HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-06-06 TranscriptionPage 1
Council Present: Alter, Bergus, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Weiner
Staff Present: Fruin, Jones, Kilburg, Goers, Fruehling, Hightshoe, Knoche, Havel, Sovers
Others Present: Miglin, Zeimet (USG)
Annual Presentation from the Iowa City Are Development Group
Teague: Good afternoon. It is 04:00 p.m. June 6, 2022. And I'm going to call the City of Iowa
City work session- in session. And our first item is going to be the annual presentation
from the Iowa City Area Development Group. And welcome. We have two people here
to present today.
Moreland: Thank you, Mayor. I'm Kate Moreland with Iowa City Area Development and with
me today is Austin Korns, who's our director of business development. So thank you for
having us. As you know, ICAD's mission is to create, collaborate, and lead regional
economic development efforts that contribute to the creation and growth of companies,
wealth and quality jobs. We do this through a spirit of innovation and a culture of sharing
that transforms knowledge into economic opportunity. We're nearing our 40th birthday,
which is hard to believe. I'm a little older than that, [LAUGHTER] but most of my life its
been around. And we do serve the communities of Iowa City, Coralville, Tipton, North
Liberty, Kalona, Solon, Tiffin, Amana Colonies, West Branch, West Liberty, and all of
Johnson County. Our goal is really to be available to assist interstate commerce
companies with location or expansion projects, workforce development and
entrepreneurial services. We know that the majority of our growth in our business
community comes from 85- 85 percent of our growth comes from existing businesses in
our communities. So we put a lot of effort into supporting our current businesses,
especially over the past few years. To do that, we do an annual survey, a synchronous
survey. And so here's just some results that we would have done last summer from our
synchronous interviews, kind of from an overall perspective of all of Johnson County.
And then we'll get into a little bit more Iowa City specific data. So you can see here that
93 percent of the company's market share is stable or increasing. Eighty nine percent of
introduced new products, 91 percent of plans for new products in the next two years. We
identified 810 new jobs through our synchronous visits and $82.2 million m investment
identified for expanding and modernizing facilities. A lot of companies look to
modernize during the period of COVID when they had a little bit less workforce, um,
they were able to do that. And I'll just commend Austin who does a lot of these. He did
receive an award for Best in Iowa for his work in our synchronous program this year.
Thirty-five percent of companies report being at risk. These are some of our down -
threats or opportunities. Thirty-five percent of companies report being at risk of losing
high-value employees. So about a third of companies are concerned about that. These are
very similar to national trends with all the great resignation and a lot of movement of
workforce. Sixty seven percent of companies reported experiencing recruitment
problems, 40 percent of companies report supply chain disruption, as you know. So this
is a little harder to read, but it does give you a little Iowa City comparison with Iowa and
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of June 6, 2022.
Page 2
Johnson County. And I will say that predominantly the job growth in Iowa City comes
from your manufacturing sector. So the Procter and Gamble's, Oral -B's, they grew
significantly even during the COVID period because their- their products were so badly
needed. So I would say that Iowa city companies are fairing well, your numbers are a
little bit higher, more positive compared to the state averages, and defmitely on par with
the county numbers. One exception may be the expansion of real estate in the Iowa City
area, which we're keeping an eye on. And that's really some of our larger employers like
ACT and Pearson in Iowa City that just are- they're not using the same footprint that they
were prior to COVID. So a little bit of shifts happening for some of those large
employers. So we're defmitely, I guess, working with them and kind of trying to see how
we can repurpose or they're going to repurpose some of that real estate. About half the
companies pre-COVID, were looking to expand, and about three-fourths of those are still
on track with plans to expand. So we are seeing still significant hiring, but I will say there
is significant remote hiring happening in a lot of companies. And that's again true
throughout the- the nation.When we look at workforce and remember these interviews
did take place last summer. And it's really just a snapshot in time. Iowa looks to have had
some recruitment challenges. Iowa City does recruitment challenges that are a little bit
higher. There are also some greater challenges with internet, technology and
infrastructure that was- that were reported. But that was true county -wide too. So I think
there's a good opportunity to be vigilant and continue to invest in that infrastructure that
we know is happening right now in Iowa City. Whether people are working at home still
or on the worksites. There's still a demand for high-speed Internet. And then just overall,
some of the infrastructure needs that we heard about in the visits. Regional transportation,
affordable childcare and workforce housing, and rural broadband. These are obviously
also workforce issues. So as we look to support workforce, to assist companies and
bringing more people here, these are all important considerations. And then developable
land is always an issue in Iowa City just with land costs. Um, so we continue to be
cognizant of that as well. So Austin will head out here in the next few weeks to start
interviews all over again and we'll get some updated data and hoping for some good
participation. This is how we look at ways that we can provide programming and be able
to provide the right resources for companies when we understand some of the current
needs. As you probably know, the game of business attraction has really changed and we
really do target, targeted business attraction. So in the areas of biotech, med tech, in
partnership with the University, advanced manufacturing [NOISE] and then logistics and
distribution has been huge over the last several years and really especially over the last
two and continues to be something people are looking for warehouse, close to the
interstate, all those sorts of things as- as people try to bring things closer to where people
are. And then I just wanted to share a little bit about Project Life. This was our largest
project, I know in my ten years. And we initiated this back in May of 2021. We had to
lead, it was a large biotech vaccine production distribution company. It was a $600
million investment of 500,000 square foot facility, 500 jobs at $100,000 a year with
benefits. So it was kind of the unicorn of projects. They looked at 200 sites across 25
states and we submitted four sites in the region, one being in Iowa City. It's gotten
narrowed down to the one side in North Liberty. And then we hosted a visit in November.
And I would- I would just like to say I want to thank Geoff and Kelly from Coralville.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of June 6, 2022.
Page 3
This was an all hands on deck visit. We had the University at the table, Kirkwood, all the
City Managers, IEDA. We really put the full court press on with everyone's cooperation.
and- and I think even through that process, we built a lot of great relationships. We
learned of new assets we have in our community and how we can put those forward. And
we stay in touch with the company, um, to this day and there may be an opportunity
down the road. They asked to have a meeting afterward. So obviously we learned we
were 1B in February, which is just a nice way of saying number two. But we- we again
hope there may be an opportunity in the future and we certainly it has led to other leads
for biotech companies on a smaller scale. So we're continuing to- to follow up on some of
those. Entrepreneurship has been- always been a tenant of our work. Some of our largest
employers started out as startups, IDT, ACT, all spin outs, MediRevv. So some of these
large employers started very small here. So we employed a new program this year called
Builders and Backers. And this is, we're is where the third city in the United States to
host this program. Liz has done an amazing job of spearheading this with Heartland
Forward, which is a national organization that helps fund this. We had ten builders this
spring in our cohort, and this coming year we will have 30. So we're expanding it to three
cohorts over the next year. And we have reached into the community, into places and
connected with people that we normally we're not reaching. So it has been absolutely
amazing to see people coming up with ideas, raising their hand. We just- we close, I think
next week the application process for June. And I think we had 20 applications as of
Friday, so it's a very exciting new program. And then our goal is really to help those
people in early-stage get to the next stage, which would be an accelerator venture school,
the BIPOC business accelerator in the south district. This is really just the beginning of
the funnel. And I think we were really missing those people that needed more education
and assistance to get going and a little bit of funding. We also have EntreFEST corning
up this week. So thank you. I know Iowa City is helping sponsor that. We'll house that at
Merge on Thursday and Friday of this week, so will have a lot of entrepreneurs in the
area. From a workforce development standpoint, we continue to work with our partners at
the EA around business or talent attraction marketing. [NOISE] And at this point we have
about 500 people in our Talent Hub. About half of them have submitted resumes. And
these are people outside the area looking to come here. And so then we share that
information with our employers and work to try to connect those people to opportunities.
So that attraction marketing is- is going fairly well. We continue to bring our employers
together monthly through the Jo Co Talent Group. That's a partnership with Iowa City
area business partnership. We do workforce for young workforce, the ICR Future work to
really connect kids to careers and to help our education systems connect the business.
Then we will be assisting Kirkwood with their visioning process as they look to
reconsider their presence here, the programming that's needed, and really helping connect
them to employers needs so that we ensure that we have the programs that our people and
our companies need for the future. We also worked with our partners to the north on
inclusive ICR index. This DEI index was taken by 100 companies, small and medium-
sized in our region. And we'll have some results here this summer, but it'll give us a
regional picture of where there's some need, where there's some support need for business
to be able to have good DI policies and practices and procedures. So we will be doing
that year in and year out to try to gauge our progress and really see how we can support
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of June 6, 2022.
Page 4
our businesses in this area. Then a few other investments we made this year, we did fund
the inclusive economic development plan that Astig Pllanning, uh, did. And I'm sure
you'll be hearing results about, I know many of you were at the strategic doing event this
past week where projects came out of that when we learned about some of the barriers
and opportunities. Um, so we'll continue to work with that group in our own work to
ensure that our work, um, has a lens where we really are working to break down some of
those barriers, uh, for business. And then just a few other activities. We expanded- we've
never had a commercial MLS, but we were able to partner with a technology company
called Resimplifi. And that's an add-on to our LOIS, which is very cumbersome, um,
technology where we have to enter all the data. Resimplifi scoops all of the commercial
data up for us. And so we have a much more robust, um, picture of what our commercial
listings are. So we'll soon- sorry. I act like it's already happening. It's happening very
soon. Um, but we worked with the, uh, the Iowa City Realtors on that. Um, some bank
commercial developers. And so I think it's gonna be a really good thing for our region.
Um, HNI has come to town that'll be more- more formally and out soon, but, uh, moved
into the new AI- the old AIC facility. Um, IC Cannabis took over the McCarrel facilities.
