Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-04-05 TranscriptionPage 1 Council Present: Staff Present: Alter, Bergus, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Weiner Davies, Fleagle, Fruehling, Fruin, Goers, Havel, Hightshoe, Jones, Kilburg, Sitzman, Sovers State required presentation of the Historic Preservation Certified Local Government Annual Report Teague: All right, we're gonna, um, go ahead and get started with our work session for April 5th, 2022. And welcome to everyone that is here in the audience and those that are online. We're gonna start with the, our state -required presentation of the Historic Preservation Certified Local Government Annual Report. Welcome. Bristow: Hello, Council. I am Jessica Bristow. I'm the Historic Preservation planner, and I'm just here to provide you with some highlights of our annual report. Just a tiny bit of background. Uh, the Certified Local Government program, that we call the CLG program, was established in 1980 and Iowa City joined it by about 1983. It basically encourages historic preservation at the local level, using the Secretary of the Interior's standards for rehabilitation. It provides some technical assistance through the State Historic Preservation Office, which we tend to call SHPO, and provides some funding opportunities for preservation activities. Iowa City has eight historic districts that are all listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and they're also locally designated. We also have five conservation districts. That's only a local designation, there's no National Register component. We have 65 local landmarks, 45 of those are also listed in the National Register. This slide shows you some of our, or well, all of our districts. This slide has some general information and one of my favorite images, it's hard to see here, but it does show the districts and little red dots for all of the local landmarks. Our Commission consists of 12 seats. Three of those are open now, and some of them have been open for a while. In 2021, we had 14, uh, Commission meetings and we have a, a little budget from our NDS, um, Neighborhood and Development Services department for our annual mailing and, um, travel and education expenses. We also have the Historic Preservation fund. The report goes through and talks about what, the work that we have done as a Commission. And the first section under number 3 in the report talks about alterations that were done to properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places. We just, uh, count those based on the reviews that we have done throughout the year. In, uh, 2021, we had 41 of those. We also don't count Certificates of No Material Effect that we issue, or work on garages. So there was actually a little bit more than that. This is just one example where a permanent accessibility ramp was designed for the Close Mansion. Um, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 5th, 2022. Page 2 questions 4 and 5 in the report talk about our local landmark designation. And we did designate six properties in the calendar year, four of them in that 100 block of East College Street. Uh, we also have 410-412 Clinton and the Highlander Supper Club. Number 6 in the report talks about properties that are only locally designated, so there's no National Register component, that were also altered. And we count these also based on our reviews. So these are mostly local -only landmarks or properties in our conservation district. In, uh, 2021, not counting the Certificates of No Material Effect or work on garages, we had 27 of those. This is one example. It's a house in one of our conservation districts and the Commission approved a screen porch addition to the back of it. Section 8 of our report is really about the work we do with public outreach and education, uh, providing assistance to property owners on preservation issues, working with other groups. We did have 108,118 applications in 2021. That's the most that we've had, second only to the year of the 2006 tornado when we had 120 applications. One of the biggest forms of assistance we have beyond reviewing and helping, uh, with planning preservation projects is our Historic Preservation Fund. To date, we have given out 5,000 matching grants or no -interest loans for properties on, um, for projects on properties in our districts or locally landmarked. This just happens to be one example at 430 Ronalds, where it went through this transformation using three different grants. Another big form of public outreach we have is our, um, our annual awards program. Last year was the 38th annual. We held it in July. It was postponed a little bit. This year, uh, would be 39th. We haven't started planning that yet. The last real section beyond the reporting on the Commission are, uh, challenges and successes that we have had throughout the year. Of course we had COVID, we have the open positions on the Commission. We also have some difficulties with lack of contractors, uh, for people in the community. And, um, then we have the, uh, 109 Market Street, which was a success the year before, but because of the, um, the, uh, agreement falling through, uh, it's now one in of our challenges. Our biggest success of the year was listing our downtown, Iowa City Downtown Historic District, in the National Register of Historic Places. This happens to be just a shot of the Ped Mall and a map of the district showing the properties that are, um, contributing and non-contributing and stuff like that. That's all I have. Thank you. Teague: Thank you. Any questions or comments from Council? Weiner: I just think it's, uh, it's actually a really helpful thing to see this once a year, so that we, so that we're reminded of the, the number of historic districts and properties that we have and the work that goes on there. Taylor: Yes. I'd, I'd like to thank you for your report, 'cause it was interesting to see the actual numbers then. And, and I was just talking to someone the other This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 5th, 2022. Page 3 day about the history of Iowa City in general and, and, and the need to preserve that and, and let it be known, `cause there's just so much history. Uh, and particularly, you know, the historic buildings, it's amazing. Beyond the old capital, which most people think of. Thomas: Yeah, I always, I always appreciate, uh, hearing, hearing what work is being done in this field. And, uh, it, it, I was very surprised hear how high the application rate was compared, you know, from a yearly standpoint, how high it was this year. And I always look forward to the awards event, uh, because it's, I, I know that, you know, this, this notion of care is so central to the idea of sustainability really. I mean, it's historic preservation, these are buildings that people love and they're willing to care for them and, and express that love and, and the caring for the architecture. Uh, and, and so that, that, I don't know, to me, that's essential to, you know, preserving Iowa City's image and character and spirit. So thank you and, and all the Commission members and all those in Iowa City who put such love and care into their buildings. Teague: Thank you so much. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 5th, 2022. Page d Forest View Relocation Proposal Update Teague: All right. The next item on our agenda is Forest View relocation proposal update. And I'll just give it to our City Manager, Geoff Fruin. Fruin: Okay, good evening, uh, Mayor and Council. Um, we don't have anything, uh, supplemental for you in terms of a written document, but I did want to share some, some updates with you, uh, verbally this afternoon and, and allow you to continue to have, uh, your discussion to move this forward. So, uh, uh, as you recall from your last meeting, there were several questions raised that you, uh, had asked staff to look further into, and I wanna walk you through those. Uh, mostly, uh, you kind of lump those into two categories, the, the eligibility criteria, and then the method in which we are going to require documentation or not require documentation. Uh, so I want to, I wanna start, uh, with the eligibility, uh, piece of it. So what we've been able to do, or what we're currently in the process of, is trying to figure out, um, how many households, uh, were in the Forest View neighborhood at any given point in time over the last, uh, couple of years. Um, the, uh, Tenants' Association through the Center for Worker Justice has provided us, um, a very helpful document that, that shows, um, their accounting of just that, who was there all the way from the 2019 conditional zoning agreement to current day. Uh, we also have our own utility records, which we are cross-referencing with that document. And then, um, I have asked, but I have not received, uh, from the, um, owner of the, of the park as well, and I'm hoping to have those three data sources to