Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-08-06 Transcription Page 1 Council Present: Alter, Bergus, Dunn, Harmsen, Moe, Salih (zoom), Teague Staff Present: Fruin, Lehmann, Goers, Grace, Hightshoe, Kilburg, Knoche, Clark Others Present: Monsivais USG Liaison 1. Call to Order Teague: All right. It is 6:00 PM and I'm going to call the City of Iowa City meeting to order. Roll call, please. \[Roll Call\] It is August 6th, 2024. I want to welcome everyone to your City Hall that is here in person, and to those joining virtually. Welcome, as well. ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024 Page 2 1.a Proclamation: National Farmers Market Week Teague: The first item is a Proclamation National Farmers Market Week. This will be read by our Mayor Pro Tem Mazahir Salih. Salih: Yes. (reads proclamation) Teague: To receive this proclamation as longtime Farmers Market volunteer, Gary Sanders. We invite you to say some words. Sanders: I'm going to keep it to 45 minutes, right? Thank you to the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem and the other council members for this proclamation and recognition of Iowa City's great Farmers Market. Thank you to the people at the City's Recreation Department who oversee the market. Julie Sydell Johnson, Brad Barker, and especially Bill Lane, who came here in March from the wilderness of Sioux City to become a great market director among his many duties at the Rec Department. Sidney Evans and her crew of young rec department employees at the table at the Washington Street entrance and walking around the market. Let's especially thank the 146 vendors who will be at the market this year for all or part of the season. They're selling veggies, baked goods, flowers, crafts, hot coffee, and cold drinks, and the great food vendors on Washington Street, and the musicians from nine to noon in Chauncey Swan Park next to the market. For those of you who have never been to the market, which I really can't imagine, but I know there are some folks out there who haven't been to the market or haven't been to the market in a few years, come on down. We're on the ground floor of the ramp across from City Hall, every Saturday morning from 7:30 to noon, rain or shine until the end of October when we dress up in Halloween costumes. That is a really great day. We might have to wear parkas, but it's a great day. There's free parking all market mornings in the ramp off of College Street, and in the lot off of Burlington Street next to the rec center. Very important, let's send a thank you to Michelle Wigand, who was market director for the two previous years, and a really, really big thank you to Tammy Newman, who was market director for about 26 years. Before Michelle, Tammy worked very, very hard to help this market grow. On Saturday mornings, I'm usually sitting in my chair at the Washington Street entrance. I hope you'll come by, say hi. You can ask me questions. The ones I get are like, where are the bathrooms? That's always number one. Who's got sweet corn or melons, or tomatoes or even banana bread with blueberries? Wow! I hope to see all of you at the market. Thank you. Teague: Thank you. ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024 Page 3 8. Community Comment \[Items not on the agneda\] Teague: We're at our community comment, which is Item number 8. This is an opportunity for the public to comment on items that is not on our agenda. We ask for individuals to come to the mic and speak up to three minutes. If you are in the audience and you want to speak, we invite you at this time, do know that the council will not be able to comment, but we're here to listen. If there's anyone, please come at this time on any item that is not on our consent agenda. Moore: My name is Joshua Moore. Teague: Yes. What city are you from? Moore: Iowa City. I've lived here since 2007. I live above the Ammo Bearer Gun store for 12 years, and the crime in that area has gotten out of control. I called the police twice this weekend. I caught a person red handed breaking into my truck, and they didn't go to jail. Out of the last four years, I have had more than a dozen burglaries. Several of those people I have caught red handed and not once has anyone there been taken to jail. I get the impression from the police department that they seem to be afraid to arrest people. I was told that Laura Bergus wants to abolish the police department. I can tell you that that is absolutely unacceptable. I have had enough of the crime. My brother's car was broken into last week. He had things stolen from him. He had money stolen from him. He had things from his job stolen from him. When I called the police the last time, they said that there had been 23 smash and grab robberies by the time he made it to my house overnight at 8:00 in the morning. I know that you guys are overcapacity here at the jail in the several years that I have lived here. There's been a few vote downs on a new jail. I don't know if that's something that's up for vote again, but I don't know if that's even necessarily the right choice. I just know that every time I have caught someone even red handed in my home even or walking across the parking lot with my stuff it's never enough. I've given someone the name of the person who burglarized my house. I have given the cops the license plate number of people who have stolen guns from my home, poked holes in my paintings. I'm an art major. I feel like at this point in time, with the amount of crime that I myself, personally, have had to deal with and have not received an ounce of justice. I've asked for the reports when it comes to the home invasion that I had and the gun stolen, and I never received them. I have no recourse at this time, other than the next time someone gets caught red handed at my home, I'm going to kick the shit out of them. Because I need justice, my family, my friends, my neighbors, they need justice. That's why I'm here today, because I'm not getting that. I'm not getting a sense of urgency from the city from the police department. There seems to be a crime spree going on in this town. Teague: Thank you. Moore: Thank you. Have a great rest of your day. Teague: Anyone else like to speak during this time? Seeing no one in person. I'm going to close the public comment section. ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024 Page 4 9. Planning & Zoning Matters 9.a Rezoning – 1215 Camp Cardinal Rd - An ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 5.01 acres of land located at 1215 Camp Cardinal Road from Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Low-Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone (REZ24-0004). Teague: We're going to move on to Item number nine, which is planning and Zoning Matters. Nine as rezoned in 1215 Camp Cardinal Road, and ordinance conditionally rezoning in approximately 5.1 acres of land located at 1215 Camp Cardinal Road from Interim Development single family residential zone to low density single family residential zone. I'm going to open the public hearing. Welcome, Danielle. Sitzman: Thank you, Mayor. Danielle Sitzman, Neighborhood Development Services. As you've summarized, this is a rezoning application for approximately five acres shown here in the outlined white dash. This is currently zoned ID-RS or interim development single family. Vis the standards for that zone. The property owner would like to construct or have constructed a second home, so they do need to change the zoning to allow two homes on the sites of property. The requested zoning is just two low density, single family or RS-5. This shows its current zoning, and its situation related to other city zones is also abutting some of the core of zoning districts, which are not shown on this map. On the lower left hand side of this is Borla Elementary School to orient yourself, so where this is. As I mentioned, the minimum lot area size for ID-RS is five acres. This property is five acres to add additional single family home. They do need to rezone to RS-5. The existing home that's there has been there quite some time. If you go back, if far enough in time, it was the last Armstead on the end of the road of the original Camp Cardinal Road. When we look at rezoning, we go through and review the criteria in our zoning code. There are two relative to rezonings. One is consistency with the comprehensive plan and the other is compatibility with the existing neighborhood. In regards to the consistency with our comprehensive plan, our future land use map in that plan does identify this area as appropriate for low density residential development. There also are plan policies expressed in the comprehensive plan that support infill development that's compatible with the neighborhood, and to ensure effective use of infrastructure. This is, as I said, single family, surrounded by other kinds of single family and elementary school and some civic and public park space owned by Coralville. This would be consistent with the existing land use pattern already present. Staff has proposed several conditions relating to transportation. Access to the subject property is currently provided by Camp Cardinal Road. Staff has recommended a condition for the dedication of additional right of way. To accommodate a turnaround on the northern terminus of that, the City of Colville, which controls the right of way