So some of these properties that were sitting are now being occupied, which is great. Um,
we host Build Johnson County events quarterly where we're bringing developers, um,
real estate builders, and our public entities together to have conversations about kind of
the future of building, um, the ease of doing business, and some of the things to look for,
um, from a design perspective from our architects, kind of what's coming this- in the
future. And then we've been working- Tom has been working closely with the county and
a company that's working on this solar triangle in Johnson County. It's currently in a
Misostudy. So we're just in your one of that. But it's a 150 megawatt facility that, um, has
enough power to power all of Iowa City and Coralville. So it would be an amazing
facility if- if that makes it through the process. It'd probably be acquired by utility at
some point. But we're very optimistic about the potential there. And that would be south
of Johnson County- south in Johnson County. Um, we also continue to help support the
Diversity Markets, the South District SSMID, sitting on their board, um, and just
continuing to help grow that area economically. And then these are just our KPIs that we
keep track of for the three-year period of our campaign. Just to give you an idea of- of
kind of where we are. We're on target for all of our- on target or above for all of our
categories. Um, and in light of COVID, I'm very proud of the team because it's not been
an easy couple of years. Um, being able to have, um, met these goals. So wanted to share
those with you as well.
Weiner: What is a KPI?
Moreland: The performance indicator, key performance indicator.
Janice: Thank you.
Moreland: So when we did our campaign, we just shared with our investors that we would keep
track of these metrics to know if we're being successful. And then the Iowa EdTech
Collaborative, we received a grant- federal grant for, um, $391,000 to advance EdTech in
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of June 6, 2022.
Page 5
Iowa. So this is a statewide initiative that ICAD is- is running point on. And our goal
really is to build the EdTech industry to further build it. We're the home of so much great
educational programming, testing, assessment, and technology. And so we want it- we
had a study done at the State level. And because of our workforce and the number of
companies, they felt like we were the place where we could grow that for the rest of the
State. So we have Mark Butland, [NOISE] who was the former dean of Kirkwood here in
Iowa City that's heading that up. And he's doing a great job bringing partners together
from all over the State to really see what we can do to increase the number of EdTech
startups to advance innovation and education to become thought leaders. Um, we worked
with educators and high-school students this spring on entrepreneurial skills, um, that
Design Dash we hope will spread across the state. We're working to pilot that here and
then- and let others then take the mantle and have it in other parts of the State. So there's
a huge opportunity there that post-COVID EdTech is a booming industry. We knew it
was big before, but now it's- it's really booming. And I think one of the opportunities with
the College of Ed has been the social emotional learning piece of this, um, the mental
health components of this. Um, and they're doing so much great work in that area. So
Dan Clay, the dean there has been really involved in this as well. So, um, lots of good
work happening in that.
Alter: Has there been any- I'm sorry. Has there been any- any pushback about the, uh, social
emotional learning piece of it? Because I know that there's- there has been some, um, you
know, kind of national debate about how inclusive or not inclusive it is. And I just
wondered if that's something that is on the radar because I know equally as you're
presenting, there's so much that you're doing about DE&I. So I just wondered if [NOISE]
sort of those connections were being made so that there could be, um, some discussion
that sort of helps solidify its- its importance,.
Moreland: Right. The- what I would say, one of the- one of the working groups is working on
kind of a quality seal of approval, which if we get- we're hoping to get that going in Iowa.
So this becomes a place where if you have an EdTech company and you want to have,
um, it- able to pilot in a school district or with an educator, we will help you do that. But
you need to meet certain requirements and we need to get feedback. And then we have a
group of- of academics and industry experts that will say this meets and they're working
on what the standards are for that right now. So that would be one of them, like does this
meet, uh, the requirements that we need it to? Um, I think that's where there's an avenue
for us to be a big player in that. Uh, there's also, you know, whether a lot of school
districts have said when we've met with them, we get inundated with these EdTech
companies. We don't know what's, you know, good or bad or indifferent. And they don't
have time to vet those, right? They're busy taking, you know, educating kids and being
administrators. And so if there's a part we can play to try to kind of help, um, pilot the
things that are ready for to be piloted that have been vetted a little bit. Um, then that's a
role we feel like we could potentially play. So that's a great point on the DE&I piece
though. I think there's some old programs out there. There are some new ones coming
online and, um, that's certainly something that we need to keep an eye on.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of June 6, 2022.
Page 6
Alter: Sounds fantastic. Thank you.
Moreland: And then just lastly, I'd share, um, I know I've been in front of you before and I hope
we will be back in hopefully July to share with you the final pieces of the Better Together
2030 vision. So we're very close to being able to unveil that to the public. And thanks to
all of you who have participated and provid- provided feedback. Um, we're very hopeful
that this, and I can tell you with certainty it's going to nest nicely underneath the larger
seven county ECICOG vision that we've been working on as well. This will just be very
specific to Johnson County and, um, my partners, uh, on this endeavor, we'll be back in
front of you to- we'll do a roadshow to unveil the- the plan here over the next 30-60 days.
So, um, we're going to hit the ground running. The work is really just beginning. So
thank you to all of you. I know a lot of great projects and programs and things that are
happening are going to fit nicely. They're already underway, we just want to be able to
keep moving together and rowing in the same direction and supporting one another and
collaborating. So, um, just very appreciative of all your supportive ICAD and our work. I
have an amazing team that has just like all of you had a rough couple of years. Um, but
they've pivoted and we've pivoted back. Um, and I will say, I feel like our community,
our businesses are- are thriving. This is obviously a place people want to live. Um, we've
grown 16 percent over the last 10 years. And I checked- it puts us fifth in the Midwest
behind Sioux Falls, Bismarck, Fargo, and Des Moines, in percentage of growth. So I
think it's important to note that, um, we are in very good company and we're growing at a
very good pace. That said workforce, continues to be a challenge for everyone. Um, so
we need to stay vigilant. We know a lot of our growth is in our immigrant population.
And so we're going to work hard in the next several years to ensure that we're partnering
with our education partners and our businesses to make sure we're upscaling people and
putting them in a position that they can be economically successful, um, corning out of
this period of time. So that will be something we'll be, um, working hard on. Yeah- and I
just- I want to again thank you. And I'm happy to answer any other questions you may
have for Austin or myself.
Weiner: Do you have any idea what- uh, if there are any particular elements that in that- in that
one biotech, uh, effort that causes to be 1B instead of 1A. [NOISE]
Korns: Yeah, thank you. Um, we, ah, we got a lot of feedback from the company when uh- when
we, ah, finally learned after about a year of working with them that we had come in
second. They- they pointed to a couple of very specific things, primarily around the
incentive package that, uh, we were able to put in front of them. There was a couple of
ways that the, uh, place they chose framed their incentive package that was more
beneficial to them upfront. And they, uh, were interested in lowering, uh, their initial
costs, er, as kind of a first priority. So they- they pointed to that, and then there were a
couple other issues with, uh, just the way that they, uh, were able to communicate with
some, uh, State and federal legislatures- legislators on- on the project that they- they liked
the relationship more in- in another state. So we- uh, we received glowing feedback for
the region and they said that, uh, when they look to do an expansion, they're going to be
reaching out to us. So, uh, I think the- the thing to highlight the most there though, is
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of June 6, 2022.
Page 7
we've already heard from other companies. We've heard from a lot of folks who, uh, read
the article, saw that, uh, we showed well and, er, they want to learn why. So we've
already- it's- it's led to some other leads that we're really excited about.
Weiner: Thanks.
Harmsen: Now, I'm curious. Do we know what community or what state they landed in?
Korns: Manhattan, Kansas.
Moreland: Kansas, yeah. This is a company that was very early stage revenue, revenue stage, so
that funding for them for upfront costs was critical and that was a state package, that
wasn't something we can necessarily compete with. So- and we didn't know that at the
time, but we couldn't have competed at that level anyway so -
Thomas: Do- do we know that the 16 percent growth and population, where- where are people
coming from?
Moreland: The 16% growth?
Thomas: Yeah.
Moreland: That's based on the census data, uh.
Thomas: Any idea of where they're immigrating from?
Moreland: Um, the mi- I don't know if I've dug into the migration data. The- I know our, I think
the immigrant population, what, do you remember the percentage, Geoff?
Fruin: I don't remember a [OVERLAPPING] percentage. Looking back at the past decade, most
of our growth has been an international immigration. Um, I think the general trend that -
that we see is you know the- the historic pipeline of rural Iowa through the urban centers
it's starting to dry up. And more and more of our population growth is having to come
from out-of-state or out of country.
Moreland: We do see migration from Illinois. I know that. Any questions?
Teague: Thank you so much. Yes. Really appreciate all the work that ICAD does. And I know
our businesses absolutely do. [LAUGHTER]
Presentation of the 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan
Teague: All right. We're on to our next item, which is the presentation of the 2022 Affordable
Housing Action Plan. We're going to welcome Tracy Hightshoe.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of June 6, 2022.
Page 8
Hightshoe: Hello.
Teague: Hello.
Hightshoe: Put this up. Thanks, Mayor. As noted, I'm Tracy Hightshoe with Neighborhood and
Development Services. And- as you know, the City adopted an Affordable Housing
Action Plan back in 2016 to support and encourage affordable housing in our community.
Um, it outlined 15 action steps that we could take. 14 of the 15 of those are completed.
Um, the 15th action step was incorporated in this plan and well be going over through
those recommendations as we go through this. Um, I did want to thank- the report was
possible due to a committee of- of members that you see up on the- on the screen. I want
to thank them for their time, their willingness to serve. This was a year long process, and
just sharing their expertise. And that is why you're getting the recommendations and the
plan that you see before you. Um, I wanted to go over just the timeline. So back in
November 2020, City Council asked us to come up with an action plan to build off that -
that previous one. We formed the committee. We held our first meeting in February '21.