really make it very reliable and, and, and certain who was there when. Um, but, but just looking preliminarily at the, the document that we got from, uh, the tenants and, and the City, uh, utility records, there appears to be a little discrepancy, but very minor, so what you might expect in something like that. So we're pretty close and I'll walk you through the different points in time, uh, so you can get idea how these numbers have changed. So currently, um, uh, we have, uh, between 55 and 59, um, households, uh, at Forest View. Um, if you go back to the eligibility date that the City, uh, staff, that I recommended to you at your last meeting, that was September of '21, uh, we had 62 to 67, uh, households there. So again, uh, currently 55 to 59, going back to, uh, um, September of last year, 62 to 67. And I just wanna be clear that I'm giving you a range because that's the discrepancy in the two data sources that we have right now, I'm, I'm confident that could be worked out. Um, the other date, the other couple dates that you asked us to look, uh, at were March of, of '21 and March of, uh, '20. Um, I'll start with March of '21. Uh, we have, uh, anywhere from 65 to 70 households, uh, there at March of '21, uh, again, comparing that to the previous, I said 62 to 67. So you can see the, uh, continual increase as we go back in time there. Now with March of '21, September of '21, we feel very, very confident that ARPA funds are, are able to be used for those households. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 5th, 2022. Page 5 When we go back to, to March of '20, um, we believe, we believe that ARPA funds can be used. And I say it, 'cause I want you to know there's a little bit of degree of uncertainty there. It's not as crystal clear, but we believe we can make a, a strong case, uh, to suggest that, uh, ARPA funds could be used back to March of '20, essentially the, the, the, the, uh, um, uh, the entrance of COVID into, uh, into our area here. So if you go back to March of '20, uh, we have 74 to 82 households, again, 74 to 82 households, March of'20. Uh, we believe we can make a strong case for ARPA. It's not clear, but we believe we could make that case. And if you go all the way back to the conditional zoning agreement, uh, there is between 82 and 87 households, uh, that resided, uh, at Forest View at that time. We are confident to say that you, you can't, well, we'd have to find an alternative funding source that, that we will not be able to use ARPA funds for that, those households that, that, um, were there at the time of the CZA, but may not have been at least by March of '20. So you can see, um, that range from start to finish from the conditional zoning agreement is 82 to 87 households, uh, to the current day 55 to 59. That gives you an idea of, of how things have changed if you take kind of the max end of the range, uh, at the CZA level, you're looking at about a $1.3 million, um, expenditure on relocation, uh, versus the current, uh, day would, would be just under a million, about $930[K]. So you're talking all, all in all a range of about $400,000. Um, speaking in approximates there. The, uh, Tenants' Association did some preliminary checking on income levels. Remember there was, uh, some, some discussion about, uh, the, the $40,000 income threshold. Um, they have relayed to us that they have seven households that are above that through threshold, um, but they are also working to confirm income levels in 16 remaining households. So we don't have firm numbers yet, but somewhere between seven and at most 23, um, would not be, would, would, are making more than that $40,000 threshold. I also want to, want to, um, remind you, that it's, it's not just the, um, uh, the income, that if we can work with those households and understand their income, we can help cross- reference eligibility with, with, uh, state and federal programs. And even if they're not using those federal programs, if they're eligible to use federal assistance programs and make a little bit more than that $40,000, they still may be able to, um, self -attest there. So a little bit more work to be done there, but that gives you an idea, um, just to do the, you know, the quick math, um, if there's seven, uh, households above that income, uh, threshold, and we decide to use other funds to address those, uh, households, that's a little over $110,000. Um, so, uh, that gives you a little bit of, um, uh, idea of, of scale there. If all 16 of the, uh, remaining households where, where income has not been able to, to, to been pinned down, if all of those were over, which is unlikely, um, uh, based on the data trends, you'd be looking at non -source funds, non-ARPA source funds of $362,000. Okay. So that's a, that's a little bit of the range. That's a lot of numbers, a lot of dates. Um, can I clarify anything for you at this point on those, on that information? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 5th, 2022. Page 6 Alter: Can you just go back and, um, you talked about a range of $400K and it was the difference between $1.3 million and roughly $900K and what -- Fruin: That's the -- Alter: -- what were those monies attached to? Fruin: Yeah. So that's the, the population, if you, if we funded everybody that was at the park, um, uh, with the signing of the CZA, um, at the upper end of the data that we have right now, it's 87 households. Uh, that would be $1.3 million. Alter: Okay. Thank you. Fruin: And then the, the nine, $929,000 represents the 59 households that live there now. And of course -- Alter: Oh. Fruin: -- our recommendation was that we go back to September, but I, I thought it was important just to give you those numbers now. So you, you understood the -- Teague: And the CZA was in 2019. Fruin: 2019. Yes. Taylor: And Geoff, I, I think there was some question that would it be possible, and what would the difference be then, uh, that those folks that had already moved out, uh, could get a partial, not, not the grand total of the ones that are still living there and that makes a difference, and how could we figure that, and is that possible to figure that. Fruin: You're right. So at, at that point, you know, if we're going all the way back to the CZA, and we're looking at those, it's maybe five households, you know, there's, there's a little bit of, um, uncertainty there, but between that, that moved out between the CZA and, and, um -- Taylor: September. Fruin: --the onset of COVID, it's probably roughly around five houses. Um, we would, we would have to use, uh, non-ARPA funds, which means that would be taxable, uh, for the recipient. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 5th, 2022. Page 7 Taylor: Oh. Fruin: -- um, and you could adjust that amount. You would have the ability to, to say instead of the $15,750, we're going to go back to the $7,200, for example, that was specifically listed in the CZA. You would have that ability to do that at, at any point in that continuum that you felt was appropriate. The numbers that I quoted were assuming everybody got the same $15,750. Teague: I think it might be helpful, um, for us to move the, this conversation along a little bit. Um, if we could, well, documentation under, you were gonna talk about that. Fruin: Yeah. I can cover that real quick if you want. Teague: Please. Yes. Fruin: So, um, we still are strongly recommending we follow the, the self -attest, I think, um, that is definitely the cleanest. If we move off self -attest, I just want to, um, give you kind of a quote from the, from the regs in, in, in terms of the burden that we have. Um, it has to be based on academic research or government research publications, through analysis of their own data, meaning our, the City's own data or through agna-, analysis of other data sources. It goes on to say when quantitative data is not readily available, recipients may also consider qualitative research in sources like resident interviews, feedback from relevant state and local agencies, such as public health departments or social service departments. Uh, and it also talks about the need to do that research prior to determining the outcome. So before you determine how to offset that, that disproportionate impact, you have to prove there is disproportionate impact. And we're, we're kind of past that point now. I think we could probably work around that, but if we're trying to make this less burdensome on the residents, um, we, I, I just don't think we can go down that path. I think we're going have to, we're gonna be in a situation where we're doing surveys, we're interviewing folks, it's going to drag this process out quite a bit. Um, I think Councilor Thomas made a good suggestion at the last meeting that if you still want to, um, provide funding for those that are, um, uh, above that income threshold, that, that maybe you should look at using local funds. And of course, that does introduce taxability. Um, but that