to the North of this property has expressed the desire in the future to perhaps vacate that to terminate that, to no longer have it be a connection through, so this would be making provisions for that in the future. There's also currently no sidewalk or curb cuts, so a staff has recommended the installation of sidewalk. Because utilities are necessary, we would need to know that those are available prior to pulling a building permit and eventual construction. This shows the development steps are common in the city. This land has been previously platted, zoned at one point to that interim development stage, and this rezoning tonight would be, as I said, to, again, rezoning to a low density single family classification. After this step, the next step would be building permits. Based on a review of the relevant criteria, staff recommended approval of the proposed rezoning with the conditions, as I mentioned, to require sidewalk installation, dedication of right away, and show proof of utility provision. At their June 26th meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission concurred with staff's recommendation and ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024 Page 5 recommended approval of the conditional rezoning by a vote of five to zero. We have received the signed zoning agreement, and that concludes my report. I'm happy to answer questions. Dunn: Question about the utilities bit that you had on the presentation. Demonstrating ability to connect to the utilities, is the property not already connected to the utilities? Sitzman: I don't know about the existing property, but the provision of those utilities would be a responsibility of the developer if they should. Dunn: I understand. Sitzman: I was expressing to them that that's. Dunn: That's a requirement. I got you. Alter: I guess in the same vein, whose responsibility is it for dedication of a right of way along? Sitzman: That would be a condition that needs to happen prior to the issuance of a building permit. The owner of the property would need to go through that and provide us dedication of right of way, probably through a separate instrument, not through a platting process, which is normally how we acquire that, but it is fairly common to accept right of way in a separate document. Alter: Okay. Then what about the construction of the turnaround? Sitzman: The eventual construction, the turnaround, that's not planned. That's just in case the road would no longer be a connection and the roadway to the North get vacated, then there would still be a way for that to turn there. Alter: Okay, yeah. Got you. Thank you. Teague: Hear no other questions, anyone from the public like to address this topic? Welcome. You'll have up to three minutes to speak, and I ask that you state your name and city you're from. Also this is an opportunity for the council to hear from you. We would not be able to respond unless a council determines that they want to respond during their comments. Sutzman: Hello. I'm Lacy Stutzman. I am the PM on this project on behalf of the property owners who are also here, if you have any questions for them. I just want to reiterate everything Danielle said. We don't have really anything to add to that, but we are here if you have any specific questions for us. Teague: Thank you. If you're online, raise your virtual hand, please. Seeing no one online or in person, I'm going to close the public hearing. Goers: Before you do. Teague: Oh, yeah. Are people inclined to support P&Z? Yes. Thank you. All right. The public hearing has been closed already. Can I get a motion to give first consideration? Alter: Moved, Alter. ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024 Page 6 Moe: Second, Moe. Teague: All right. Council discussion. Yeah. All right. Roll call, please. \[Roll Call\] Yes. Motion passes 7 – 0. ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024 Page 7 9.b Rezoning – 2255 N Dubuque Road - An ordinance rezoning approximately 7.0 acres of property located at 2255 North Dubuque Road from Office Research Park (ORP) zone to Neighborhood Public (P-1) zone. (REZ24-0005). Teague: Item 9.b, Rezoning 2255 North Dubuque Street, North Dubuque Road. An ordinance rezoned on approximately 7 acres property located at 2255 North Dubuque Road from Office Research Park Zone to neighborhood Public Zone. I'm going to open the public hearing. Welcome again, Danielle. Sitzman: Thank you, Mayor. This is the subject property bounded in the white dash line here. This property was recently acquired by the school district. They purchased it from ACT in November of 2022. Their intention, and I believe they've already established this is to continue to use the existing building. This rezoning would memorialize the fact that the property is now owned by a public entity a school district, for which we have a specific zoning district, which designates that that being the neighborhood Public P1 zone. This exhibit shows its existing zoning and its relationship to the ACT campus and the surrounding area. As I mentioned, this would be used for administrative offices of the school District not for redevelopment at this time. When we review rezoning, again, there are two conditions, consistency of the comp plan and compatibility with neighborhood character. While the future Land use plan map identifies this as what its former use was, which is Office Research Development Center. That's really no longer relevant because of the change in ownership, which is okay, because we anticipate in our zoning code that public entities can be in many different neighborhoods and zones, and when they acquire property, it's okay to rezone them to the P zoning district to identify the ownership there. It does align with plan policies, which support our collaborative partnerships with our school district, so it is supported by the comprehensive plan in that way as well. It is consistent and compatible with the existing neighborhood character. It's being used primarily as offices, which is a use that's he along standing use in the area and is surrounded by similar uses. Again, showing the outline of the development process here. This was annexed and rezoned many years ago. It's never been planted, however. This rezoning, like I said, would reflect the new ownership. If at any time they want to split land off of this parcel or engage in redevelopment, there would be a preliminary and final platting stage and site plan and building permits. However, we don't anticipate that at this time. Based on the relevant criteria, staff did recommend approval of the proposed rezoning with no conditions. At their June 26 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission concurred with that and also recommended approval. I'm happy to answer questions. Teague: Hearing none. Thank you. Anyone from the public like to address this topic? Seeing no one in person or virtually, I'm going to close the public hearing. Goers: I'm sorry, Mayor again. Teague: Yeah. Sorry. If I wasn't on cough medicine, I would probably remember. Are you all inclined to vote in favor? Of P&Z? Can I get a motion to give first consideration? Moe: So moved. Bergus: Second, Bergus. Teague: Move by Moe. Seconded by Bergus. Council discussion. Roll call, please. \[Roll Call\] Motion passes 7 - 0. ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024 Page 8 10. Regular Formal Agenda 10.a Highway Commercial Urban Revitalization Plan Amendment - Resolution approving Amendment No. 2 to the Highway Commercial Urban Revitalization Plan. Teague: Item number 10.a is Highway Commercial Urban Revitalization Plan Amendment. Resolution Approve and Amendment Number 2 to the Highway Commercial Urban Revitalization Plan. I'm going to open the public hearing. Welcome Rachel. Kilburg Varley: Hi, Mayor and Council, Rachel Kilburg Varley economic Development coordinator. With this item, during the 2024 legislative session, the legislature passed a law which requires properties that are seeking tax exemption in an urban revitalization area to enter a minimum assessment agreement in order to be eligible for that tax exemption. This legislation would apply to our highway commercial urban revitalization tax I'm sorry, our Highway Commercial urban Revitalization area, where we have a tax exemption program. You might recall that program. It was established in 2021. We've approved four projects under it, so a car wash along Highway 6, the South District Market and storage renovation, and then two projects, which were essentially contractor bays out near the Menards area. Under that program, it provides a three year tax exemption to commercial properties, which add at least 15% in value. Since the law took effect July 1, we just need to add this amendment in order to comply and require that minimum assessment agreement. This extra step doesn't change anything about our application process. They still would be required to submit an application to us. That would still come before you, and then our city assessor still has to ultimately determine that the project is eligible and that that value was added. Any questions? Teague: Seeing none. Thank you. Anyone from the public like to address this topic? Seeing no one in person or online, I'm going to close the public hearing. Could I get a motion to approve, please? Salih: Move, Salih. Moe: Second, Moe. Teague: Council discussion. Roll call please? \[Roll Call\] Motion pass the 7 - 0. ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024 Page 9 10.b Taxicab and Pedicab Regulations - Ordinance amending Title 5, entitled “Business and License Regulations,” Chapter 2, entitled “Taxicabs and Pedicabs,” Section 2, entitled “Business Licenses,” to change the time period of the license term, Section 5, entitled “Vehicle Requirements,” to remove the color scheme requirement for vehicles, and Section 10, entitled “Pedicabs,” to remove the color scheme requirement for pedicabs. (First Consideration) Teague: Item 10.b taxicab and Pedicab Regulations, Ordinance amending Title 5E Title business and license regulations, Chapter 2 entitled Taxicab and Pedicaps, Section 2 entitled business licenses to change the time period of the license term, Section 5 entitled vehicle requirements to remove the color scheme requirement for vehicles and Section 10 entitled pedicabs, to remove the color scheme requirement for pedicabs. This is the first consideration. Could I get a motion, please? Dunn: I moved. Alter: Second. Teague: Move by Dunn, Second by Alter, and welcome Kelly, to give us some comments on this. Grace: Hi, Kellie Grace, City Clerk. City Council had received some correspondence requesting the color scheme requirement for metered taxicabs be removed due to the cost burden of painting the cabs to all be of the same color. At your July 16 meeting, you directed staff to remove that requirement. As we were reviewing the code section for that, we also are requesting that the amendment to change the business license year goes to July 1 through June 30. Currently, it's June 1 through May 30, to correspond with the city's fiscal year. Then also, we were looking at the Pedicab section, and they also have a requirement to be substantially similar in color and design, and are asking to have that removed to decrease the cost burden to them also. Be happy to answer any questions. Teague: Hearing none. Anyone from the public like to address this topic? If you're online, please raise your virtual hand. Send no one in person or online. Council discussion. Moe: Makes sense. Alter: I just had this vision of sort of, like, the rogue pedicabs. Dunn: Have we communicated this action with the gentleman that came before us? Moe: I've communicated with them and said this would be voted on tonight. Yeah. Dunn: Okay. Cool. Yeah. Excellent. Teague: Roll call, please? \[Roll Call\] Yes. Motion pass is 7 – 0. ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024 Page 10 10.d Parking and Traffic Engineering Cameras - Ordinance amending Title 9, entitled “Motor Vehicles and Traffic,” Chapter 11, entitled “Traffic Cameras, Drones, and License Plate Recognition Systems,” Section 2, entitled “Definitions,” to allow Transportation Services to use automatic license plate recognition systems or devices for parking purposes, and to clarify the definition of “Automatic Traffic Surveillance System or Device.” (Second Consideration) Teague: Item number 10D is parking and Traffic Engineering cameras, Ordinance amending Title nine Title motor vehicles and Traffic. Chapter 11 titled Traffic, cameras, drones, and license plate recognition systems, Section 2 titled definitions to allow transportation services to use automatic license plate recognition systems or devices for parking purposes. To clarify the definition of automatic traffic, surveillance systems or devices. This is the second consideration. Can I get a motion, please? Moe: Moved. Dunn: Second. Teague: Moved by Moe, Second by Dunn. Anyone from the public like to address this topic? We're asking people to give their name and city there from. You can place that in the basket. Welcome and, if you're online, please raise your virtual hand, you'll be given up to 3 minutes. Denning: Hi. My name is Emma. It's nice to see you all again. I would like to speak broadly in opposition to this measure. I think 10 years ago, this city passed a pretty remarkable piece of a remarkable city ordinance that provided a lot of personal privacy and protection to Iowa City citizens, and I feel like this move really flies in the face of any idea that the city believes in that ordinance and what it was for. I've seen right claims that traffic cameras have been used by police to prevent all these very particular crimes. It's important to note that all of that information was pulled out specifically to to prove this measure instead of actually looking at a really broad set of data. Because if you look at that, we'll see that things like violent crime, which is one of the situations that's being brought up as a use case for providing this camera information to law enforcement has been going down for 20 years in Iowa city. This is just not important, and it is not what citizens want. What we have seen, especially in the last year, is how law enforcement in the city uses traffic cameras, and they use it to in my case, in the case of several people I know, target protesters, target people who are speaking out against the city, the state, and the actions of this country, and as the Iowa City Civil Rights Commission found violate those people's civil rights. I can't see any reason why you need to keep collaborating with police, especially after police actions in 2020, which this body claimed to be taking action against and claimed to be supporting protesters. Then now to reneg on any of those promises just feels like a violation of the trust of your citizens. I hope that you take this into consideration and hope that you move to keep the situation as it is and ensure privacy for your citizens, which I would like to remind you that 10 years ago, you were commended by the ACLU for doing. Thanks. Teague: Thank you. Anyone else, like to address this topic. I do see online. Storm. I'm going to welcome you at this time. You have up to 3 minutes. Please state your name and city here from and you're muted. O’Brink: Can you hear me okay? ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024 Page 11 Teague: Yes. Welcome. O’Brink: Thank you. You'll have to bear with me. My voice is shot because I'm sick right now. My name is Storm. I'm from North Liberty. I work in Iowa City. I'm frustrated with this measure because you're seriously trying to create more avenues to surveil your citizens after we just spent all that time this spring coming in there in large groups, annoying you to be quite frank about how the cops are busy surveiling the Trans community in this town for protesting. Perhaps you remember me. I'm the person who told you months ago that doing anything of substance to improve Trans life in Iowa City would be welcomed. This is that moment to do that concrete thing, and I'm asking you not to mess this up. I stand with my colleague Emma Denny about this. You must keep in mind that this will be used in ways you did not intend, maybe even for laws that have not been enacted yet. It is only a matter of time before this surveillance allows for the prosecution of someone fleeing the state to get an abortion or a parent taking their child to Rochester, because gender affirming care isn't legal here. They don't just use this to prosecute violent crime. They use it as a means of enacting state sponsored violence against the most vulnerable citizens. You want to create more means to have us all arrested? I am asking you on behalf of every marginalized person in this town. Do not pass this measure. It puts our freedoms at risk, and it puts the most vulnerable at risk. Council, thank you. Teague: Thank you. Anyone else like to address this topic? If you're online, please raise your virtual hand. Oh, welcome. Please state your name and city you're from? Moore: Joshua Moore, Iowa City. In 2016, I T-Boned to semi, and all took my driver's license for 4.5 years. In that time, I rode my bike, including all winter long 28 miles a day to and from North Liberty to work at GEICO as an insurance agent. I think that if we have money to spend on traffic cameras, I think we could probably spend that on a jail or put that towards something, that we actually need and take care of the things that we have now. I don't think we need those traffic cameras. I have I feel very strongly that I think that our police department already spends enough of their time enforcing traffic code. I ride my bike to work now every day and back as a landscaper. I just I don't feel like we need that. I think we do plenty for the traffic violations as it is, that there's no need to spend that money, especially if we don't have it for the other stuff that we need. That's all I have. Teague: Thank you. I don't know if you signed in earlier, but I do asks one up there. Moore: Yep, I did that earlier, the first one. Teague: Thank you. Anyone else like to address this topic? Seeing no one in personal virtually, Council discussion. Alter: Can we just do one really quick? I'm sorry. No. It's not anything. Just as a point of clarification for those who are listening, the conversation at the moment is actually relating to cameras that are in parking lots. It's not specific to traffic cameras, and in fact, it does say that that the amendment clarifies that cameras installed and maintained by the streets and Traffic Engineering Division of the Public works Department are excluded from definitions of automatic license plate recognition system, and automatic traffic