fruin: We'll pencil that in, of course you can add to that list when, when that time
comes, but I think that'd be a good setting for that.
Teague: Yeah. Great.
Alter: And I've mentioned it, uh, in a conversation with you Mayor, um, and with a
couple others, but, uh, certainly as I sat out there while staff presented, um,
the collation of all the community feedback and then sort of the
categorization of how that all would work for the ARPA funds. And, um, it's
been a while since I presented it, I know that we're coming up on strategic
planning. I also know that we're looking forward to sort of how are we going
to disburse, um, the, the rest of the monies. And so I would love it if staff
could, um, present that again. Um, now that Shawn and I are both on Council
and just as a refresher, so that then we can kind of, and I'm taking a page
from John's book about sort of having a better holistic view, um, about sort of
the, the relationship between how we're putting money toward and, and the
ARPA funds towards what our strategic planning is, so that we're not
doubling or being redundant, but also we're being really mindful about how
we can sort of best serve the community, um, both in the short term and, and
longer term. So that's my, um, request, I guess, is, is if we can get that a
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of March 22, 2022.
Page 30
refresher on, on what staff had to say from the community about, um, our
funds and how they should be put.
Bergus: Yeah. I think it's a good idea.
Teague: Great. So we'll put that on there as well. Anything else from March 17th? All
right. I'll just open -- yes.
Harmsen: Um, I just, I was looking up that jumping back one topic, if that's okay, I
don't want to, um. The bill passed out of committee with, it looks like from
my quick read, uh, passed out of committee today, so it's still alive. It looks
like a lot of the problematic language is still in there. Um, and I'm looking at,
um, I'm looking for Iowa City. Some cities have come out against this bill. Uh,
it looks like, uh, Coralville has, um, I haven't found Iowa City's yet, like what
our, what our lobbyist has done out there. Um, but yeah, so anyway, so that
bill is still alive and kicking. And so I don't know if that's something that we
want to maybe discuss giving some sort of indication. Some cities are still
undecided, Cedar Rapids is still undecided, um, some different, uh, yeah, so, I
mean, it's reading through the list. Um, if we want to give some direction or
maybe have a conversation about what we want to do in terms of having our
lobbyists take a stand on that bill. Um, and, and I note that, uh, um, some
conversation that we had had, Geoff, if you want to kind, kind of chime in a
bit there.
Fruin: Yeah. So understand just, just because, uh, a group, including the City may be
undecided, that doesn't mean that we're not actively voicing concerns. Our,
our concerns are, are heard on this item. We've, we've shared those with our
delegation and our lobbyist has been able to communicate that with, with the
appropriate people at the legislature. Um, uh, we, we, we've kind of learned
that, uh, you know, the, the timing of declaring a position is a, is a bit of a
science. Um, oftentimes if you take your position too soon, um, you might be
left out of the conversations in order to how to shape legislation going
forward. So oftentimes you won't see us, uh, register, and a lot of cities you
won't see register until we feel like the go, negotiations on the bill are over
and it's going to move forward, um, uh, you know, from that point. Um, in this
case, we still think that there's a lot of, uh, fluidity in, in the discussions that
the, that there's, um, um, still a lot of talk about stripping the zoning piece
out, the building piece, uh, is still being heavily scrutinized. And the advice
that we get from our lobbyist is just stay undecided. It, it allows them to
engage a little bit more effectively from their perspective. And then if the
time comes where the writing's on the wall, and this thing's going to going to
be pushed forward for a vote, that's when we would, would make a move to
declare our position. That said, if you want to, you know, make it known right
now, what you think about this, you can always direct us to, um, register as
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of March 22, 2022.
Page 31
opposed, and you can change your registration as, as it evolves, too, but we
try to take our cues from, from the lobby team on, on what the right timing is
on a particular bill.
Harmsen: Thank you.
Teague: Anything else from any other info packets? All right.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of March 22, 2022.
Page 32
Council updates on assigned boards, commissions. and committees
Teague: I will give one last opportunity, because it is on our work session agenda for
any Council updates on assigned boards, commissions, and committees.
Hearing none, we are adjourned and good evening. Thanks for coming in at
3:00 PM.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
work session of March 22, 2022.