would be the, the method to get this moving the quickest, and I think would be, um, uh, probably best for all involved. I, I wish we could simply dec-, declare it a class without, you know, just using Census data or something like this, but there's not enough there, um, in, in my opinion. Taylor: So, um, Geoff, you didn't think, we talked about as far as the disproportionate impact that the developer, the argument is because of This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 5th, 2022. Page 8 COVID, the, the costs and the expenses, and this is primarily why they have just washed their hands of this, but you don't feel that's a strong enough argument for that disproportionate impact? Fruin: No, I, I, I, I don't think that, and I think the evidence that frankly we have is that the project was in jeopardy well before COVID, and, and unfortunately I'm sure COVID did not help, but, um, uh, it, it may have taken a project that was on shaky ground and finally ended it. But, um, you know, our discussions with the developer really fell silent six to eight months prior to COVID starting. So we still think that self -attest is the way is, is the way to go. Um, I understand it's not perfect, but, um, I, I think, uh, I think that's gonna be best for all involved. And I, I still think there's some, some ways that we can assist those that may be over that income threshold. Teague: Thank you. Um, so I do want to just remind Council that we'll end our conversation, um, at 5:45 today, but well be able to pick this up after our formal meeting. Um, so in order to maybe kind of, um, answer some of the questions that are still lingering out there, I thought maybe we can tackle some of those first, the most simplistic would probably be the documentation. Um, staff is recommending self-attestment, uh, wanted to just get Council thoughts. Thomas: I, I agree, uh, with Geoffs, uh, suggestion, Fm, I'm happy to see that there really weren't many above the $40K threshold. So it's a manageable figure to, to address, uh, an in a, by providing the funding ourselves. Teague: Okay. And then that's the next question that's kind of attached to that. So those that are above the $40K is com-, is Council comfortable, um, using funds from another pot of money that is not COVID-related, if we should. Weiner: Right, right. With the understanding that some of them may, um, turn out to be eligible for other federal government programs and therefore still be eligible for ARPA funds. Fruin: That's correct. Taylor: Yeah. Which I think Geoff, you, you said the word if, right. If they're eligible and I think that's a very big if, um, so I think we have to be cautious of that. Weiner: Right. I mean, but you could have a family that earns a certain amount and, and would turn out that they're eligible for SNAP because they have a larger family or something like that, but, but aren't currently getting benefits. Taylor: Right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 5th, 2022. Page 9 Weiner: For example. So, but yeah. Teague: So I'm seeing a, a consensus on that. Um, and then the, the one that may take a little thought process is really the timeframe of who would be eligible for the funds we have all the way back to the CZA, which is in 2019, um, up until current. Um, I don't know if anyone has any thoughts or suggestions. Taylor: Well, I think I was the one that brought that up too, that couldn't they, those ones that were there at the signing of the CZA, they, they were given that hope and dream of, of, uh, of having safe, affordable homes. And, and I saw the condition is some of the homes that had been abandoned by those, some of those probably folks, uh, and some that are still standing and some that have been demolished. And, and I, I certainly, they were not, they were not livable. They were unlivable. And I, I, I don't blame those folks for leaving. And I think that they should be compensated in, in some manner for the, maybe the cost. They probably still still suffering financially from what they had to put out when they abruptly left, uh, because of the condition of their home. So I, I'm under the belief that, that we do have to compensate them, at least partially, not for the total that those ones that are still there though. Teague: I do have a, at least some thought and a proposal that I'll put out there. And I think, um, take it with a grain of salt. You all can take it or leave it. Um, my proposal would be for everyone that's been there within the 2022 year get 100%, anyone that was there during 2021 gets 75%, and then 2020 gets 50%, and then 2019 gets 40%. That's just my throw it out there, and then we can, if, if you don't like it, leave it and throw out your own thoughts. Harmsen: Go ahead, Jan. Weiner: But I guess I, I guess what my, um, my initial thought would be to, um, fund everyone from March 2021 through present and, and the, and look at the $7,200 number for those who left pre-COVID. Taylor: I would agree with that. Teague: And see, so you want to determine how many people were, um, pre, uh, before March, 2021, the, and -- Weiner: Okay, before, sorry, before March '20, the beginning, sorry, going back to the beginning of COVID, March '20, I get, I'm getting years confused. It's been longer than we, we think it is. So, um, essentially I would favor full compensation for people who, um, were there, uh, in March 2020. And so when COVID began and when we can, we can definitely also use the ARPA This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 5th, 2022. Page 10 funds, but, and, and for the people who were there from the CZA signing, but left prior to the beginning of the COVID, um, the $7,200 number, but that's also just a proposal. Teague: Okay. Harmsen: I think I would be in, in agreement, uh, at least up to the March of 2020, and from the period from March 2020 back to the CZA, I'd love to hear some more input on, from the residents' association before coming up. I'm willing to listen to some arguments. My, my initial reaction is just, let's do it the same all the way back to the CZA, uh, sort of where my position starting off on this, but I'm certainly willing to listen to two, listen to other, other points of view and definitely want to make sure we're hearing from the residents, Uh, before we we'll make a final decision on that, but at least we're in agreement all the way back to, uh, March of 2020, I think at least, uh, Councilman Weiner and I. Weiner: Yeah, I, I also, you know, feel that that March of 2020 seems like a re-, you know, that's a, a good cutoff point, um, certainly with respect to the ARPA. Uh, and that's, it's great that we have that opportunity, uh, to, to tap into that fund for that. In terms of the, uh, I, I do think we need to go back to the 2019 CZA as well, um, which fortunately is only, it looks like about five more people, roughly. So it's, we're not talking about a large number. Um, I, I think certainly the $7,200 figure would be a, a, a baseline. I, I too, I think, would be interested in hearing, um, from Forest View community, but, you know, that's the figure that was in the CZA. Uh, so I think that would be a starting point for me to be thinking about that. Bergus: I'm a little worried about us, you know, continuing to push this out further. I think we know that the residents have asked for the full amount going all the way back to the CZA, um, so I think we have at least that level of input. Um, and I think just for expediency's sake, you know, my preference would be to try to get as close as we can to getting our staff to a final structure. Um, I like Councilor Weiner's suggestion, I think, you know, holding to the promise of the CZA for those in June, I think it was June of 2019 with the $7,200, and then the larger amount for the period that we believe we can use the ARPA fund of March 2020 going forward. Alter: Just to kind of piggyback on, on what has been said, and I feel like I've benefited from having a lot of people speak before me, but, um, I do think that, uh, the most that we can use the ARPA funds makes a lot of sense, um, and I, and Geoff I'm sort of writing furiously, and you said most likely going back to 2020, um, the ARPA funds can be used. So I definitely wanna look into that as expediently as possible. Um, but I, I remain, like Pauline had said, I'm This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 5th, 2022. Page 11 like many others, like Laura, we gotta be expedient. And I think that we could look to the CZA for sort of a baseline for that small number of, of households that are not covered by this other, um, I don't want anyone to get left out and actually, um, Mazahir, uh, Salih had sent a late email and I know Kellie sort of gave it to us all, but she makes a really, really important point about renting and getting housing in Iowa City. Now is the time that we need to be doing this. And I know everybody here knows that, but I would just sort of put a, a little