surveillance system of device. I'm looking for Red light and speed cameras would remain in effect of sorry, I'm trying to find it here, the language. But the bottom line is that within this, and I'm not discounting the comments that have been made, but the specific conversation here is about the use of license plate readers to be able to help aid the way ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024 Page 12 that the parking apps work, and then also to be able to help the police aid when there have been crimes in parking lots. I just wanted to clarify that because I heard about traffic cameras and speeding and on the road. I just wanted to clarify the parameters of what this ordinance is talking about. Dunn: To further clarify, it is also talking about traffic cameras. All of the cameras operated by the traffic department, whether that's in parking lots or not, every single camera that they operate is covered by this. Goers: The traffic engineering, to be clear. Dunn: Yeah. Goers: To some further clarity, since there is a discussion about spending money on these cameras. These cameras are already present. They're Deploy. Salih: Yes. Dunn: I'm pretty frustrated with this whole situation for a variety of reasons and I think the first one is that we as a council had, if my memory is serving me correct, an at length discussion about the flock cameras and about how if we wanted to pursue the flock cameras, we would have to amend this particular ordinance. We made the decision that, if we want to go that route, for the automatic license plate readers, just a different type of technology. If we want to amend this ordinance, we have to take into account or we wanted to, which I have reached out to ACLU. We would like to reach out to various stakeholders who are more educated than us on the privacy concerns on the practices of law enforcement and to fully take a holistic approach to addressing this policy, if that is something that we want to do. If that's the direction that we want to go, that is not what's happened. We have not had that opportunity. We were handed an ordinance to pass and again, we have not had ACLU. We have not had, any other stakeholders, aside from the people that have joined us in person or online, discuss these privacy concerns and these concerns are real. If we pass this, give carte blanche to whole systems of cameras, which just means that the law doesn't apply to them, and whether or not the law has applied to them in the past or has been, actually functionally applied is not the conversation. I feel as a counselor and as a representative of this community, disrespected by the way this process has been handled, by the way that this has been pushed on us, and by the fact that we haven't been able to get more people in the room. Now personally, just as a member of this community. I'm not prepared to weigh in on matters of Fourth Amendment concerns and I don't think anyone up here is, except for maybe Eric or maybe Laura. They have some special training. None of us else do to make these types of decisions. I think that we have to make informed decisions and all we've been told is that, this will help us with crime. What's the other impact going to be from my perspective? Again, it goes against the intent of the law that was passed back in, I believe it was 2013 or 2014. That's my general thoughts. I think there's major concerns with this. My greatest preference would be to either amend or defer until we have a time to meet with the stakeholders, to have the conversations about the Fourth Amendment, about surveillance, about what that all means, a holistic conversation before we start amending and changing and making carve outs that are department wide in what exists as, some of the best municipal digital privacy language in the United States. I have some ideas for amendments, but I want to see where this broader conversation goes. ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024 Page 13 Fruin: I'd like to clarify, because I think you're incorrect in a lot of what you just said about the approach to this. First of all, the flock cameras are completely separate. We've been very clear that it's separate. We were clear at the last meeting that this has nothing to do with the flock cameras. If we want to use the flock cameras, we would have to come back with another amendment. The council frequently will be in sections of the code in multiple times. The item you just approved is the second time you've been in that code section this year. It's not uncommon for us to bring you a code section that we have talked about previously. That happens all the time. Again, you just proved an item that you had previously tinkered with earlier this year. Dunn: Yeah, absolute that's not my concern or contention. Fruin: Well, you're alleging that staff is doing something that is back handed here or that is disrespectful to you and your position. I think that's false. I take offense to that because we've been very clear what this is about. This is about technology that we purchased for our parking decks, and we are trying to utilize the full functioning. The license plate readers can help. I outlined that at the last meeting. We've had parking staff here. We've let you know that they're available to talk about how exactly the license plate readers would be used. We've also been very clear that when we were looking at this code section, we thought more clarity would be good. We're not asking for any new allowances when it comes to law enforcement. Dunn: Oh. Fruin: We are recognizing that for the past 10 or more years, probably far more than 10 years, police have used the traffic cameras for investigative purposes. Dunn: Unlawfully. Probably. Again, I want to reiterate that I don't feel personally offended by any means, and I also don't think that there's any problem with coming back to an issue, but with this one, we're coming up on the same types of Fourth Amendment concerns that we would have, the security, the privacy concerns that we would have with the flock cameras. Simultaneously, it's hard for me to separate the fact that we're not just saying parking cameras. We're saying every single camera operated by a department, and that change is broad. Fruin: That's not correct. That's incorrect. Dunn: What's the language of the \[inaudible\] Fruin: Traffic Engineering Cameras are cameras at the intersections. We have far more cameras than that in our system. Our public works department has far more cameras than just traffic engineers. Dunn: I understand. But it's also about license plate readers. That's the thing, we're talking about whole systems. Fruin: In the parking decks not on the traffic signals. Dunn: We don't say in parking decks. That's the thing. If I'm down for specificity. My amendments are specifically relating to, rather than saying a whole system or something in broad strokes, let's be specific, and I'm down to talk about that, but I want to see where the rest of this goes. ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024 Page 14 Bergus: I think this is a good way to try to clarify what the ordinance we're looking at amending does and what we want to do. Councilor Alter mentioned, we're talking about parking enforcement. I understand that's the intent of this change. Just to be totally clear and please staff jump in if I get any of this wrong. The ordinance is to prohibit the use of certain systems and the storage or dissemination publication, passing along, whatever, all those things, use and storage or publication of data from these certain systems for any particular purposes here. Right? That's the laws prohibiting those uses. That is a more strict standard than just what would be allowed based on if we didn't have this ordinance. There are limits that we have imposed on ourselves based on this ordinance. I think we've been talking about it backwards sometimes as to what the law allows or doesn't allow. The law is intended to restrict our own use of these particular technologies. On top of the law relating to these cameras that are the traffic and engineering specific in the proposed changes and then, all the other cameras that the city owns that are in buildings and on the Ped Mall, for example, and those types of things. We have all these different cameras, and the ones that are specified here are also governed by internal policy, which is what was adopted in consultation with the ACLU in 2020, and then 2022. I think it's unfortunate that we don't have that policy like, in the packet published with the ordinance so that we can see what the internal limitations are, and that the council can understand what the intent is on trying to ensure that if we're using technologies, we are respecting first amendment obvious, uses. We are balancing very intentionally the privacy that our residents can expect when they are moving about our city, when they are in various places throughout the community and I surely we're conflating a lot of these issues. My objection to this at the last meeting is really based on exempting these whole systems, which is the traffic and engineering license plate readers and the traffic and engineering cameras, which, as I understand are primarily at intersections, exempting them from the limitations that are in the ordinance, which then means they can be used for more. The more concern is law enforcement