From March to October of '21, we met monthly. After that, we did continue to meet by e-
mail running by, um, drafts, revisions. Um, they reviewed a ton of data. So they reviewed
housing market analysis, housing reports, summary information, census data, um, Fair
Action Housing Study. And based on all that information, we- we formulated
recommendations, but we also had a vigorous public outreach, and that was the summer
of'21 and included the ARPA, um, the citywide survey listening posts. We had outreach
activities that were very, very effective. So we went out to neighborhood events. We
went to our food bank distribution sites. We had staff there. We had a list of 15-20
actions, and basically we asked people, um, we'll give you three votes. If we were to fund
something, what would we fund that would help your household best when- as it comes
to affordable housing? And those recommendations are to think on the last page in the
appendix for you to review. Um, went very well. We met with stakeholders, we inputted -
we got input from the organizations with a high-level expertise in housing. Um, and then
we completed the report in '22 in April. And that was in your council packet, um, a
couple of weeks ago. Throughout this process, I've been asked what is affordable
housing? That gets asked a lot when you're out in the community. It's basically your
income- what is 30 percent of your income should be for housing plus utilities. Now, it
can be any income, but what's affordable to you is what that- the 30 percent. Now when it
comes to what the government like, city, federal, state, what we will subsidize, we
usually limit the beneficiaries to those that are making below 80 percent of median
income. Um, now if we go to homeownership activity, sometimes you see programs go
up to 100-110 percent median income, and for renters, we typically kept that at 60
percent. So those are the folks we're helping. And we primarily, even though we say we
go up to 60 percent runners, you'll see that in our programs we typically assess people at
below 50 percent of median income and a lot of times below 30 percent. Then people ask,
well, what is affordable housing when it comes to rent or homeownership? So all of our
programs typically limit rent to the fair market rent. And does that mean it's affordable to
somewhere at 30 percent? No. It means the HUD fair market means about 40 percent of
the housing in our market or below that threshold, 60 percent are above. So it just means
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of June 6, 2022.
Page 9
this is moderate- modest housing for our market. Now the LIHTC, the low-income
housing tax credit projects will go by income. So you'll see different- you'll see different
limits for different programs. And then the home price, HUD sets a home price for
$247,000. We can't assist housing that's above this threshold. Does that mean it's
affordable? No, not for many people, but we can't exceed that threshold. Now, can we
have programs that are below that threshold? Sure. Um, and we do. After the committee
went through, um, all that data and looked at all the information, they- they highlighted
certain data that they felt were major takeaways. And- this is what they- they highlighted.
Is that, in our market, our renters are cost burdened. Cost burdened means that they're
paying more than 30 percent of their income. Severely cost burdened means that they're
paying more than 50 percent of their income on housing. So you can see the numbers for
renters and homeowners. Our rents have increased substantially. They went for- they've
increased 11.3 percent in Johnson County over a five-year period. We're looking at the
American Community Survey da- Survey data, and they're sparse or no available housing
for those people at 30 percent of median income on the private market. So there's 52
households are over the age of 25. So that- that takes out the student impacting those
numbers that are making less than 29,999 bucks. So if you're at the top of that 30 percent
affordable uh - at that top of 30 percent median income, affordable rent to you is most
likely $750. If you're making minimum wage or you're on SSI, your affordable rents
probably closer to $300. So the private market has a hard time coming up with housing to
house those people at 30 percent or below. And our housing market is expensive. So you
can see where the Iowa median home value is $147,000. In Iowa City, we're about
$70,000 above that. In some markets in Iowa can buy a safe, decent, affordable, modest
home for $70,000. Coralville- Coralville North Liberty are even having higher median
housing values. We have a lack of affordable homes for those under 50 percent of median
income. Um, we only sold 113 homes in '21 to- that are below $150,000. So a lot of thing
goes into your ability to buy a home and what factors. But if you have minimal debt and
one car payment, you're looking probably at a house about $150,000 that we would
consider affordable to you. And one of the last major takeaways is that we don't know the
full impact of the pandemic. We're seeing shortages in building materials and labor, um,
our builders are reporting to 20-30 percent increase in costs from last year, and we don't
know, will it go down, will it continue, will it get worse? Those are things of the
pandemic we don't know yet. I wanted to throw in, this was not an affordable housing
market analysis, but, an affordable housing action plan. But Kirk Lehman, one of our
planters, did a residential analysis in 2021, and it looked at our final- our final plats and
our building permit activity. And it was concerning for us because we anticipate 10,000
new residents by 2030. If the final plats are platted lots and our building permit activity
continues, then we'll only accommodate less than half of the new residents. And so that
means our res- the folks that are coming into the area, they're going to have to go to
outlying communities or the cost of housing is just going to get more expensive. Because
if you limit the supply and the demand continues, we're looking at it maybe even more
problems with affordable housing in the near future. Um, I also like putting a statistic up
too, because like I said, when I- when I present too other communities or present to the
public, they just say, affordable housing is just needed by our students that, you know, we
have a high-income and Johnson County and Iowa City that and it's all driven by
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of June 6, 2022.
Page 10
students. So if you take out householders under age 25, we still have 9,000 households
that make less than 49,999, and that's basically your 50 percent of median income range.
So we have a huge need in our area. As I said, 9 percent of the Iowa City homes sold for
less than 150, with over half our market being sold for home center $250,000.
Teague: This slide right here, does this account, um, the supply? Does that account for student
housing that's being built as well?
Hightshoe: When we're looking at financial or plotted lots, it was- it that what you're talking
about?
Teague: Yes. The supplier platted lot. All platted residential lots.
Hightshoe: Yep. Yes. The problem with- it's harder to predict multifamily because you're talking
about redevelopment. If you have the Riverfront Crossings District, it's harder to predict
what will be developed because we have to buy it, demo it. So it's a better indicator of- of
Greenfield sites.
Teague: Okay.
Hightshoe: So that- the multi -family residential is part of the Riverfront Crossing. It's still not
going to meet our total demand because, as you know, many people might not- a high-
rise living environment downtown might not be perfect or ideal for- for everyone. So
we're still concerned about how we house all of our residents coming in, um. So based
on- ah, based on the information that you saw, the committee formulated three recom-
recommendations and they were broken out in three categories. The recommendations for
existing policy and programs, for development regulations, and for programs and policies
based on housing income or household income if we got more funds. We're gonna take a
hard look at development regulations. We're looking at those situations of- well have
difficulty coming up with the money that we need to subsidize out of our affordable
housing. So we need the private- we need to work with the private market and how do we
create win-win situations to encourage private developers to make a diversity of housing
in our out- in our outlying development, because if- to be honest, new construction is
typically not affordable unless you have great subsidy. So however, if you have small,
modest housing duplexes, town homes, that's the affordable housing of tomorrow. So we
want to make sure all neighborhood has a variety of housing in them. So the
recommendations for existing policies and programs, the first recommendation was to
discontinue the affordable housing location model. We adopted the location model back
in 2011. The committee felt, um, it wasn't producing enough housing, so they wanted to
remove the model, and we just basically incent or prioritize developments in
neighborhoods that we feel have a lack of housing opportunity. So that was the first
recommendation. The second was to acquire staff analysis and funding recommendations,
um, before they go to HCDC for CDBG and home projects. And a lot of that was- we
don't know at any one time the expertise that we'll fmd in the Housing and Community
Development Commission. Some people might have some knowledge, but there are
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of June 6, 2022.
Page 11
times we might not have anybody familiar with housing, finance or fmancial expertise or
even building so- or even the home regs, the home and community development block
grant regulations. So they want to staff to make a recommendation for HCDC to review
and then they provide their recommendation from that. They don't have to match staffs
recommendation, but just to get the logic or what the reasoning was, and then just to
generally be more transparent about how we recommend funding. They recommend
allocating more fund to the affordable housing fund, basically increasing the amount by
three percent every year. Then the next recommendation was largely- we have a set aside
in our affordable housing fund for money going to the housing trust fund of Johnson
County. And what this would basically say right now, we separate the money we have a
general set aside and then we have a set aside for low-income housing tax credit projects.
So what they're saying is that if we don't get a low in- LIHTC project or are we- it doesn't
get funded by the Iowa Finance Authority, then that can go back into the general pool and
they can allocate that out too general applications. And then the next one was the- to
implement the Risk Mitigation Fund. And we do have funds budgeted for that, we just
have not been able to establish a relationship with the service provider to implement it.
So a mi- a risk mitigation fund basically, um, functions as a landlord guarantee. It says
that we're going to provide added protection for landlord for someone who maybe has
limited income, might have a criminal history, uh, has a poor rental history. And we'll
basically say, if you rent to this person, we will help you with- uh, if you have lost
income or lost rent, if you have excessive damages, or you have legal fees that are
beyond your security deposit, is to get them comfortable renting to a person that might -
they might not rent to before. So we will be working with that and we'll probably the next
month or two come back to you, uh, with a proposal for that. The next recommendation
was basically policies and it goes after your permanent affordability. We partner more
with non-profit affordable housing providers whose mission is to have affordable
housing. So when we assist them, they keep this housing in their- in their portfolio. And
it's pretty much permanent affordability. We also allow those non-profit, affordable
housing developers to apply for additional funds to support their operations. It's to
increase their capacity. So they might come to us for out of the opportunity fund. Uh, if
they become a CHDO to a community housing development organization, we allow them
to apply for that. Uh, we also allow developers to apply for technical assistance. So if
they want to develop like in the south district has foreign-based code, they would apply to
us through various funds to get money for architectural engineering. So we help them
build their capacity to comply with our regulations and to build might be that they want
to incorporate energy efficiency. So we allow them to tap into climate action grants. Next
one was to encourage, but not mandate a permanent affordable housing in our new
residential ex- annexation. We're trying to create those win-win situations that lead to
permanent affordability. Do we identify a revenue stream that would help us by the lot,
uh, to get an RFP to a- to a non-profit to buy that lot to operate as affordable housing, so
that we work together with the developer when we're annexing and to increase efforts to
educate all tenants about tenant rights and responsibilities and how to address housing
issues. And we are working with the University of Iowa student government. Um, I
believe you saw there magnets about educating students about who to call if they have
problems with their housing, if they have problems with their lease. Um, so we're
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of June 6, 2022.