bit of weight on that, as Laura did, to say, let's try and figure out what we can do as quickly as possible so that we can get money to people so they can find their home, find a home. Taylor: Our, our clock, the clock is literally ticking here. Uh, things are moving along really quickly. And I appreciate the, the memo from, uh, the Center for Worker Justice, because I think that, uh, many of us, I'll speak for myself, but I don't know others, we kind of take our credit history for granted un-, unless we're, uh, applying for a home loan or some major loan. And, and hadn't even give that thought that some of these folks maybe wouldn't be able to have a credit rating, and I also haven't rented in this community for a really long time. So I don't know, I don't know how many landlords require a good credit rating. Uh, so, so that's, that's something to really think about. And so she, it was mentioned about the 25. Are we married to the 25% amount that you talked about, uh, to, to get to them initially? Or could we go with the 50%? So they have enough funds to actually pay up front for a rental unit? Or.... Teague: What I might say is that when we come from our formal meeting, we're gonna come back to our work session. Taylor: Okay. Okay. Teague: And I think we can continue the conversation Taylor: -- because that's a big question. Teague: -- and that'll be a part, that was another item. Taylor: Good. Teague: Um, just talking about, um, when we will distribute the funds, -- Taylor: -- that's a big concern -- Teague: -- and what percentage, so why don't we hold off and until after, um, until we'll, we'll conclude for now, and then we'll come back at 6:00 PM to start our formal meeting. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 5th, 2022. Page 12 Teague: Returning to our work session for May, April 5th, 2022, and we were on the item of Forest View relocation proposal update. Um, and where we left off is really just, uh, trying to iron out a few things. The last of the conversation where we were was really talking about, um, the amounts for the residents. And I think right before we were leaving, um, there'll be another, there'll be some more topics that I think will, that will be included in addition to whatever else comes up. But one was a mention about, um, the letter from the CWJ or, and really the tenants, um, the Forest View tenants, um, where they were, um, essentially requesting 50% of the money, of the funds up front. Um, and they gave some examples of, um, the cost for down payment and, uh, first month's rent, um. So, and, and the other thing that we, so if we can start with maybe revisiting the conversation, what I heard was, um, a consensus that everybody did want to go back to 2019. Uh, we had propo-, I think the, I wouldn't say a majority of Council proposed this, but the majority of, um, what I heard was people wanted 100% of payments back to, um, March of 2020, if I heard that correctly. Um, now that wasn't the majority of Council, but that was the majority of the comments that I've heard so far. Um, I put out a proposal, um, like I said, I wasn't married to it. I was just, um, from everything that I heard, the one thing that was also mentioned is, um, going back in from February to '20, February 2020, back to when the CZA was created in, um, 2019, those individuals would get, um, payment, but I did hear some offerings. I've only given them $7,200. So we can pick up the conversation from there. Alter: I would just like to pick up where, I'm sorry, I cut you off. Harmsen: No, no, please go ahead. Alter: I just wanna pick up, um, John Thomas kind of started or ended and made comment that we're talking about like five households. I, I would like to see if we can find the money, the full amount for everyone, recognizing that not all of it will be covered by ARPA. Um, but so that's my opening gambit. Harmsen: I agree. Teague: One of the, um, when I gave, you know, the percentages and such, a part of my thought process was, you know, how do we acknowledge that there was, you know, some challenge for the individuals that moved away for reasons we all don't know. Um, but also, um, you know, being a little, um, I don't know, a little, uh, considering that, you know, we don't have all the funds in the world to, you know, do, do this project. And if there was a consideration for $7,200 being somewhere in this mix, um, I would just suggest the Council considers that, um, if that's, because that was, you know, a little bit of the, the promise by the, by the CZA. The other thing that I wanna remind Council is This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 5th, 2022. Page 13 that, um, even though we don't have a, a legal obligation to this at all, I, I know that we all feel morally that we want to do what we can for the, um, for the tenants there. Um, so I'll just put it out there. Is there any considerations for how we could, you know, involve $7,200 as the least amount anybody would receive? And I, and if no one has any thoughts or suggestions, then we, we don't have to go down that road. Taylor: I had proposed the $7,200 amount for those, uh, at the time of the CZA signing only because at that time we were initially told they, they weren't on, on board at all. They were to get nothing. And I felt that they do, uh, deserve to have some type of payment. Uh, if we went the route of the full payment as, as everybody else is getting, I would be okay with that too. But at this point in time, uh, the le-, that $7,200 for, for those folks, and, and then the, the full amount for those above that March '20 date. Alter: Um, one of the things for, I don't know, per--, that helped my perspective in this, and I'm certainly not being combative at all. Um, it's just, again, for me, it was perspective -taking, is that, you know, an hour ago, without blinking, we all were fine with, um, approving a bidding process for $1.47 million for re - asphalting. Absolutely necessary, the roads are, you know, but I just, that perspective sort of helps me think about what are we talking about in terms of helping, uh, a, a a, tenants' association, um, who have lived there for decades in some cases, or have been forced out because they no longer can. And that, you know, for, as discussions with the developers broke down, the developers stopped putting in any improvements, but for the very bare minimum, if that. They've had to rely on direct aid agencies and volunteers to help them. And so for me, looking at the dollar amount and saying, mm, I don't know, my perspective was changed when I realized we're looking at, you know, more than that for asphalt, and we're talking about people, so for what it's worth, that's, that's where I'm coming from. Thomas: I, um, you know, I, I think that's an, puts an, put the, puts the number in an interesting light in a sense. Um, and I, I do, I do sense that, um, when the CZA was written and the $7,200 was identified as a relocation, uh, you know, amount that was, was stipulated, at that time, I don't think very many people were who signed that CZA were thinking that that's what the outcome would be. You know, they, they were thinking they would be moving to another location in Forest View, uh, which didn't happen. Uh, so like Pauline I, I, you know, I certainly felt that, that, we needed to honor that agreement. Um, fortunately we, as I, as I noted earlier, we're only, it looks like we're totally talking about five people. So the, the actual amount is not that significant. Um, so short of actually trying to identify and locate those people and contact them and ask what their financial circumstances are, I would say we could This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 5th, 2022. Page 14 just simply make that decision and give them the, the full amount that we decided, uh, we would give to the others. Teague: So I think I'm hearing um -- go ahead. Harmsen: No, I'm, I'll just, I, I agree. And I would say, uh, Mr. Mayor, even though, uh, I think, uh, you know, I, I agree with the, you know, what, uh, uh, the full amount and, and thank you, Councilmember Alter for, uh, for, um, putting into words, some of those sentiments, but thank you Mayor too, for coming up with something to get conversation rolling. I just wanna acknowledge that. I, I appreciate that, and that there's value in that too. So. Teague: So it does sound like the majority of Council, um, is wanting the full amount. Um, the majority, the majority of Council wants to go back to 2019 and giving everyone the full amount. Yep, I'm seeing majority of heads shake. All right. So there we have that part settled. We're gonna move to the next, um, a conversation piece. And that is when will we make the funds available to the residents, as well as, there has been a request by the Tenants' Association about the initial percentage, um, which we, there was nothing in stone about the 25%. Um, but now they're requesting 50% of, um, upfront