purposes that we are trying to avoid in this ordinance that was adopted 11 years ago. Is that all accurate as far as, what the documents we're talking about are? Fruin: You want to go first? Goers: Yes, I think that's largely true. The only caveat that I would add is that the restriction right now, at least in so far as cameras is concerned, as opposed to the automated license plate readers, talks about cameras that are designed to identify a vehicle and its operator occupants. That's why the cameras that we have up in the Ped Mall, for example, are clearly not affected by either the present ordinance or the proposed amendment to this ordinance. They can be used fully right now. Otherwise, I agree with everything you've mentioned. Fruin: I just add clarifications. I'm not sure. It matters a whole lot, but we are talking two different departments. Transportation services is one department. They operate our parking decks and that is who is managing. That's the primary reason that we brought this before you is because the staff that manage the decks would like to use license plate reader technology, which we have built into our system. It's not being utilized now to be more efficient and to add some customer and staff benefits. Traffic engineering is a division of the public works department that takes care of our streets. Two separate departments, they're getting pushed together here. The traffic engineering department, the cameras that they have that are mounted on intersections at the street lights, they do not have license plate reader technology. It's unlike transportation services. Their cameras have license plate reader capability that's not being used. The cameras on the intersections do not have license plate reader capability and traffic engineering does not need license plate reader technology. They have no interest in getting license plate reader technology. If we wanted to do ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024 Page 15 license plate reader technology on the street, we would go through a system like flock, which we previously talked to you about and agreed not to pursue further. Dunn: I still don't think that those arguments fundamentally engage with my personal concerns, which is that we would exempt anything, any camera, any license plate reader from the department for any purpose without further consideration. That's really my largest concern is that we are talking about two different departments and we are talking about futures. That's the breadth of what is requested here is really what concerns me. Like I said, I have two amendments theoretically, drafted that would be specific, would not say anything operated by transportation services or traffic engineering, but would still allow a similar effect, if that's something that people would be willing to consider. But I don't think giving departments broad exclusions or exceptions, let's say, from this particular item is particularly wise. Bergus: Just to be clear, the police department can use the information from the traffic and engineering cameras, both the license plate readers and the decks, as well as the traffic and engineering, let's call them intersection cameras for investigative purposes under this amendment, as well as under the internal policy, correct? Even though we're saying there for different departments, the police department can use them. I believe your opinion, Eric was that was violating our current ordinance. Goers: Well, no, I think the opinion I expressed was that it was rather gray, and we frankly assumed that it was okay, and that's why we wanted to bring it forward. The reason we brought this forward in the first place was to allow the parking folks to use the license plate readers to deploy their technology that allows folks to use apps and so forth. But then we thought, Well, as long as we're getting into this ordinance, let's just get some clarity about, how we've been using this and make sure that council is okay with it. That's how I'd answer. Salih: But if we really need this only to read the license plate for those parking, why we don't just make it specific to those parking? You said, we already have the system implemented there, but we are not using it. Now if we approve this, this is will give them the chance to start using it to read the license plate. I think the main hub or aim in this is for the people who park, they come and they don't pay for the parking. We will figure out who are them and they send them a bill. This is exactly what it is, or we have another benefit or another aim, we want to have beyond just the license plate readers. Fruin: I'm not sure. Salih: Did you understand what I'm saying? Fruin: No, I'm sorry, I'm not. Salih: I'm saying, you said we already have cameras implemented on those parking deck. Fruin: Our parking decks have what I'll call security cameras. They've had security cameras in them for years and years. New this year has been all the equipment that's at the gates, where you get your ticket and put your ticket in to get in and out, that's all brand new equipment throughout our entire system, and that has license plate reader capability in it. That's not being utilized now, but it has the capability to do that, and we believe there's some benefits to doing that. ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024 Page 16 Salih: What are the benefit? Fruin: Mark Rummel from our transportation services and department is here, and he can talk about how his department would utilize the LPRs. Rummel: Good evening, Mark Rummel, Associate Director for Transportation Services, and Jeff did a great job of explaining it at the last meeting, so it's probably going to echo a lot of what he said. There's a couple different ways that we will use or could use these cameras. One is at a gated facility, like at the Capitol Street Ramp, Dubuque Court. It would tie a person's license plate to the ticket that they pulled to get in. Where that benefits us and where it will really save us some efficiencies. What it will do is when someone exits a parking ramp, it will know that license plate is tied to a ticket, it will know the date and time that ticket was pulled to get in. Really, it will speed up the exit time for users trying to get out of the ramp. In addition to that, if someone loses their ticket, it will also know what time that plate came and left. Instead of charging them a lost ticket fee, which a lot of times folks are only parked for a couple of hours. We don't like to charge them all day or a lost ticket fee, but without a ticket, that's our process right now. This would know exactly what time they were there charge them the right amount. We can also tie those license plates to permits in ramps. Instead of flashing your permit at the entrance and exit to leave, it will just read the plate, the gate will go up. This will also really increase our entrance queuing and the exit queuing at these gated facilities. In addition to that, it will provide us with some very valuable data that we're missing right now. We can manually do all this, but it would take hours and hours to do. But what we're missing is any cars that stay overnight, there's some other duration times that it will help us calculate, and just give us a lot of information to help us, maybe model our parking operations to better suit everyone who uses it. Right now, our occupancies can be challenging at times, and we really are just trying to provide as much parking as we can for everyone in need, and this data would really help us with that. The other facilities that are not gated, like the Chauncey Swan Ramp behind you. How this will help, it will read plates as vehicles enter the ramp, it will give a grace period as far as if that person has a permit or pays one of the pay stations or pays our online application. If none of those happens, that vehicle would be parked illegally. We walk basically, those ramps right now and check this exact same information. It's just this system would automate that process and really save us time. It would probably save us between an hour and two hours a day per ramp or let us enforce that more frequently. But then again, it will be tied to permits, it will give us some occupancy data that we don't have in those ramps because there's no gates. A lot of our occupancy data is either collected manually or it's the gates that help us track how many cars are in those facilities. Where this will be really nice for everyone is, if those facilities get full, we can tie that occupancy number to a full sign to an app, to the website, and let people know that they're full and provide other parking options for them. There's a little more to it, but that's generally what it's going to do. Salih: I get the benefit of reducing the time and all this. But to your point Council Burgers and Dunn, what do you mean by this order and if we pass it today, is not only giving with the benefit that they're talking about, and it's extended to the traffic light. Can you just explain that more? Bergus: Allow me to respond. Well, I think my objection before, and again, tonight is that it's exempting an entire department rather than a use. Departments can share information between each other, we don't know what the ultimate use is. If we could just narrow it to say that the exempted use, which again, is exempting it from the prohibition would be for what Mark described. Dunn: This is awesome. ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024 Page 17 Bergus: I think we can be very narrow for that exemption so that the prohibition doesn't apply to those particular uses rather than the entirety of a department or an entirety of a department system. Salih: That's what I was asking you. Why don’t we just do it for this benefit that he talked about, if that the real aim from doing this, like license plate readers. Fruin: I'm not sure I'm understanding the practical and so unless what you're saying is you wouldn't want the police to use that for investigative purposes. If we had a sexual assault that occurred in a parking ramp, and the victim said, The vehicle left the ramp at 1:22 in the morning. If what you're describing would preclude the investigators from pulling that data, then I think we're talking about two different things. But otherwise, if you're okay with the police using these cameras for investigative purposes, then I'm not sure there's a difference between what we're discussing. Dunn: I would tend to agree with you. The concern is about systems. Systems versus individual instances. I sent you both just a couple minutes ago, the amendments that I would potentially put forward that are all about specifics. I'm sorry, what was your name? \[Audience member:\] Mark. Dunn: Every single thing that Mark said is phenomenal. We're talking about saving money, we're talking about saving taxpayer dollars, saving their time so that they can do other things. I think that's great. I have no problems with any of that. But those benefits do not justify to me why an entire department or division of our government needs to be excluded from these specifications. Fruin: I'm sorry, I'm just slow to understand this. I'm not understanding you. Salih: I agree. Alter: I'm asking the same question as Geoff. Are you saying that the police should not be able to resent from this to be able to use it for investigative purposes. Dunn: That's not what I'm even talking about. Alter: I'm totally lost. Bergus: I think we're getting to the crux of the issue here, which is I heard last meeting that this ordinance should, as it was written, prevent certain uses by law enforcement, and that we were going ahead and doing it anyway. That's what I heard. Now I'm hearing it's gray. I don't know. I thought I heard the City Manager say last meeting that if we continue down the path that I was advocating, then we'll tell the police they can't use cameras for those purposes. There are legitimate law enforcement purposes that fall within the existing ordinance and that fall within our even stricter internal policy that aren't at issue right here. That require probable cause, that require reasonable suspicion or that require a warrant. There are ways in which we can gather information from these sources that we don't have to just pull the entire department out in order to make it comply. I think what we need to say is the whole thing is built. Again, backwards to how we're talking about it, we're trying to say, what's okay, what's not okay. The ordinance starts with by saying what's not okay, and in order to make something okay, we need to add it back in. Right? ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024 Page 18 Goers: Well, right. The present ordinance has a couple of exceptions, but ultimately, where most of it falls is in Subsection B, that is 9-11-1B, which talks about storing, archiving, transmitting, sharing, publishing, granting, etc for data held by either the cameras that we're talking about or the license plate readers that we're discussing as well. Could it be used for legitimate law enforcement purposes? At the present time, again, we thought it was gray, we thought it was okay but if I'm understanding your interpretation, I think the answer would be only for traffic tickets, because it would have to be a qualified traffic law violation as defined under this chapter, and that would be it. To use the example that City Manager used, about a sexual assault, I think the answer would be no. Let me be clear, I get the philosophical balance that we're discussing. It's about privacy versus security and being able to solve crimes. You know, let's be frank, that's what the discussion is about. I think as counsel just needs to weigh. You tell us you know where you'd like to be, and we'll write it up that way. Bergus: It would be different if this ordinance said these particular systems could be used for law enforcement purposes such as evidence of a sexual assault that has occurred. That would be different. That's not what we're talking about. The internal policy speaks to some of that thing as to the severity of a potential issue or the type of incident that we might be responding to and who gets to view the video and how long it's stored. But if we're just talking about the ordinance, I really think it's unfair to frame it as, do you want us to be able to use these for a sexual assault or not? Because that's not the question. The question is, do we exempt an entire department's camera system from these prohibitions? I'm saying we can make it narrow so that we don't have to. Alter: This is literally confusion on my part. You're saying, so there's other mechanisms, like the evidence of a sexual assault would allow people to go to look at the video footage? Bergus: If that were the question. Alter: What if the evidence is, somebody comes and says, I was assaulted, and they say, Okay. A piece of the evidence is, in fact, on the camera. How can you get the evidence if you can't see the camera? Bergus: That's not the question in front of us. The amendment that we are being asked to consider is to exempt an entire department rather than make it more and more narrow. Salih: That include any camera elsewhere, not only the reader? Bergus: No. Goers: No this only refers to automatic license plate recognition systems and automatic traffic surveillance systems or devices. Again, Ped Mall cameras are not at play, they can be used. The security cameras that the City Manager mentioned that are present in some of the parking ramps, those can be used. The cameras around public buildings that we've already got for security purposes, those can be used all at present. The question is, are you going to say the police can use all of those except not the traffic engineering cameras and not the automatic license plate readers? Harmsen: Right, I think just to weigh in here, a lot of stuff has been discussed, and honestly, parts of it were confusing me as well, or it seems like maybe we're not always talking about the exact same thing. But I think one of the concerns we had at the last meeting is that what I heard our City staff articulate to summarize my understanding, and that can be corrected if I have it wrong was that, for instance, the use by police of traffic cameras in order to look into incidents which may ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024 Page 19 provide evidence or maybe exculpatory evidence of crimes as something that was not specifically addressed in the earlier ordinance, which was, as I read it. I think I read a little differently than some of my fellow Council Members, was specifically saying we don't want automatic traffic, stop signs and speeding things, which I agree, I'm not a fan of those either. But then there was enough of a gray area, but since we're going back in here, wanted to clear up what City staff was seeing as ambiguity in our current standard. I had been using it for a long time. We do have internal policies in place, which have been talked about, and thank you, we got an email describing those policies, I think earlier in the past week. But one of the concerns was, if we had voted this down, that it would have shut off the ability that's already being used, because then we've cleared up any ambiguity, any gray area, and made it a black or white and put the use of investigators looking at these traffic cameras, intersection cameras, I guess, would probably be a better way to think about it. The concern was that would go away, that they would no longer be able to use that. If I have my calendar correct, and hopefully I do and apologies if I don't, but we haven't met for, it's been three weeks since our last meeting. In that time, we had a shooting downtown in which not only Ped Mall cameras but traffic cameras were involved and utilized by investigators to see who was coming and going and looking into that particular thing. It's not just in my mind, it's not simply a made up scenario, literally issues of public safety in which, I personally I'm glad to have, investigators able to use all of these resources. If we were using the in- deck license plate readers, if they identify a suspect and want to see where was this person? Were they parked there? When did they leave? Can we look on that camera and see was that car full of people? When we're talking about something, and we were literally millimeters away from a mass casualty shooting incident. There was somebody shot, and that's horrible, but there were 10 casings recovered in downtown Ped Mall, crowded area. Literally, we almost had a mass shooting a block from here, two blocks from here. And to, whatever we do, and if we want to go ahead and take a look at some of these issues, which the privacy issues, I think are also very