Page 12
working through those and we'll try to continue those efforts to educate tenants about
their rights.
Teague: I do have a question before you go on. Uh, for the CDBG home fund, it was before this
one. Increase the transparency, I guess I was curious as to maybe one example.
Hightshoe: We have a scoring criteria that we ask of HCDC members. So when they look at a
policy, they rank it based on certain- there's a certain point score. But when you go to
allocate their project, they might- let's say they got 90 percent of the points, but they're
only gonna get 50 percent of their allocation. They want to know why- why that is. If
they scored highest, should they not get the most, um?
Teague: I got it.
Hightshoe: So just- there's not a perfect way to allocate funds. Uh, so just more transparency in
how we funded and why we funded what we did.. I think the staff recommendation when
we do that budget will help. You know, it might be that high need, they have the
capacity, but do they have the capacity to do four homes as opposed to two homes? So do
you fully fund two homes? And even though that might not be what the- the scoring
criteria says. So just greater transparency, I believe, and how we allocate.
Teague: Thank you.
Hightshoe: The next recommendation is regarding development regulations and some of these
are technical, some of these are- will need a comprehensive plan amendment. So that's
why you're going to see us coming to you later to basically get your priorities and about
what you want us to proceed with. Uh, for single and multi -family, these
recommendations apply to both, will encourage infill development by just increasing
flexibility, reducing the minimum amount of land eligible to apply for a plant overlay
zoning, uh, create more form -based code regulations for additional neighborhoods, and
we'll- we'll focus on those ones that we- we know that our growth areas. Uh, applicable to
single-family, we see this a lot, I think for a lot of the stakeholders, this was their number
one was allowed by right more types of dwelling units, a single family zoning districts
such as duplexes, zero lot lines, that small-scale residential component, instead of seeing
single-family detached over and over and over block after block. So we'll be looking at
that. Um, increase allowable number of bedrooms in our single family zoning for
basically duplex zero lot lines allow accessory dwelling units and what we call ADUs.
Some people call them mother-in-law, there's a whole bunch of names that these go by
under most circumstances because right now we don't allow freestanding, uh, buildings.
They have to be attached to the house, the garage. We require it to be owner -occupied,
the main house. So we'll be looking at how do we encourage this because we don't see it
that often in Iowa City and in what locations do we encourage it? For multi -family, it was
to facilitate multi -family development by purchasing land. We have had land banking in
the past. We have, uh, lots in Lindemann that we purchased previously. To be even more
proactive, we conduct a city initiated rezoning to allow multifamily housing or mixed
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of June 6, 2022.
Page 13
housing in area supported by the comprehensive plan. Except the comprehensive plan, if
you're buying arterial transportation, then we would automatically just zone that
multifamily so someone doesn't have to come in and try to get the multi -family zoning.
Because typically people oppose multifamily zoning and a lot of locations allow multi-
family dwelling units with more than three bedrooms. And that may be because the
LIHTC require- the low-income housing tax credit application basically says a certain
percentage of your development has to have four bedrooms. If we don't allow it by code,
then it doesn't happen. So do we change that or make a recommendation that it be
changed, so that more of our LIHTC developers are successful when they- they go to
compete in the IFA around. And then these were additional recommendations. So if we
get more money, and we dedicate that to affordable housing, how do we spend it? And
we tried to go, like I said, a healthy market- heal- healthy housing market. It provides
housing in everybody's incomes. It provides in their different stages of life. So we have
recommendations for 0-30, 31-60, and 60-100. So under the- so for 0-30, these are the
recommendations. Like I said, the landlord risk mitigation fund was heavily encouraged.
We continue to support existing permanent supportive housing and Housing First, such
like Shelter House did for individuals that are- that experience chronic homelessness. If
we can expand that into families experiencing chronic homelessness next, allocate ARPA
funds and future city funds to support those large investments that, um, prioritize
affordability and those households with lower incomes. And- oh, just in general, increase
funds for- for all those things that we need to see in housing, um, better energy
efficiency, lower housing costs. So if you have a lower utility bill, it's helping you with
your total housing cost, aging in place initiatives, and because these are folks at 0-30 pro -
provide grants whenever we can. 31-60 percent of median income is continuing our
security deposit and expanding. In this security deposit assistance and eviction prevention
programs. And it's also about reducing energy effi- or lower utility costs through energy
efficiency and supporting down payment assistance. Also, and it was important to include
the credit and financial counseling to potential home buyers. And then when you get to
61-100, it's the bottom two continued. The next step is just to get your count feedback. I
mean, it was a- it was a lengthy plan. Uh, the recommendation, like I said, they're almost
30 recommendations is to get your feedback. And then what staff plans to do is to create
a five-year implementation plan. And we'll bring that back for you to consider and look
at. It will combine the affordable housing action plan recommendations. Urban planning
will be in the next couple of months, be presenting, um, their housing development
priorities to you regarding your strategic plan priorities as they relate to housing, and
what recommendations, such as what comprehensive plan amendments we proceed with.
And then recently, we got to Invest Health Grant, a collaboration grant with Henderson,
Nevada and Eau Claire, Wisconsin. We went out to Fort Collins and met with a planning
consultant called Logan Simpson, and they made recommendations about how in our new
development, how do we get that diversity of housing? You know how do we get the
duplexes, the town homes, the sal- small-scale residential in addition to single-family
detached. So we will combine all those, make a five-year implementation plan and bring
that back to you for consideration. Um, and that- that is a brief highlight of affordable
housing action plan. Do you guys have any questions? [NOISE]
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of June 6, 2022.
Page 14
Harmsen: One comment real quick. Just to thank you to all of those who worked on this. I think
I- I think I sent out an email too, but just to reinforce that. Excellent work, a lot of really
data -driven report, a lot of information in this. Um, obviously a lot of time and effort
went into it. So thank you to all those that worked on that. That's- this is a really helpful
document.
Hightshoe: Thank you.
Bergus: I have a really broad policy question, Tracy. Um, from these recommendations, it looks
to be kind of a pragmatic approach. Like, for example, the three percent increase in our
affordable housing fund. So for the five-year implementation plan, do you have a sense of
sort of where that will get us in relation to the problem of the lack of affordable housing?
Like are we going to be able to peg it that way as far as addressing the shortfalls that you
identified at the top of your presentation?
Hightshoe: It wasn't necessarily affordable housing study. So I don't think we'll completely- I
don't know if this implemetion- implementation plan will basically solve affordable
housing in Iowa City, most likely not. [LAUGHTER] But it gets us closer and closer to
helping more and more people. So that- that's our goal. And we could put number -
numerical things. But when you deal with development regulations, like even though we -
we put like, um, we can change our zoning to encourage like a minimum density or
different types of housing. We don't know what the private market will actually build.
Bergus: Right.
Hightshoe: Just like we have ADU regulations right now that allow accessory dwelling units. We
just don't get many. So trying to figure out what is it that people don't like about the
regulations we have. What would encourage more. So I don't know if we can get to
strong numerical numbers, but we could try, um, we can with the programs that were
assisting, that's much easier. So if we're going to adopt a landlord risk mitigation, we can
estimate about how many people will get into housing, um. So for our programs and p-
our programs, we can defmitely put- we can attach numbers. For our development
regulation changes, we can estimate, but we don't know, um.
Fruin: If I could add to that. Just to put some numbers in perspective, I think when we're
subsidizing units, um, ah, new construction is obviously more expensive than- than
rehabs. But if we use the number of 30,000 per unit assisted, which I think is fairly- um
it's in the range of- of what we'd- what we'd expect. We're helping with a million dollars a
year, 33, 34 households. And you just look at the growth numbers. If- if- if we're really
expecting 10,000 people to- to come to our community in the next decade, you could do
the math there. There's 10,000 people and we're assisting 33 units. We- we're able to
assist a very small number. So that we're- we're- we're working uphill with the supply and
demand issues. Um, ah, you know, the development regulation piece is- is really that- is
really important. Unfortunately, that's also not going to be immediately felt by the
community. Some of those policy changes may take decades to actually bear fruit. And I
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of June 6, 2022.
Page 15
think we also have to remember that what we- what we want is the new construction
that's built today, which may not be affordable right out of the gates, but it may be
affordable, it may be our affordable housing stock of a different generation. And- and I
think you can look at Iowa City's affordable housing stock now. That was probably
largely built in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. That probably wasn't affordable housing right out of
the gate either, right? That was probably, ah, maybe middle to upper income housing at
the time. Ah, so it's- it's very complex, but a million dollars, even with a three percent
escalator, is not going to solve this problem. You know, we'll update this report in 5-10
years and I hope we've made good progress, but, uh, with the growth pressures we're
facing and the supply that we have right now, I suspect we'll do- be doing good just to
keep pace.
Weiner: So I'm really happy to see that- that- there- you're talking about a risk mitigation fund.
Um, from- from what I've read about them in the past, they're actually pretty successful
and they rarely get drawn on. Would- would something like that also be available to
people who rent to people who are on section 8 or who otherwise get house- housing
vouchers? Because I mean but- I- I think the state legislation is passed a law that
essentially says, not everybody has- you don't have to rent to them. But if you have- if
landlords have the guarantee that, you know, if that something happens, they'll be made
whole. That makes- that could make a big difference.