money before, you know, the move actually happens. And the other question that I think we have to ask is staff readiness or, uh, their preparedness for how all of this gets transcribed as, um, and we also have, um, yeah, so maybe Geoff can kind of talk about that process. Fruin: Yeah. So on the, on the percentage split, um, I don't think there, that doesn't really get into the grant rules and details. So I think you can set whatever split that you want, uh, staff suggested 25, uh, percent. And we, we thought that would be sufficient, but you're hearing that it may not be. So if you, if you're comfortable bumping that up to 50%, I really don't have heartburn over that. Um, uh, and, and I think you could, you could do that. In terms of moving forward um, I, I think based on the conversation that was held, uh, today here, um, we pretty much will have all we need to, to put together a program. Now, um, uh, so our, our next step is gonna be to move to formalize this in a resolution, uh, for you, so that you can officially vote on it. In the meantime, we've already started to develop some forms, um, explore what translation services may be needed. Um, so I, I, I think we can move pretty expeditiously on this. Um, but we have to expect that there's going to be some, some individual cases that are gonna be tough to work through. So what I would like to see us do is to try to move as quickly as we can to get the program rolled out, um, understanding that for probably most of the eligible applicants, it's gonna be pretty seamless, but also understanding that there may be some discrepancies, there may be trouble locating people, whatever the, the case may be, that we're gonna have to, to, to work through. So, um, I, I This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 5th, 2022. Page 15 hesitate to give you an exact date, like this will be on your next agenda, but, but, um, I hear the call from the residents. I know the leasing cycle here. I mean, we, we want to get this out quick and we will, we will push this to the top of the list. Uh, other than that, um, I think the, the, the major effort is just to reach out to some of our social service agencies and make sure that, um, uh, they're prepared to assist and that we're prepared to provide them resources to assist. And so those may come at you, um, uh, in a different way. I don't, I don't know quite yet if we'll have formal agreements with them that you'll need to execute, or if we'll, we'll do that administratively, but that will be our next step. Now that we know the basic program parameters, um, we'll work with those partners to make sure that the residents have a place to turn for support and finding that next unit or, or, um, connecting with other needed resources that they may have. Weiner: Yeah, I don't, I, I think I don't have any issue with the 50%. I think that, um, that we, you'd originally talked about, Geoff, sort of a, a, a deadline, um, since some, and I agree that it should be rolled out as quickly as, as feasible based on what, what staff is capable of doing. I also think there should, there should, we should probably put a, um, a final end date on it when figure out what that eventually should be, because some people just may not be able to be located. Um, and if after whatever we had set as the move out date, um, at December or whatever it, that people can't be located, I mean, I think, I think at that point we have to, at some point we just have to be able to say, we're done, we've done what we can for the maximum number of residents, um, rather than sort of having possible claims dragging on. That's just why. Fruin: Yeah, I, I agree. And I think we just set that at December 9th, December 9th is the last point in which you can access those funds and we'll do our best to locate folks. I think the Tenants' Association will surely help us out if they're maintaining contact with anybody, but we experienced this with the Rose Oaks displacement that took place, um, we had to use last known addresses for, for the tenant list that we had, and, uh, we were successful in reaching some and not successful in reaching others. And it'll probably be the similar case here. Teague: Yeah. All right. Fruin: So can I summarize real quick just to make sure, so we're gonna go all the way back to the CZA. Council understands that for that period, between from the CZA to the onset of COVID, which may not be March 1st, you know, there'll be some date in March when the actual emergency was declared. Um, we will use local funds, uh, for the approximately five households. We're still trying to nail that number down exactly, but we'll use local funds there. Um, I'm also taking away that we will use local funds for anybody that can't meet This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 5th, 2022. Page 16 the income threshold to be eligible for the ARPA, uh, dollars. So that could be, um, a different subset. So, you know, I'm kind of giving some, some rough guesstimate here, but you're, we're probably looking at, um, a minimum of $250,000 in local funds, could, could climb up to, uh, $3[00K] or $400[K] would be my best guess at this time is what is what you're committing to. Uh, the rest would be funded through the, um, ARPA process. The percentage split, I think I saw enough head shakes to say 50/50 is, is fine with everybody. Um, and, uh, you're comfortable with us moving ahead with that self -attest, um, uh, method as opposed to the, the, the study approach. Weiner: Yeah. I think the, the only thing that, that I'd add is that we just need to make sure that the people who get local funds understand and they're taxable. Fruin: Yeah. We'll, we'll try to provide some guidance, uh, uh, to them when we distribute those funds. Harmsen: Uh, just, oh, sorry. I just want to, uh, acknowledge, uh, communications that I I've gotten and, and discussions I've had with people from, uh, uh, Forest View, uh, and also my observations, a thank you to, uh, our City Manager and, and staff for working so closely with the residents and making them a, a part of the conversation at every step of the way, and for taking on, you know, this task, uh, that they have in front of them and, and being, you know, uh, um, you know, and the work that they're they're about to do. So thank you. Bergus: I just wanna echo that sentiments and thank you also staff for your willingness to create an ARPA program so quickly and so flexibly and so much in line with what we're trying to accomplish here. So really good problem solving. Thank you. Alter: Yes. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 5th, 2022. Page 17 American Rescue Plan (SLRF) Update Teague: All right. If no other comments we're gonna move on to the American Rescue Plan update, and we're gonna ask Rachel Kilburg to come forth. Kilburg: Hello, Mayor and City. Oh, is this off still? Fruin: No, it'll kick back on when you start. Kilburg: Hi, Mayor and City Council. Um, so my purpose tonight is really just to give you, um, a, a status update, um, on where we're at with our ARPA spending priorities. Um, so to do that in your, um, in your, on your work, attached to your work session agenda, uh, was a memo that I had drafted, um, kind of outlining that, that, um, where we're at with each of these. So I'm really just gonna walk through that. Um, and then attached to that memo also, um, was, uh, the presentation that we had presented at a September work session. Um, and if you had a chance to review that, that really just, um, provided kind of a overview of all of the public input that we had conducted, what we heard, and then, um, ultimately our recommendations based upon what we heard, um, and those recommendations, uh, that we presented were agreed upon by Council. And so those were broken out into really two categories. The, the first category was these emergent needs, these kind of, um, uh, issues that needed to be addressed, uh, rather quickly. And then, um, a second category of strategic investments, um, which were, um, some of those kind of more transformative, longer term, bigger picture, uh, investments that we, we saw value in using these funds for. So I'll kind of walk through each of these, um, just to give you a sense of where we're at. So I, I know you're all aware that we were allocated $18.3 million. We have about half of that in the bank right now. I'd expect we get the other half, um, later this spring and we have made, um, one funding sub -award. So that was to Mobile Crisis that you all approved a couple of weeks ago. So we have about $17.3 million remaining. Of course, we know that we have a couple, uh, that are coming, coming up, uh, in, in the coming weeks. Um, so then I'll go ahead and just start, uh, kind of down the list. So first, direct payments to eligible adults. This is that one time, uh, payment, uh, program that we have been collaborating with the County with, and we are just kinda buttoning up the details