important, it is very important to me that we don't accidentally cut off something that is currently being used or suspend that use for a period of time because there's no evidence that these are not appropriate uses. I think they are appropriate uses in terms of looking into investigations. With the readers, even the license plate. I know we've given some examples and some were brought up last time. If we have a missing child, if we have an amber alert, there's a situation too, where I'm okay with police having access to, hey, if one of our readers picks up a license plate that's being searched for because there's been abducted child, I want to make sure we don't accidentally cut off that as we look at these other things. As a way, as a proposed way to move forward on this, and we talked about these internal policies, which I think address many of the concerns, I would be very open, and I might just be one of seven, but if there are others that agree very open at separately looking at a resolution or something that that codifies some of these things, and having looked at them, the one thing that I would add to that would be some automatic logging mechanism, similar to what our hospital systems use with when anybody logs into patient data. That even if we only can keep because of the storage cost of storage, all this massive amount of video stuff for a certain amount of time, logs that we can keep for a long time. We'd see who was logging in and when and for how long. To me, that would be a reasonable safeguard and a check and balance on the ability of our investigative law enforcement efforts. Then if they were, if somebody was misusing it. If we did have somebody abusing their access, that would be trackable and that would be something that we could, as a city, as a department, any department doesn't have to be, if somebody from a different department was looking to track somebody that they shouldn't be trying to track. Anything that. A nightmare scenarios. We'd have some a record of that. But I would prefer to see us deal with that on its own as opposed to. Again, I don't want to vote this down and end up causing unintended consequence that could have some serious ramifications at any given moment. We don't know when. We can't predict that. That's my ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024 Page 20 concern three weeks ago. It's my concern now, and it's one of the reasons why I'll be voting in favor of this. Just for the record, the stuff about the use of the traffic in making that smoother. That's great. I have lost a ticket before and only been in the ramp for an hour or two. It probably fell out of my pocket at a store I was at, and I had to pay the full 24 hours. Boy, that would have been nice. Then I think one thing that wasn't mentioned tonight, but if we have some illegal long term parking taking place where they parked there for several days and then just say, I lost my ticket, only have to pay for one day. We would also be cleaning up some of that. That's my stuff in a nutshell. If I have gotten any of that synopsis wrong, please I stand willing to be corrected. Dunn: Heard, valid, and a lot of ways agree. The question that I continue to return to in this discussion is why do we have to be so broad to achieve this? I think we can achieve the result that Shawn, you're talking. Apart Counselor Harmsen that you're talking about with a narrower version of the ordinance, which I've sent and if people are going to entertain that. Teague: I guess one of my questions is, what does that narrow version? I did hear Counselor Bergus mention going in and specifically stating what I understood to be allowable for the police department to investigate. We would list. Is that what you're referring to? Dunn: So, that is not part of mine. That's Counselor Bergus, but the one that I have put together, there's two sections to this. I'll just read the sections, and I'll describe it. For the first section under Title 9, Automatic License Plate Recognition System, striking the proposed language, replacing that after databases with, I guess, I'll just read the whole thing. A computer based systems that captures an image of license plates and converts it into a data file to be compared with databases or hot lists generated by various law enforcement agencies and which produce on alert when there is a match between collected license plate data and those databases. Municipal license plate readers located at the following locations use exclusively for the purpose of facilitating parking enforcement shall be excluded from this definition. We list the addresses of where these cameras are located, the parking ramps. We're good. We achieve the goal. The second, I would consider these separately because I do think that they're separate topics. That would be the first one. Automatic traffic surveillance system or device. A device or devices including, but not limited to a camera systems that use any electronic, photographic, video, digital, or computer system designed for the purpose of producing a photograph, micro photograph, videotape, digital video, or other recorded image or digital record of a vehicle or its operator and/or its operator and/or its occupants that is used to establish identity or ownership of a vehicle and/or identify its operator, owner, or occupants. Next, municipal traffic cameras located at the following locations use exclusively for the purpose of traffic engineering, assessment of road conditions and traffic facilitation shall be excluded from this definition. We list the locations of where the traffic cameras are. That also gives counsel an additional way to say, okay. When we want to bring more of these traffic cameras in, we have to think about this whole conversation again. We got to add that to the ordinance. If we want to have more automatic license plate readers that are introduced into our other parking ramps, fantastic, but we have to have a conscious deliberative conversation about those effects and be deliberate in putting those in here, not just leaving that out to whatever system or department. Teague: I guess my question would be, the first paragraph is what I thought was the first whereas is where I thought the biggest concern was because that addresses law enforcement. That's not what you're referring to. That's not even what you're amending. All you're stating is, you want it listed where these are located. ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024 Page 21 Dunn: Yeah, I want the exclusion to be not with the division or the department, but with the actual location. In purpose for some bits. Teague: Could it be more. Because we don't want to keep coming back to this. Could it be more in any parking ramp? Because there could be other parking ramps. Because I think if we're a little too prescriptive we'll be back a little more often. Dunn: I think that would make sense. Any municipal or publicly owned parking ramp? Teague: If I'm understanding correctly, it does not because I heard one of your words earlier. It doesn't effectively change. It was just something that you wanted to reword. If I'm understanding this correctly, and correct me if I'm incorrect, that part of what you're proposing to amend if we have, it's still going to be the broader terms is really limited it to the traffic engineering division because we can add more cameras on any street. The purpose is going to still be used the same. If it's any city parking ramp. Because that's the only place where the readers in this moment would be used, then I think I would be comfortable if I understand, it does not effectively change the intent of this ordinance. Dunn: The intent of what I've said here, and we can work out the actual words or whatever. The intent of it is, it's not a department or division exclusion. It's for the purposes that we're using it for, and it's clear in that regard. It's location specific. If that means we talk about parking ramps, awesome. I'm fine with that. Goers: The only thing I would and I hate to opine on stuff I just saw for the first time at a public meeting. But I see the wording used exclusively for the purpose of facilitating parking enforcement. I'm reading that to say, no police use ever. Dunn: We can strike that. Goers: Well, I guess as you said, we can work through the details at a later reading, but in order to do so, I would need to understand what the counsel intent is. Which is, is it that these devices shall never be used for the police regardless of the severity of crime or regardless of the use, or is it something different than that? Dunn: Even in the context, that wouldn't say that. Because used exclusively? No, so it's not saying they are to be used exclusively. It's saying that they are used exclusively, and that they're not subject to these limitations, which are then subject to the policy, which are then subject to other bits. It's saying that it's a parking camera. A parking camera is excluded from these definitions. Alter: It sounds, actually, the question where we're at now is, is it acceptable by this council to have the police be able to use the technology that's in the parking ramps to investigate crimes? Harmsen: And intersections. Alter: Intersections. Are we agreed there? Where is not? Dunn: I'm comfortable with the parking ramps. That's really the first thing that I want to put forward is