Hightshoe: Um, just because you have a voucher. I mean, when we pull vouchers, there's a
certain percentage of- of tenants that won't find a house with it, even though we give
them up to a year to search, and it's because of rental history or eviction history or
whatever reason, landlords are reluctant to lease to them and if there's great competition
for units, they don't have to. So yes. So when we create that landlord risk mitigation
program, it'll be anybody that's housed a tent- or how- what do you call it? Hard to house.
So if that's a section 8 tenant or a housing choice voucher tenant, yes, we- we would help
host them too. And we're really relying on a social service provider to build those like a
case manager, building [BACKGROUND] relationship with landlords so they feel
comfortable saying, I have a tenant. We're gonna be working with this tenant throughout
their occupancy, the lease. And we have this fund, so if there is excessible damage, or
you- they leave early, um, we can protect that. These are- here are the funds for that. And
yeah, from prior- from other cities that have done it, they- they rarely get drawn on. It's
more of a comfort to the landlord to lease to that person so. But we will prepare to if
there's a claim and it qualifies, we- we'd pay it out.
Weiner: Right. Almost makes- although some of those people who are seen as high risks, some
of the- some of the lowest risk, and it lays bare some of the prejudices as well.
Taylor: You talked about permanent affordability and one of your slides was preserving
affordable housing. Does that relate to, we've heard a lot of comments about, uh, some of
the affordable housing units are for 10 years, or for 20 years rather than perpetuity. So is
that what you're referring to? [OVERLAPPING] Maybe 10 -year, 20 -year limit?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of June 6, 2022.
Page 16
Hightshoe: So you have a non-profit, they- they buy a house. It's 10 years later. Even though you
subsidized at the beginning over time, if- if they have- if they're limited in their rent that
they can elect houses, you know, you need a roof every 15 years- 15-20 years. You need -
you need substantial renovations. And so if you do permanent affordability, that means
when we get a commitment also to funding rehab. Um, so you're gonna see acquisition
and rehab of older housing stock is- is that's how you produce a lot of affordable housing
today. So that's why it's important that we have that stock and we zone and we change
our regulations so there's that stock. You know, because I think a lot of things that we
build- buy right now for affordable housing, as Geoff mentioned, are 50, 60, 70s, even
90s. Um, so you rarely, unless it's a LIHTC, you rarely see new housing in their
portfolios unless it's through some program like a LIHTC project. [NOISE]
Thomas: I think the, you know this, the devil is in the details with this sort of plan. And I do
think that, you know, some of the areas where higher density has potential is also the
areas where, um, we have, from my perspective or sense, a competition between
affordability for student housing and the general public. And so there's- that's- that's a
challenging situation. I mean, I do feel we- I know the focus is- with this has not been on
the student housing question, right? It's- that's- that's a different question.
Hightshoe: Yeah. Yeah.
Thomas: But it does seem to me it needs to be addressed because right now there's considerable
competition in the University impacts on between the affordability needs of the students
and everyone else.
Hightshoe: There will be a lot of work.
Thomas: There's other duplexes and that, you know, what- what I'm concerned with is while I
had this one- on the one hand, promote, you know, all the strategies and more that are in
this report, including, ah, in addition to what I guess could be referred to as the youth
standard zoning allowing higher density, the, um, dimensional standards and lifting or
waiving the off street parking requirement, things of that sort. However, if we were to do
that and- and the University impacts on it, it could just incentivize more student housing.
Which I'm not against, but, you know, we- we do have the- in our comprehensive plan
trying to achieve that balance. So it's- it's a challenging issue and um, you know, I- I- I
hope we can come up with a way of resolving that, um. Because I think some of the
largest potential for getting at affordable housing is in the center of Iowa City, the
University impact zone.
Hightshoe: You'll see some of these recommendations are easy. We can accomplish them. You
know, if you're okay with it, we could do it tomorrow, you know. Some of these are
gonna co- require comprehensive plan amendment. And that's when you're gonna dig into
the details where- when is this appropriate? Is it appropriate in the central planning
district, is it not? Is it just part a Greenfield development? So those are things that when
we, like I said, that's why we're doing a five-year implementation plan. Because if you're
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of June 6, 2022.
Page 17
talking about a major comprehensive plan update or new comprehensive plan, that's
gonna take some time. That takes- it might take a consultant, um, might be a multi-year
process. And so that's when we're answering those questions and going out for public
input. Um, so like I said, that implementation plan will be important to figure out how we
can- what things we can do that are most impacted in the short-term and what's gonna
take, that may be a multiyear commitment and then- then figuring that out.
[LAUGHTER] So not easy questions.
Weiner: Well, in addition, not- not all the under 25s are students. And there are plenty- plenty of
younger, ah, ah, sort of between, ah, high school and that age who are- who've opted for
it or certainly not to go to college or to go to trade school or something or who are
working but are- are still low income.
Hightshoe: Yeah. The way the census reports data, we- we didn't have a great way of kind of
mitigating student impact besides by age. So yes, there are plenty of folks under 25 that
aren't college students that fall in that 50, 30 percent median income. So we
acknowledged that it was just a way to answer folks when they basically say, you're just
reporting need affordable housing or you don't have low-income folks because they're
just students. So that's kinda what we fall back and say that's not necessarily true.
[NOISE]
Clarification of Agenda Items
Teague: Thank you so much. All right. We are onto clarification of agenda items. [NOISE]
Hearing nothing, we'll go to information packets.
Information Packet Discussion
Teague: We'll start with May 19th.
Teague: We'll go on to May 26th.
Weiner: I just- I don't really have clarification about an IP2, the information on the strategic plan
final report. Really appreciated the staffs putting all that together. It inclu- because there
are some very- very challenging issues that have been dealt with that did- did, in the end,
fit under- pretty much fit within the strategic plan. The- to be honest, the only element
that occurred to me that was probably missing when you're talking about COVID was the
effort to really reach all people in the community by- by- by making most of our- most of
our information and announcements, doing it in multiple languages, both- both by video
and- and written. And I think that was an important element. I'd love to see that inserted
in there.
Teague: Anything else? We'll move on to June 2nd.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of June 6, 2022.
Page 18
Teague: And we do have IP6, the memo from the Community Police Review Board that we need
to discuss. So maybe we'll- Eric, did you want to lead us through that request?
Goers: Well- [LAUGHTER]
Teague: Sorry to put you on the spot.
Goers: That's all right. I don't have a whole lot to offer. Hopefully, you've all had an opportunity
to review. I've got it up before me the packet information with proposed amendments for
the police- Community Police Review Board. As you'll see, there are a number of
different changes that are proposed all which had been put forth by the CPRB. I guess I'm
here to answer any questions you may have or if you'd like to take these and not those or
however you'd like to split up. Or if you'd like to discuss any of them further, I am happy
to try to facilitate that.
Bergus: Mayor, maybe I can just offer. There wasn't much discussion at the CPRB meeting about
the proposed changes. My understanding from the presentation from their attorney,
Patrick Ford was that it was mostly to just kind of align with what they're doing already.
The one deletion at the at the beginning as far as it was relating to- sorry, not at the
beginning where they struck language saying making a recommendation that the police
chief or the city manager reverse or modify their findings. He indicated that there wasn't
really authority or basis for that m the ordinance. And so that was not something that had
occurred before, didn't expect it to occur and was making a clarification there. That's
what I recall from their conversation.
Goers: And I should clarify too for the benefit of the council. Remember this is one of those
independent boards or commissions that my office does not staff. And so as Laura's
indicated, that's represented by a Pat Ford, a local private attorney. And so that's why our
office doesn't really have a whole lot to offer about this.
Teagure: So what is the- just wanted to maybe- are there any other comments from our
councilors on how do you propose we kinda- I think we can certainly, you know, go
through and determine where we want to be.
Alter: I felt the comments or the suggested revisions make perfect sense to me. And it's
interesting, Laura, that you were saying that the clarification on that struck language was
really just to say, well, that wasn't actually something that was possible for them to do
anyway. Because as it reads now I was like, I liked the clarity of that to say there will be
a report that says exactly what the, um, decisions were and why, um, - why there's
disagreement. So it might have been a nicety of language or of a point of law, but I liked
the- [LAUGHTER] the actual revision because I think that there's a very clear action item
for a situation like this. So I just- I appreciated the- the revisions very much and, um, I
loved to learn that this is stuff that is actually already being done because it seems to, in
this climate where there is so much that the state has dictated what can and can't be done,
that at least the review board is trying to promote some proactive steps.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of June 6, 2022.
Page 19
Taylor: I also appreciate these comments from the board and value their opinion. Obviously, they
gave this a lot of thought as far as what they felt could help make their task easier. So
I'm- I'm m favor of it.
Teagure: Okay.
Weiner: The- the- having- having been the liaison for a while, these as opposed to some of the
other stuff that we got earlier struck me basically as common sense in a way to make
things run as smoothly as possible.
Teague: Okay. So it sounds like there's majority support to accept these amendments.
Thomas: Yeah.
Taylor: Yes.
Teague: Okay. So we'll need to-
Fruin: We'll draft them [OVERLAPPING] and have them on a future agenda.
Teague: Okay. All right. Any other comments about that one? Um, June 2nd, any other items
there we went to discuss?