on, uh, that agreement with the County, um, and hope, uh, to, to bring that forward to you for consideration at your next, uh, City Council meeting. Eviction prevention, this was something that we had invested in, uh, throughout the pandemic. Um, and so we wanted to kind of look at ways to continue to, to meet this need going forward. We had kind of put these conversations on hold, um, knowing that the state had kind of indicated that they may also be using some federal pandemic dollars, uh, to address this need. And they did make, uh, announcement that they are gonna be contributing about $22 million to a This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 5th, 2022. Page 18 rapid rehousing program. So with that, um, knowledge, we've kind of resumed those conversations, um, and are looking at how we can kind of support that state's investment through, um, uh, our coordinated, uh, entry process, as well as perhaps a risk mitigation fund. Housing repair and relocation, um, of course we just kind of discussed that. So well, um, move forward, uh, with the Forest View plan in the coming weeks. And then the emergency nonprofit assistance. Um, this was something, uh, that kind of, we heard about immediate kind of when we had done conducted public input, it was still kind of in some of the height of that immediate need. Um, and so we heard a little bit, uh, uh, about a need for some nonprofit assistance to, to meet some of that increased demand. We haven't, um, necessarily been hearing that as much from the nonprofits. Many of them have also benefited from, um, some other, uh, uh, assistance sources throughout the pandemic. And, and, now, um, so we're actually recommending that this, uh, recommendation kind of gets wrapped up into, uh, the social service capital funding, um, priority that I'll talk about, and just a few, uh, a few more here. So then moving on to those strategic investments, um, the BIPOC business support framework and infrastructure, uh, Astig Planning and RE Connect Collective is currently leading an economic inclusion study. Um, we hear that's going well, and that they're, um, really, really making a final push to kinda hear from everyone. And we expect that that will be done, um, will be, will be presented to us in June of 2022. We also expect that will include some recommendations, which will kinda help guide us, uh, in our conversation about how we want to invest in BIPOC business support. And then for social service needs assessment and capital funding, um, we have, we have talked about doing kind of j ust a, a needs assessment of all the social service agencies in the area. We really think that in order for this to be successful and, and the nonprofits agree this, this needs to be done at a County level. The County has indicated that they, um, are interested in this sort of collaboration. Um, so, uh, we, we just would recommend that, um, when Council is ready to move this item forward, schedule a work session, um, to discuss this, we would need to gauge whether the County is still interested in pursuing, um, something collaboratively here, otherwise um we would suggest perhaps exploring just the development of a capital grant program to meet some of those capital needs for nonprofits. Um, some of that capital funding, isn't always, um, funding that they can find through other, uh, funding sources or grant programs. Um, affordable housing, we ha-, really the key one here that, that we'll be, um, looking to move on in the coming months is, uh, with the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County. So we haven't, we've started some kind of preliminary conversations with the Housing Trust Fund, obviously the structure, the details, none of that's yet decided. We would probably recommend that we look at Housing Trust Fund for, um, some of their ideas there. Um, they've been great stewards of our dollars and, um, well, well just mo-, in, we expect that in, um, the summer well be able to This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 5th, 2022. Page 19 bring kind of a, a more formal proposal forward to you, um, there. Mental health services. Um, so this item was, uh, again, that subrecipient agreement you had approved a couple weeks ago with CommUnity to expand Mobile Crisis outreach, um, and we will continue to monitor that as we go forward. Um, the next few here, uh, workforce development, we had some great ideas brainstormed, um, throughout our public input session. Um, and we started a couple of those conversations as well, early on. We would just need to revisit that, um, as Council directs us to. And then climate resilience, hazard assessment planning, um, again, would be something that would be pending a City Council discussion. And then for small business, arts, culture, and tourism investments, we have a small-business kind of assistance, um, framework in place. So we, we would be able to act quickly on that if, if that was desired. Um, we've also, um, talked a little bit about the op-, the opportunity to kind of bolster some economic activity, uh, in the community, um, through investing, uh, with, or a partnership with Think Iowa City. And then finally, just a reminder of course, that, um, we do have the option, um, to, uh, take, um, some revenue replacement dollars. The Treasury is actually requiring us to, to elect to do so, um, either through a calculation or a standard allowance of $10 million, so that funding, uh, does remain available for any needs that, um, perhaps aren't as flexible, um, within the, the, kind of the guidelines of the, the U.S. Treasury. So that's just kind of the, the outline of where we're at. I'm happy to answer questions. Weiner: Could you explain again, the, the last thing that you just talked about, the revenue replacement piece, please? Kilburg: Sure, sure. So, um, the, the final rule, I'm, I'm sorry, the U.S. Treasury allows, um, local governments, um, to opt to, um, take, to basically replace revenue that was lost throughout the pandemic, um, to use for, uh, the provision of government services. Um, they've been pretty intentional in their guidance that this is, um, to, to do exactly that. So if, if there's a need in our community that, um, we maybe can't necessarily achieve using ARPA funds because of kind of that stricter guidance in the final rule, um, this, this has kind of presented itself as a way to, to create even more flexibility within the ARPA funds. Um, so the, there's really no, the Treasury is kind of encouraging governments to take that as well, um, in a way, because it's, it's requiring you to either say that if we were to do this, we would do reven-, we would do a calculation of how much revenue we lost, or they're just streamlining it and saying, hey, governments, you can all say we have $10 million in lost revenue and rely on that as you go forward in the administration of your ARPA funds. Fruin: Yeah. So, so the bottom line is technically when it comes to the ARPA reporting, we are going to say, we have, we are gonna elect the $10 million. That's what most every city's doing. Um, we're gonna elect to, to, to declare This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 5th, 2022. Page 20 $10 million as revenue replacement. We still feed that money into the same program so the output is the same at the end of the day, but some of the backend re-, stream-, um, reporting is streamlined. And also, um, we have more flexibility on how we can use those funds should, should your priorities change over time. But if you see cities spending, you know, ARPA recovery dollars on road projects, for example, road projects, aren't part of the, um, uh, the final rule as terms of an eligible project, but technically cities can declare the $10 million and then use that $10 million to, to fund, um, other projects. So for us, it's more of the back end. Um, it's kind of streamlined some reporting, but, um, that rule came out after we set our priorities. And we're, we're marching ahead with those same priorities. Weiner: Thank you. Fruin: I think what's important for Council discussion, uh, tonight is you see all these topics, some of them we're waiting on a study to be completed, or, you know, we're actively working through, but, um, if you see other ones that, that are a top priority for you, we can kind of bump some of these to the top of the list. Or if you see some that you want to revisit, uh, we have, we have a new Council. Um, obviously we've got two, two new members, if there's some things that you wanna revisit, you certainly can as well. Or if you just wanna redirect a little bit, um, you, you can, um, do that now, you can schedule additional work sessions, um, but basically we're going down this list as quickly as we can, um, uh, to start implementation. So if you wanna steer us in a different direction, it's just good to get that feedback and get those discussions going. Bergus: I'll just throw out one thing that I've mentioned, uh, to Geoff directly as well, which is one of the larger chunks we have as, as a possibility here is that social service needs assessment and capital planning, or seed funding for initiatives. And, um, I just said, you know, if we're going to be creating something like a grants program, just really being as transparent and communicative as possible, because I have some concerns that, you know, those, um, who kind of know how the system works or have been paying attention to this over time will be more likely to come forward with really cool ideas. We know that the need is always greater than our ability to, to, uh, support it financially. And so just making sure that we don't kind of put ourselves in a position where, um, people are left out or organizations are left out, um, because I think if, if we don't do the needs assessment, there's some risk of that, but also, you know, just being communicative and being transparent, making sure people know this funding is there and we have an intention to use it. Um, I think as time goes on, we're gonna continue to get proposals or ideas, so whatever we can do to make sure that's fair and equitable. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 5th, 2022. Page 21 Weiner: That I, I appreciate your saying that. I mean, I think one thing that we could do to ensure that is to essentially have a, have a, um, a graduated rollout of those grants so that, you know, somebody who's well prepared can apply early on, but then there will be space for other in, in the next, whatever the next periods are. Um, if more, if it comes to the consciousness to, to the knowledge of others who didn't have that knowledge to begin with, and then have a chance to apply so that maybe you only get one bite at the apple, but others will then be able to. Teague: All right. Any other thoughts? Thank you, Rachel. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 5th, 2022. Page 22 Information Packet Discussion [March 24, March 31] Teague: We are gonna move on to information packet discussions. We'll start with March 24th. Bergus: IP2, with the deer management annual report, do we have any flexibility or options? I remember campaigning and sitting in the audience and listening to the Mayor talk about going back to the Natural Resource Commission however many times. Fruin: Um, the, the, uh, uh, DNR staff is, is gonna give an update, um, to the Natural Resource Commission at the, at their next meeting on our behalf. And then, um, uh, we may, as staff, we may, we may go before the Natural Resource Commission, uh, at their second meeting or their following meeting later this summer to answer any questions they have about our situation. But what we're really trying to do now is, uh, work cooperatively with the DNR. Um, we, we want to, um, use their expertise to, to make our bow hunt, um, program more successful, um, uh, while respecting the community's wishes on the boundaries, so to speak, of, of what, what, you know, what bow hunting could be done. So, um, I think they've got some ideas that might help us, um, uh, in some, in, in, in, improve the numbers that we're seeing out of our bow hunt. Um, but we're also sharing with them, you know, the, the data that you see here, we had a more in-depth discussion with them a few weeks ago to say, you know, even if we were to double or triple our success rate with our bow -hunt program, we're not gonna get in front of this. And so we've sent them kind of the, um, exact locations of where we have accidents. Um, and we're trying to say if a communitywide sharpshooting effort, um, isn't acceptable still to the Natural Resource Commission, can we, can we explore some very targeted ones in areas where we clearly are having some property damage and risk and have some, some significant public safety risk? Uh, that seems to be growing, uh, quickly with the population. And, uh, the staff is, is definitely open to having those conversations with us. I think, um, as long as we continue to try to work and improve our, our bow -hunting program, I, I get the impression that, that they may be open to us revisiting a limited sharp shooting just to, just to get in front of the, the situation. Um, Mayor Teague joined, joined us for at least one of those, uh, uh, NRC meetings. It's, it's hard to predict exactly where it'll go, but we're working on it. The numbers are definitely, um, concerning to, to see how quickly that population is bouncing back. That's kind of what we feared. And now we're seeing that, we're seeing that play out, um, both in the deer count, but also in the, the, the collisions that, uh, our public safety folks are responding to. Thomas: Yeah. I, I appreciate all the work that's gone into revisiting this, and it, it always did seem to me to be something where, uh, you know, we're This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 5th, 2022. Page 23 proceeding in good faith, you know, we're, we've initiated the bow -hunting, let's see how it works and, uh, you know, report back to the state on, on what our findings are. And, um, you know, see if, if the state then can see that we may have, you know, a reasonable argument to do a hybrid if necessary, to, to try to bring the numbers down. And it could be where we see there's, you know, a dramatic increase in the deer population. So it's, I think this, this all sounds really encouraging to me that, um, you know, we're just proceeding and observing and basing our suggestions and conversations on the facts on the ground and, um, You know, just taking it from there. But I, I, I think we've, we're doing all we can in, uh, good faith to try to make this thing work. Weiner: Yeah. And I hope they'll also understand eventually that this, that the community itself has some red lines in terms of where, where this activity can take place, and we're not gonna be able to get past that. Teague: Any other comments from infor-, information packet March 24th? Weiner: I think IP4 sounds like it's gonna be a lot, a really interesting idea and a lot of fun. Public works open house. Teague: All right. Moving on to March 20, uh, 31st, and we do have the, um, joint entities meeting agenda item, um, for April 18th. Fruin: Um, just a reminder on that at your previous meeting, you asked us to put the Guidelink, uh, to ask the Guidelink staff, to be there for a quick, uh, update. So we'll do that. Teague: Are there any other additional things Council thought of? Weiner: I mean, I just, I don't, none of us know where, where the pandemic is headed at this point. I think it would be helpful if they're willing to have Sam Jarvis or someone speak as well, just to give a, a broader community update for the county and the state. Teague: I think that'd be great. We know that we still have, um, the, the childcare for a future. So. Alter: And I don't know if it's appropriate now, but I have talked to, um, Jennifer Banta, who is part of, she was part of the statewide, um, kind of task force on childcare that helped provide recommendations to, um, Governor Reynolds, but has been very, very active, um, with a local coalition here, um, actually in the County, um, and she would be willing to come give a brief presentation. Um, I told her we've got a lot going on in April, so, but she was thinking May if, or actually was asking. And I guess I'm asking now if, if that could be This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 5th, 2022. Page 24 possible simply because I think it could be really informative as we move into strategic planning and thinking about ARPA funds and, um, just for us to all get on the same page about what is already being done in this area. So, um, obviously I don't set the agenda, but I guess I'm asking that, you know, it would be wonderful if it could be sort of, you know, late spring, um, as we start to talk about stuff. Teague: Yeah. Alter: And I realize that's separate from the joint entities, but -- Teague: Sure. Alter: So I just kind of hopped the, yeah. Hopped the line there. Teague: Yep. So I, I want to just make sure that Council know that you're referring to our work session. Alter: Yes. I apologize. Teague -- having her come here. And I think we had took a census, uh, of, um, wanting to do that and we'll get that on the work session in the future. Yeah. But I, I think that's a great idea. Alter: I leapfrogged, sorry about that. Teague: No no. But, but yes, definitely on the joint entities meeting. Uh, we want to have that, um, in the future. I don't know. I mean, we can certainly propose it. Um, but we already have a, you know, a big item on there, Guidelink, you know, could take up some time and it's, I think, appropriate for Guidelink to kind of get out there as well and give an update. Alter: Yeah. Just to be clear. I, I actually, I just, I hopscotched over and I went immediately to our work session discussion as opposed to talking about that being on joint entities. Cause I know that the last we met, you did bring it up and, and I know there's interest. So I think as we all get better information, then we can go forward. But no, I was not suggesting it again. Teague: Has the request to the County already been submitted for the joint, uh, for Guidelink? Fruehling: No, not yet. I was waiting to get more info. Teague: Okay. And, uh, did we confirm that Guidelink is available yet or not quite? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 5th, 2022. Page 25 Fruin: I have not, but I, I can reach out to Abby and make sure. Teague: The reason I asked is because I know at the last meeting we did talk about childcare. So would we consider, um, really reaching out for the childcare update at this joint entities meeting and then, -- no? Alter: Like I'm the expert here. No no. I was thinking more that Jennifer would be able to come and speak to Council so that we could know sort of like what opportunities and possibilities there were for Iowa City, as we start thinking about strategic planning and whatnot. Teague: All right. So I just wanna make sure your, your hope is that, um, that conversation happens here first before it goes to the County, the joint entities meeting. Alter: I wasn't thinking that we would do childcare at a joint entities at, at all. Teague: Not, not this one. Alter: No. Teague: Okay. Alter: No, I'm sorry. That's where I was -- Teague: No worries. Alter: It's confusing. Teague: We'll, we'll stay with Guidelink center, the Guidelink. And then, uh, we'll talk about childcare, um, at the joint entities meeting in the future. Any other, um, item related to March 31st info packet? Thomas: Well, the, the traffic nerd in me, um, noted this letter from the Iowa DOT on pavement markings, um. In, in reading the letter from DOT it referred to the, uh, the placement of a multi-component, durable liquid pavement marking material for the new center and edge lines. Do we know, do you know what that material is? The reason I'm asking is, you know, I, I think I've raised in the past how I, I see our pa-, some of our pavement markings fade away very, very quickly. And, uh, this sounds like a more durable material that the Iowa DOT is using at least in this project. Uh, so I was, I was interested to know what precisely was being used and, um, start from there, but, but perhaps This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 5th, 2022. Page 26 that kind of material could be used in those applications where we felt a more durable material was appropriate. Fruin: We'll have to circle back to you on that. Thomas: Yeah. Teague: Any other items from the info packet, March 31st? Bergus: Yes. I just highlight the Electric Bus Bash on, uh, April 22nd, which is Earth Day, at Riverfront Crossings Park. Um, yeah, that was at IP15. So excited to see that. Fruin: Mayor. I was also hoping you could, uh, everybody could pull out the tentative meeting schedule. I've had a little bit, uh, difficulty. Teague: Yes. Fruin: Um, finding consensus, uh, for our strategic planning meeting. Um, it does look like that will have to be in May at some point. And again, we're looking for a half to three quarters day that could work for the, uh, entire Council. Um, Uh, I've got the dates in May that are open to the, the facilitator team. Um, I don't know how best to, to, to go about this. Previously, we were looking for Monday, Wednesday, Friday starting at 9:30, and that's where we were running into some, some trouble. So whether we need to push that into an evening hour, late afternoon, evening, if that makes more sense, if you want to explore different days of the week. Um, I'm not sure, but, uh, the, the facilitators have some pretty good availability here. So, uh, if anybody wants to throw, throw out some days or ideas, I.... Teague: It, does Wednesday work for people? As a starting -- Bergus: Mayor, are there Wednesdays that work for ECICOG? Fruin: Uh, so the 4th, uh, and the 18th, Uh, are both are the, are the only two that are open in May. And the 4th, the City Attorney is, is, is not available. So the 18th could potentially, um, work. Harmsen: I would be available on the 18th. Thomas: That works for me. Taylor: I'm good for the 18th. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 5th, 2022. Page 27 Alter: This is far enough out, I'11, I can do it. Teague: Okay. What time are we -- um, yeah, I can do it. Fruin: Do you have a preference on, uh, time? So you have a Council meeting the night before, um, would you rather, uh, start 9:30 or would you wanna push that a little bit? Bergus: I'd rather not push it. Teague: Yeah. Alter: 9:30 is fine. Fruin: Keep 9:30. Okay. Teague: And, um, just for a timeframe, what were we planning? Fruin: Um, I would say, um, we probably need a minimum of four hours. I'd like to say maybe, maybe plan on five and, and maybe we don't get there, but four to five hours is probably what I would target. And if that's, if that's too much, if, if other, if you have commitments or something, that's fine. Just let, let me know. We can put a hard end date. It'll just affect how we plan for that, that day. Taylor: And what was the start time again? Fruin: 9:30. Taylor: 9:30. Fruin: So we could do 9:30 and do either a break for lunch or a working lunch, uh, and, uh, you know, go, go to the early afternoon. Weiner: Just block off the day. Taylor: Yeah. Teague: Yeah. Probably a working lunch. Fruin: Okay. Teague: All right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 5th, 2022. Page 28 Bergus: Team building lunch. Teague: Yes. Taylor: Pardon? Bergus: Just a team building lunch. Alter: No marshmallows and pipe cleaners. Thomas: We make lunch together. Bergus: We can make lunch together! Alter: This is an excellent idea. Fruin: Okay. Thank you. That is, uh, very helpful. Bergus: Thank you. Teague: All right. Anything else there with, um, the March 31st info packet? All right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 5th, 2022. Page 29 University of Iowa Student Government (USG) Updates Teague: We will continue on, um, so MSG, uh, USG, um, updates. Um, they are not able to be here, but we did get some updates. So I'll just kind of, uh, read through some of, read through them. So USG will stock the East Side food pantry with sustainable menstrual products for UI students, such as menstrual cups and period underwear. Almost all of the magnets have been distributed to places around campus, um, the community, um, and there was also more magnets dropped off at City Hall yesterday. USG met with Iowa legislators to advocate for student resources at the state level. University of Iowa students met with, um, about improvements for higher education institutions in Iowa, including student apartment rental and mental health resources, and state funding on last Thursday. Many USG members are in DC for the week, uh, for Big 10 on the Hill, lobbying legislators on many issues, including, um, uh, things that are really, uh, ensuring basic needs. Uh, that includes addressing food insecurity, mental health accessibility, specifically advocating for a Treat Act, expanding, expanding PS, PSLF, which is debt - forgiving jobs. If you want more in-depth explanation of what they advocated for, Ellie is actually there, and she can share more information when she gets back. 30 rooms in the IMU will be available during the lease gap during periods, according to, uh, Tanya Villhauser at the April 1st Off -Campus Housing meeting, still getting information on how students can apply to this from Tanya, as well as strategizing ways to get information out to students. USG voted to renew its support for a sustainability general education course that would be implemented university wide. And then Patrick Johnson and Vera Barkosky made an unopposed run for UI Student Government, president and VP, and are elected for the 2022 through '23 executive ticket, along with many, uh, senators. So we'll have our new people joining us, um, this fall. Those are their announcements. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 5th, 2022. Page 30 Council updates on assigned boards, commissions, and committees Teague: Anything else for the good of the cause today by Council? Bergus: Just a reminder, we have MPOJC tomorrow, which I think is everyone, except you, Mayor, 4:30. Weiner: And there was a, um, there was a JECC meeting, um, which the, the budget was approved. Um, also went through the audit report and I mean, one of the best things that JECC ever did was, was transfer, it appears for a whole variety of reasons, was transfer its, essentially, budget and accounting to the City of Iowa City, um, which has really, which has helped provide different layers of control and, and really accurate, and really accurate budgeting. And, um, they got a great report from the auditor. So. Teague: Great. Anything else for the good of the cause? We are adjourned, enjoy the rest of your evening. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 5th, 2022.