Thomas: I- I wanted to discuss IP4 on the Happy Hollow ball field update. And I think in brief,
basically, what I would ask is that, you know, two years ago, approximately, the ball the -
ball field- the infield was replaced with turf grass and with a- with a reclassification by
that process to a recreational field. And at that time, there was a considerable community
comment and concern generated by that- by that action, in part because of the fact that
we- we did not have any kind of neighborhood public engagement in the process. And so
we discussed it at that time that I think in part because of that lack of a community
participation in- in the planning of that reverse or conversion of the field that we would
revisit it in roughly two years to, in a sense, in my view, kind of assess if whether the
issues and concerns that were expressed two years ago still had- were still there, were still
of a concern to the community or if m fact, m assessing what had been done, that there
was a- different perspectives, whatever they may be. And so what I would ask is that we
having made that decision to at least consider having that public process at this time, that
we proceed with that as a response to that specific issue of the field. So in other words,
have that public process sometime I would suggest m late summer, early fall, sometime
in September, that we would- we would engage the community because it- it would be
more than simply a neighborhood process because of the- the fact that the ball field is
used by people from all over the city. And- and have that meeting and see where, you
know, where the public is in terms of how the field is being used now. And in- and in a
sense, you know, in- in the work that I did, we would often do kind of a post -occupancy
evaluation where you have an opportunity after a period of time to assess how well the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of June 6, 2022.
Page 20
facility is performing. And so it's not uncommon to do this and in a sense, this would be
an opportunity to kind of see how things have gone and what, if any, concerns are either
still valid or if new concerns have arisen. But in any event, just kinda see where things
are now to help us help inform how we move forward.
Teague: I was on council when we had this discussion and I do remember it being a topic that
the- the council at that time thought we would revisit within two years. Some decisions
had already been made and expressed, and- and so I think it would be appropriate to do a
conversation, as you've mentioned, just to get a report and see what- where the
community is?
Weiner: I would support that.
Taylor: I would too.
Alter: Yep.
Fruin: So- so just saying, we're gonna have a neighborhood meeting this year to talk about the
ball field, and then next year we're gonna have another one to talk about the major park
renovate- the- the playground replacement. That's- that's how it's going to play out.
Teague: Yeah. I- well, you can speak I- I think um, if we visited about the ball field that can
inform what's going to happen next year. Is- is my thought.
Fruin: Okay
Weiner: I just think we need to keep the commitment that we made and I understand the other -
has been- has been shifted. Um, I think it- it's just- I mean it could- it could tur- turn out
that the community has moved on and that is used to- used to using other ball fields now
and says let's just leave it or it could be, you know, we don't know what the outcome is
gonna be.
Fruin: Yeah, it's not in- in a- it's not a matter of really, um, you know, if- if- if the decision is to
revert to dirt, then decisions to revert to dirt and we'll happily do that. Um, but the- there's
a lot of staff capacity that gets tied up in- in these efforts. And when we're just going to
the same park and having the same discussion in two- you know back-to-back years, um,
there- there is an impact to that. And my preference would be, you know, for the council,
just- if you want it back to dirt, then put it back to dirt, we can do that this year. We'll use
our operating budget and we'll do it and we'll move forward. Um, but it's- it's a lot of
effort to go through a public input process like this to get that feedback. Um, and- and
then to do it again the next year to- to do work in the same park.
Teague: Is there a way to get public input on this electronically or a different avenue than -
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of June 6, 2022.
Page 21
Fruin: Yeah. We- we would- we could put all those together, surveys. I'm- I'm not opposed to- to
doing it. I just want you to understand the impact of duplicating this type of effort
because essentially we're going to be going and asking the questions about the park for
two- two consecutive years. So it's just an acknowledgment that um, that's a lot of time
and energy spent on- on that one park in back-to-back years. And if that's what you want,
that- that's fine. We can do it. Um, but I just want to make sure that the council's aware of
some of the organizational capacity issues that- that we face. And this is just, you know,
one- one more thing that we're going to work into our schedule this year, and the next
year.
Harmsen: When next year, would next year's meeting be?
Fruin: We- we're getting started on planning for next year's capital projects this summer. So we
typically would try to combine them with a Party in the Park or a Rec-n-Roll type of
event where we can get just general neighborhood interest out there. Um, so it would
typically be the summer of- of next year, is what we would plan.
Thomas: What if- what about moving up the playground? I mean, if you want to consolidate
meetings because the- the playground was originally scheduled for 2023 and it was
moved back.
Fruin: Right.
Thomas: So if we- if we want to try to consolidate the public process, we could- we could back
up. [OVERLAPPING]
Fruin: You could [OVERLAPPING] the project back up, there's financial implications to that. If
you want to slide- slide those funds up. Um, or we can get input two years early.
Essentially, we could do it this year, get two years of input on the playground. I think our
experience would tell us that um, if we get all that input and those plans sit for two years,
whatever we bring forward still might be a surprise to some neighbors.
Thomas: I- you know, I'm not opposed to try to consolidate the meetings as long as we have
them as soon as possible. Um, I'm not- I don't know that there's any issue with there
being a longer gap between the implementation of the playground. Um, if- if that's
something the council would support.
Fruin: It would- the only difference I think would be is we don't have a consultant on board.
Normally, we would hire the consultant and have them help participate in the input
process. And because this project's a couple of years out, we have not engaged anybody.
So we can do the- we can certainly do engagement without engage- wi- without having a
consultant on board. Uh, next year, we would bring that consultant on board to start
designing the work. And we'll just have to present them with that neighborhood input as
opposed to having them participate in that.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of June 6, 2022.
Page 22
Thomas: I mean, the- the one- one- one thing to keep in mind is the- the constituencies use for
the ball field and for the playground are probably going to be different constituencies. So
the- the outreach is going to need to acknowledge that.
Weiner: Right. Well, they- they may be overlapping as well because everybody -
[OVERLAPPING]
Thomas: Yeah, I know. I think they probably will, but yeah, there's, you know, based on the
comments from two years ago, the ball field community is- extends, you know, it's sit -
it's Iowa City as a whole to a certain extent.
Taylor: I think the bottom line still is that two years ago we made that commitment or we said
that, we would revisit in two years, and- and I think we have to- to stick to that because I
think that some of the community members, neighborhood members may- may have been
anticipating that. And whether that means we need to discuss it in the work session, as
you'd said, Geoff, you know, do the dirt field now, but obviously we need some public- a
little bit of public input on it. Whether it could be electronically, that'd be fine too, but I
think it just boils down to the two years is passing and we shouldn't wait another two
years.
Alter: And I think also, um, I'm very mindful of all the staff does. And so to consolidate makes
sense. Um, you- you- what you suggested Geoff, where did- that work can be done, but
not to redouble it. Um, and sure consultant may not- we probably don't- weren't even
considering the consultant this year. So there's probably not money for it, but if we could
get the input, I- that seems to make sense, but without um, unduly burdening staff to- to
two sets of- of that kind of fact-fmding. Um, so it's kind of a compromise.
Harmsen: Just for clarification, is the idea for pressing forward this fall with the possible goal of
making the change m the ball field uh, next summer, or would that still be two summers
away? I wonder- what are the probable practical advantages between September meeting
versus a May meeting next year, like in terms of- [OVERLAPPING] does that changes
back construction seasons? And I do agree with the consolidation. I think now we're just
figuring out timing, right? So -
Thomas: The- the- the sooner we have the meeting, the more options in my mind, we have for
implementation of at least the field. Uh, so that if we were to have the meeting this fall,
uh, we could- we could make the change to the field if that were the direction we're to go
next spring. So that the- the desired outcome could be achieved sooner.Whatever that
outcome is.
Teague: So there's a couple of options that are out there. One is um, I think consolidation is, I
think, the majority of what I'm hearing council agreed to um, do here, getting the
comments from the public. Um, there are ways to get the public comments. Um, maybe
not an in-person meeting, but with other avenues. Um, so I wonder if that seems to be the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of June 6, 2022.
Page 23
most- it- it is that the direction that we want to give staff to get comments now, but um,
through different avenues of surveys and- and such.
Thomas: You know, whatever- whatever seems the most uh, effective way of about outreach,
um, given the fact that we're talking about um, you know, that- that outreach is going to
have to be structured somewhat differently depending on, you know, whether it's the ba -
ball field related or playground related.
Teague: Okay. Any concerns um, doing it electronically. All right is that something that staff can
do.
Fruin: We can reach out to, you know, our- our partner stakeholders who run baseball
organizations. I- I can tell you what their feedback is going to be. Of course, they're going
to want a skimmed infield so we can do that- we can do that electronically with our park
improvements. We really like to be in the neighborhood, we- we typically would do both.
We would have a neighborhood meeting and we'd send postcards to people to come -
come out and visit and talk with us and then we usually would put something up on social
media or on some kind of electronic means to gather input too- um, with some parks will
even put up, hey, here's concept A, B, and C for playgrounds, tell us what you like and
what you don't like. That's where we're going to fall short because we won't have a
consultant to put together some of those concepts for us. Um, we're just going to have to
have conversations and then kind of feed in, maybe we can take pictures of playgrounds
that we built recently and said which of these do you- do you like, but I'd still think it's
valuable to be in the neighborhood and to talk with folks. Um, again, the baseball stuffs
pretty easy, we can send that out. I can tell you I- we could- we could send out Happy
Hollow and Court Hill and Willow Creek and do you want them grass or skimmed? The
baseball folks are going to want them all dirt, but we'll get that feedback and present it to
you.
Thomas: Well- well, my- my focus is more on Happy Hollow, Geoff. I mean, I- I, you know,
there are these other recreational fields which in my view are another subject matter,
partly because the- not all those fields are the equivalent of Happy Hollow. Um, so I
mean, if you want to- if you want to make that- include that in the outreach, that's fine,
but um, my main concern is- is the question of Happy Hollow.
Bergus: And I think the challenge that we have that when we discuss this two years ago and I
spoke with John earlier today. My recollection of kind of what we might revisit was- was
different. Um, but I think for this question, I don't want people to be led to believe, like if
we ask the baseball, you know, certain baseball team for example, which would you
prefer? I don't want them to assume that if they say we'd prefer dirt, that then the Council
is going to say yes, that's what we're doing and we're doing it next year, we're doing it
this year or something like that. So just however the input process happens, I want to be
careful that it's not representing two folks that there will be a particular outcome
necessarily because I think, you know, for myself and I- at the time to be transparent, I
said I think we should keep it grass and based on the input of- of the staff and the use that
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of June 6, 2022.
Page 24
we're getting at the time, I would be interested in knowing how it's, you know, been used
since then. We've got some of that information in our- in our packet, but I just don't want
the question of collecting input to kind of dictate one outcome or another because I think
we hear that a lot in our public comment as of oh, well, we know there were a number of
people with comments that wanted this, but then that's not the guaranteed outcome. So
however, we structure it as long as that message is- is clear.
Teague: I do think it's going to be very important to go to the community just to make sure that
um, everyone has that optimal opportunity to come and speak. Um, so if that means, you
know, because staff does have a lot of things on their plate, I mean, I think we all know
that. So if that does mean that we need to, you know- you know, collapse it into next
year, then we- I think the council intent um, is that that will take place um, we're
discussing it now, even though, you know, we didn't have that foresight to even pre -plan
this conversation with- with putting this on staffs agenda, you know. So- so I guess that -
so where we are now, we know that um, the majority of council has said, you know, kind
of collapse them together. We want it in the neighborhood, so that does kind of land us at
the opportunity of doing it next year from what I can -
Thomas: Doing it next year?
Teague: Of- of having a meeting next year- of having the community come out and have that
discussion next year.
Taylor: Next- next year.
Thomas: I was- that's not what I was advocating for.
Fruin: Okay, but we can do it this year.You can do it this year.We'll combine them, I think the
process will suffer a little bit, especially on the playground side because we won't have
somebody there with us. Um, but we'll have the meeting this year. We'll look at the Party
in the Park or the Rec-n-Roll schedules if we're going to hit Happy Hollow at a time
frame that we can kind of roll it into that event. That's probably what we'll do if for some
reason the timeline doesn't work. Um, we'll- we'll schedule a special meeting out there
with the neighborhood and then we'll develop some electronic um, input process for um,
our T -ball and Little Hawks and our various age ranges for baseball and see what the
stakeholders who- who would like to see out there and probably reach out to softball
groups to and see what they have to say.I think we'll- it will have to keep in mind if- if
there's a desire to try to move the project up next year, we're gonna have to move the a
175,000 up into our budget next year otherwise, again, there could be a two-year gap
before from the time we have the discussion to the actual time in which the
improvements are pursued.
Weiner: But -but we probably need to be clear with people when we're getting their input that
we're getting the input now, we're not quite sure yet when implementation will be.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of June 6, 2022.
Page 25
Harmsen: And that was kind of the gist of my question like, even if we had a meeting this fall
and we wanted to make the change and the consensus was for a change. Does that really
speed up the process in practicality with the funding and could we really actually to make
the change next summer or would we have to do it in two years anyway. I mean, there's -
are we gaining what we think we're gaining from that? I'm new, so I'm gonna go ahead
and play that card again that could- because that- does that reflect that.
Fruin: So the staff can convert the infield on our own. I think if- if the project stayed together,
we'd probably role that- my guess is we'd probably roll that into one bid and we just have
the contractor also do that, but if the community and Council desires that we changed the
ball field over again, we can do that with our staff, it's just prioritizing their time um, and -
and our operational resources to make that conversion. That could happen this year or it
could happen early next year um, with our own kind of manpower and resources.
Teague: So it sounds like we have um, we'll direct staff to do something this summer yet or
when it works out.
Fruin: Yeah, we'll- we'll get it put together.
Teague:Alright. Any other item on this topic?
Weiner: And on this packet I think we had to look at Item Number 5, AP5, from the- the letter
from the Center for Worker Justice on the wage theft proposal.
Teague: I don't know if um, is- is there a staff that can give us kinda just brief.
Fruin: Well, I think at a high- high level summary, when you, uh, directed staff to, er, draft an
agreement with the Center for Worker Justice, I believe the Center for Worker Justice
was under the understanding that they were gonna be able to go back to the County and
say, hey, look, all the cities are on board and give us some additional money. And when
they went there, the county said no, all of our ARPA funds have now been scheduled and
there- there's- there's no extra money there, so, um, that's- they were hoping for an
additional 33,000 from the County. Um, and now, er, since the county told them they no
longer have those funds, the Council is coming back and asking for the City to pick up
that full 33,000. In addition to, um, what you had committed earlier. Um, the- even the
staff has already been working on an ARPA agreement to- to fund what you had
previously talked about. Um, we do want to point out that, um, the County's commitment
for this is a three-year commitment. So, er, I believe core of on North Liberty, um, were
all were both five -years. Um, if we are to use ARPA funds for this, we can't allow
expended- all expenditures have to take place before 2026. So we really don't even have
five years to- to go from today, and fully fund five years unless you want to use local
funds to supplement the ARPA funds. So I think the question to council is, do you want
to increase your commitment that you already made? That ask is 33,000, and, er, if so,
um, it's- and it's still- it's still intends to be a five-year program. I think you just have to
understand that we're going to use some ARPA funds when we can and then we're going
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of June 6, 2022.
Page 26
to have to transition to- to local funds, and those out years. Um, otherwise, we can stay
with our plan and we probably won't get a full five-year commitment to the CWJ through
ARPA but will get pretty close. Um, well go as- as far as we reasonably can with them.
Teague: Is it in my understanding that the entire $322,000 for this position, um, that there is no -
all this is from municipalities? There is no monies that have been budgeted, er, for the
organization itself to submit. And I- I mean, I see, um, the County doing a 130,000, the
City of Coralville come in and 40,000 and North Liberty at 35,000. [NOISE] Currently,
we're at 85,000 and we're being asked, you know again to do that 33,000. Um, so one
thing I'll say is that I think this is a great program that the CWJ has had and have been
supporting individuals within our communities, um, for years. And I think that the work
is, er, extremely important. Um, I do have pause when it comes down to solely asking,
um, entities to fully support, um, a program. Um, and so- and I will also point out that,
um, CWJ is a legacy agency which is or- or they'd been, um, you know promoted, um, to
be a legacy agency which will be great. Part of their,er, operations, although we know
CWJ has been doing a lot of phenomenal work beyond chess with workers, I think they
have really, um, er, supported the council and some of our ARPA needs when individuals
needed support, getting sign up for some of the, er, programs when it comes down to, er,
eviction prevention, I think they have done a lot. Um, so this is not a knock against the
CWJ. This is me saying it gives me pause that we have, um, an agency that, you know,
will become- getting funding from- from the city. Um, so some of the 33,000 dollars
certainly, uh, that can come other ways to the city through a request. Um, so I don't think
that, um, because the city is going to continue to make sure that we're investing into this,
er, agency. So for me right now, I think the 85,000 commitment is great. The majority of
this Council supported that. And I- I really believe this is a great program. The 85,000
will get them where they, uh- will get them strongly down the road. But when it comes
down to see in a program that has zero funding from an agency, that gives me pause.
Bergus: I had similar thoughts, Mayor, although I hadn't kinda articulated at that in my mind. I
was just thinking of other funding opportunities, not necessarily you know the- the
agency corning forward and saying, we have so much towards this program and we just
need your support, which I think is very often what we see. And I think as a government
that gives us you know additional confidence in the success of a program. I was also just
thinking about other funding opportunities in the form of grants, um, you know, whether
it's the Community Foundation or United Way, you know there's a number of other
places in the community that I think may be able to assist in kind of filling that last gap.
Um, my comfort level, especially given are some of the strategic plan discussion,
understanding where budget is going to be there, that sort of thing is to stick with our
commitment on the 85,000, knowing that they have other opportunities for funding, not
just this program, but other programs through, um, the CDBG processes, social justice,
racial equity grants, um, as well as other community partners who provide grant funding.
Taylor: This- this program that CWJ, it's- it's unique to the state and we have to keep that in
mind and they have done great work. Uh, and I was shocked at the amount of wage theft
that is out there statewide, and particularly in our community. And I think a large portion
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of June 6, 2022.
Page 27
of the cases they have followed so far have come from- from our community, which I
would think that, uh, we as- as Iowa City, uh, should put more money into it. And- and I
think that they- they would like to know now, I mean, just like you would like to know if
you're gonna buy a house, What's your budget five- five years down the line, are you still
going to be able to afford this, uh. As I said, this is a very unique portion of the jobs and
things that the Center for Worker Justice does. Uh, and this is what they're requesting it
for is just this unique portion, uh, because it is a very real problem. And, uh, I am for, er,
if- if I'm glad, Geoff, that you pointed that out because I hadn't even thought about that,
that it has to be spent by 2026 and maybe CWJ didn't realize that either. But, er, I mean,
if there's some way that we can help them out with those last couple of years or a year -
and -a -half I would be in favor of doing that and helping them out with this.
Harmsen: I think it's important to remember too that we're talking about raising this to something
that spread out the annual cost being, you know 23,600, which in terms of, you know, the
size of the hit on our budget, it's- it's not that big of a percentage in terms of on our end of
things, but it can make a big impact for workers, um, and for this position. Er, you know,
I think it's unfortunate that the- at the timing- I can appreciate the difficulties, um, of
trying to work out the timing using multiple agencies, but it sounds like the timing just
fell through, uh, for CWJ, er, in terms of they had a plan to have all this funding and it
went away before they got it back around to the County. Um, but I can appreciate the
difficulty of trying to juggle all these different entities and certainly CWJ and director
Salih did go out and talk to these different- different groups and made it made a good
effort. Um, you know, I think- I think would have been nice to know ahead of time, but I
can see why it wasn't a knowledge that anybody had ahead of time for the original ask. I
think I would still be okay with supporting this increase. Um, er, but I can defmitely see
why there's, you know, maybe- maybe I'm sensing a little bit of frustration, um, but I
think it's understandable because of the circumstances. Er, and again, we're still talking
about a fairly small amount of money, which could be a huge payout from the city. Um,
there could be a huge payout for community and keep dollars flowing in our community
and help the other people that were trying to get affordable housing and everything else.
So I still think it's worth it, um, to support this and even to support this new asks, um, for
an increase.
Alter: Geoff, what um- how far along is staff on getting this rolled-up,um, with the original, er,
understanding and what- what has to happen to unroll it and start and do it again?
Fruin: We were hoping to get it on your July or I'm sorry, your June agenda, but, um, there are
some complications we have to work out. So, um, the county using ARPA funds were
using ARPA funds. The county is doing there's over three years and it was supposed to be
15,000 for this fiscal year and then 60 for the next two fiscal years. Um, we get too deep
in the weeds, but a $60,000 contribution from the county pretty much covers one year of
this entire position. And you can't duplicate benefits with federal dollars, so we can't pay
the CWJ our you know annual amount when the County's already using federal dollars to
pay the salary for that year. So what happens is there's a timing issue that we're going to
have to work out with all the funding entities. And I don't know at this point of core Avila
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of June 6, 2022.
Page 28
North Liberty or using their ARPA dollars. But what we might find is that we have more
than enough- we've got more funding than we can use in these early years. And I'm sure
what the county did is they front -loaded it in three years because they don't want to run
into a situation where they're using ARPA money, latent it to 25 or 26. But these last- last
couple of years are gonna be a tricky puzzle to figure out, and that's probably what we
have to do. We- we have to figure that out with the CWJ and the other funding partners
before we can come back to you. So possibly your second meeting in June, maybe July,
depending on how that all comes together.
Harmsen: Out of curiosity, I understand that we, as the entity that received the ARPA funds,
have- have to spend it by a certain date but to the agencies to which we give them money
to spend it by that same date on those programs, or is there's a commitment that follows
down the chain?
Fruin: Yeah. So it's actually we have to commit by 24, they have to- all funds, have to be spent
by 26. So we'll be fme committing those funds. But again, we can't- if the county is
paying 60,000 in year 1, and the positions it's only 60,000 we can't provide ours on top of
that. We have to wait -
Alter: It's basically sort of staggered.
Fruin: Yeah, we're gonna have -
Alter: Through out.
Fruin: Yeah, I think in an ideal world, we all just fund to percentage of that. But it's not always
an ideal world. [LAUGHTER] I mean, it's kinda figure that piece out. So that's probably
the holdup on the contract, but the- the- the agreement itself for the contract is- is
probably a pretty straightforward document. It just the multiple funding partners m the
use of federal dollars is- is complicating.
Teague: I don't know when the, um, you know, when their budget starts. Most budgets, you
know, we're used to that July 1. So I think Council has to keep that in mind that if we,
you know wanna commit to something and get something, you know, to a certain degree,
we have to just keep that July- I don't know what their budget year is. That's sound like
they'll have coverage no matter what.
Harmsen: I would think that if they wanted to start moving on a hiring process, there's enough
commitment from enough people. I mean, I'm guessing. I don't know that, but I don't
know that we'd be stopping them or holding them up for months if we take till, you know,
two or three meetings from now to get out of this hammered out, I would be my, again
would be my guess.
Alter: On devil's advocate here also. Um, as I understand it, I know that this is a- a new position,
a unique position, um, but one that they are hoping to be have. That it's- it's not a finite
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of June 6, 2022.
Page 29
position. I mean, it is as far as what the budget is showing us, but I'm assuming that in its
own way, It's sort of a precursor of what would hopefully be a sustainable, salaried
position right after these five years. So, um, I guess I'm wondering if there's something to
be said that- again, they have- the position is paid for the first several years out of what
exists right now, which will also allow for opportunity for CWJ to say, Hey, come join in,
come by in with the municipalities. I mean, that's actually oftentimes it has been used to
good effect in some other local efforts to say the city has kicked in. The least, that can be
done is wouldn't you like to come with us? Right. And it helps breed more success for an
entity, and build stronger relationships within the you know, the um, the community with
different uh, funding partners. So I'm wondering if there is. On the one hand, I recognize,
as you say Pauline, you wanna know what your budget is so that you can plan for it
accordingly. And I don't fault that one bit, but I'm also wondering what $33,000 spread
over. Well, actually it would be four years starting not even this year. It'd be in advanced
that they would be able to, as mayor had said, fund raise perhaps that amount themselves
and work within the community to help strengthen those bonds. I realized on the one
hand, like Sean had said you know, spread over time. This is a small portion of money in
our budget and yet it would make a difference to see CWJ. Um, I'm just mindful of the
fact that um, they are not the only agency that is going to be meeting RPA funds um, and
there may well be somebody who could use that $33,000. Um, I'm just trying to scope it
all out. You all know me well enough that I'm processing out loud here.
Teague: I do have a question for you mayor- Mayor Pro Tem.
Alter: Yes.
Teague: Or maybe even for staff because I heard that $85,000 being you know kind of a
challenge to be spent by 2026 with the County's commitment. To me, it seemed like
maybe we need to um, you know direct staff to go back to CWJ and ask, you know, how -
you know find out from the county how they're gonna spend their money. Uh, find out
you know, where our money our $85,000 fits in there. Um, because if- if they're maxed
out, then you know our RPA funds are- you know, could be a mute point beyond the
85,000. So that would be my suggestion at this point is that we- I mean, if- if we can
certainly give direction to do additional funds if we should desire, but it almost sound like
if two years um, because it'd be a four-year before it has to be spent. If three of those
years are already somewhat committed by the county, um, and we're just talking for years
where our $85- $85,000 is gonna be almost already spent. So I think you know if Council
would agree, uh, maybe we could you know, go back, have him- have staff go back to see
CWJ and try to figure out those details because then the ass may not be for our RPA
funds. Um, and then I think that's a totally different conversation. And again, I- I mean,
this is an agency that is, you know, has been promoted, suggested for being a legacy
agency, none of the other communities have the robust programs that the City of Iowa
City has. So I don't know if Council would be in agreement because I- I think we don't
know how the $85,000 is gonna be spent right now.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of June 6, 2022.
Page 30
Weiner: I would be in agreement and going back to CWJ, given how the county funds are being
front -loaded to actually see how the numbers are gonna break down before we have to
make- before we have to make a decision on this because right now we just don't know
what we can do -
Teague: I would agree.
Weiner: - with RPA funds.
Thomas: I'd like to see the you know the this wage theft concept hole and if- if they need
additional funding from the city- from Iowa City on supportive of that. But it does seem
it would be helpful to have at this point some clarification as to how the- how these funds
will be expended over the five-year period.
Teague: All right. It- it sounds like the majority of council is gonna direct staff to bring us more
information. Just figure out, you know, how does our money and the county money,
ARPA funds fit in this? Anything else on- on June 2nd?
University of Iowa Student Government (USG) Updates
Teague: I'm gonna bring up USG. Yes, I'm gonna welcome them right now. So the University of
Iowa student governments for their updates and welcome.
Miglin: Hi, council. Keaton would you be willing to say the first one?
Zeimet: Yes. Hi, my name's Keaton I'm the Deputy City liaison for USG. And uh, the first uh,
item on our announcements is the Board of Regents meeting approved the Iowa Center
for School Mental Health and UI college- college of education, which is a partnership
between Iowa Department of Education and the university to address the state's mental
health problems.
Miglin: Additionally, on behalf of USG, Keaton and I would like to extend our heart brokenness
to hear about the tragic shooting that resulted in the deaths of two Iowa State uh,
University students, Vivian Flores and Eden Maria Montang this past Thursday. Uh, we
encourage everyone uh, or anyone affected by this news to utilize the University of Iowa
is counseling services. Uh, if you or a loved one would benefit from this assistance,
please call or text the UI Iowa support and crisis line 844-461-5420 that's 844-461-5420.
And that's all of our announcements today. Thank you.
Council Updates on assigned boards, commissions, and committees
Teague: Thank you. All right. So Council updates on assigned boards, commissions, and
committees.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of June 6, 2022.
Page 31
Bergus: Had our monthly ECICOG meeting, I guess it was more than a week ago now. And I'm
looking for that envision East Central Iowa report coming out, I believe in July is what
they're pegging now, which was referenced in our- the presentation from icon. But am
looking forward to seeing that.
Teague: And it sounds like it's gonna align have some similarities in alignment with Better
Together 2030. [BACKGROUND] Great, great. All right. Any other updates?
Alter: There are no updates.
Teague: That'll be after Council meeting. All right. We are adjourned until -
Alter: May I- may I interrupt just to do a plug.
Teagued: Yes.
Alter: Uh, just a good citizen plug. That primary day tomorrow is tomorrow. [LAUGHTER] And
everyone should get out and vote uh, take part. And if you do not know where your
precinct is, because some of them have changed, we have expanded precincts, you can
fmd that out on the Iowa.gov site. it's sos.iowa.gov/elections/foraregpolling place. If you
just sort of comb through the radio button, then the options you'll be able to find your
polling place. And it's just, it's gonna take you no time at all and it's a wonderful thing to
do and it's going to help shape what's gonna happen in November. So -
Teague: I appreciate you sharing that because it is uh, kinda some new landfill for people to go
vote in. Some things have changed. So tomorrow's voting day, so we encourage people to
go vote. If you have nothing else for the good of the cause. We will be adjourned until
06:00 PM. [MUSIC]
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of June 6, 2022.