just the parking ramp language and having that addressed. Because I do think that that's a ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024 Page 22 valuable thing that we should offer our community. I do think it will save money. I do think it will save time. Alter: If that's the case, then you've helped move us from broad to specific, which I appreciate. Are people comfortable with us giving Eric that direction so that the language can be crafted by Eric? Goers: Well, yeah. Again, I need to know what it is you're open to? Alter: Well, I'm saying that we are comfortable. Majority counsel is comfortable with the use of parking and traffic cameras to be used. Salih: For traffic purposes? Alter: No, for investigative purposes when a crime has been committed. Teague: I don't even think that the changes that he's recommending address that at all. It doesn't affect it at all. What I understand it to be is just stating that the license plate recognition systems will be in city operated decks. That's, if we build a new deck, and they want to put it there, they can. Of course, we have the budget. We have to approve of that budget. That's what I understand. Then as far as the streets in the traffic division, really, that can be added because we're going to be having new streets, new thoroughfares, and where camera might go up. If that is the change, I don't see any issues with that change, and I will be comfortable working with the language because it does not affect that first whereas and all of the concerns that have come up about law enforcement, having access when there is a true need to do some investigation. If that is the change, I'm comfortable. We have one more reading. I think I'm comfortable approving this, and then next one, we'll have both this ordinance, and the old one, which we can still determine. We'll have the revised one and counsel can determine, and they can still edit or revert back to the original ordinance. Goers: Well, I guess I'd have two comments. One's procedural and one substantive. I'll start with the substantive. Again, this is a very convoluted ordinance, and there's exceptions to exceptions and it's tricky. But my concern is, and there's a Latin phrase and legal canon about statutory interpretation that basically says this, the statement of one serves to the exclusion of the others. If you say that municipal license plate readers located at the following locations used exclusively for the purpose of facilitating parking, enforcement shall be excluded from this definition. That would likely be read by a court to say, and for no other purpose, which I would interpret to mean. Police can never use those. Teague: And if I understood correctly when that was brought up. Counselor Dunn said, that language does not. He didn't want to. He's okay with excluding those exclusions. Goers: Well, again, I guess I just need to know what counsel wants to achieve. If counsel wants the police to never be able to use these, then please let us know, and I'll write it up that way. Dunn: Not talking about police. Really not talking about police. Goers: Well, I guess I need to ask directly. Do you want the police to be able to use these two systems? ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024 Page 23 Dunn: What I'm trying to say with this automatic license plate reader. I'm just talking about that for right now. I am comfortable with that. Goers: You're comfort with what, sorry? Dunn: The automatic license plate readers in parking facilities being excluded as part of this ordinance. If that means that law enforcement cooperation can come from that, that's fine. It's the parking ramps. But I think we need to be able to use the equipment that we have. I think that there is value in that. I have more complex feelings about the cameras, so I'm trying to do the best that I can to make sure that this is as good as possible. If the cameras are a different conversation, that's a different conversation. But just thinking about the license plate readers. I want to be specific, not departments, specific locations, whether that's parking ramps or whatever language. If there's stuff in here that causes problems, I'm fine with that. The goal is parking ramps, not divisions or departments. The specific locations, not divisions or departments, not broad. Narrow rather than broad. Goers: Well, I didn't get to my procedural question, and I'll address that first and then come back to this, which is that I don't think we can. It seems the things that we're discussing now would have to be considered substantive changes. I don't think we could make this change just at the last reading and then say, good here we go. I think we probably need to start fresh, which we can do. But my concern about what Counselor Dunn, you're indicating now is you're mentioning just parking ramps. I believe transportation services uses automatic license plate readers for parking purposes on the street to look for street storage. That thing. If you were to just say at the parking ramps, I think that would make a change for them. Fruin: Yeah. We do have a mobile license plate reader that they use on street. Dunn: We can exclude that as well. I'd be comfortable with that. I think I don't necessarily agree with everything that this policy will bring about, but I do believe that now, if we're going to do something narrower is a lot better than broader. If we talk about if we want to put something in for that too, I'm totally cool with that. Goers: But substantively allow for that and for nothing else. Police couldn't use afferent. Dunn: No, I'm not saying. Goers: Oh, I'm sorry. Dunn: I'm not saying that. No. I'm saying this is a true exception is the parking stuff. It's true exception. Goers: I think we can use those for their normal purposes and if the police would benefit from the data that's collected for investigative purposes, you're okay with that? Dunn: Under this language, correct? Yes. Not my language. That's just me trying to communicate. Goers: I think I'm with you now. That's with automatic license plate recognition systems. What's your feeling about the traffic surveillance systems? Dunn: That's more complex. ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024 Page 24 Goers: What? Dunn: It's more complex. My proposal there, I would prefer that it be specific and not broad. That would be the biggest thing that I would say is if we are going to make these changes, and that is seemingly to be the case. I would much prefer that this action be narrowed than broad. If we can narrow, like what is specific in traffic cameras, whether that's by location, intersection, whatever, that's the way that I thought of it. That's the way that this is my amendments are being presented. Goers: Alright, we would list the current locations of the traffic intersections at which these automatic traffic surveillance system cameras now exist and say that those are excluded from the definition of automatic traffic surveillance systems or devices? Dunn: Correct. Bergus: Therefore fall outside the prohibition? Goers: Correct. Bergus: Great, which I think was the intent of this amendment originally, yes? Goers: It is. Bergus: Is it still a substantive change? Dunn: That's why I was confused too. Goers: Well, I think if I'm understanding you correctly, and we're not using language like use exclusively for the purposes of traffic engineering, for example, which is included in your proposed amendment here, then I would want to think about it a little more carefully, but I think so. I can certainly follow up with a confidential memo. Dunn: The practical effect that I'm intending is very similar to what's proposed. It is narrow, not broad. That's the thing. Harmsen: If I can interrupt, and with all due respect, I think at this point, we're now doing an incredible amount of wordsmithing on one council member's proposed amendments. We've had three weeks since our last meeting and in that time and maybe between now and the next meeting, would be a good time to put this wordsmithing and to go through and have the careful analysis of unintended consequences, which is what we've been doing here the last several minutes. But I don't know that this is really the right forum to do that. We've mentioned what some of our values are, which is, I think, fine. But I think we need to be getting close to, moving forward with this issue for the evening. Salih: I think also, if we want to go with the amendment, can we just instead of negotiating now, if we have a consent for the amendment, we have more like enough people, can we just defer the second consideration next meeting? ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024 Page 25 Teague: I think what I've heard from maybe the City Attorney's latest understanding is that he will send us a confidential memo reflecting the intent, which is I don't see as problematic, and I don't really see as changing the intent of this ordinance. I'm comfortable approving tonight, knowing that there will be some adjustment, and very few is six lines that is going to be amended so I'm comfortable. I understand the concerns of putting this to the floor but we also know that this is a major concern by many in the community. But I am comfortable because it really does give the same intent. The only thing I will probably still say that challenge Councilor Dunn too is that the traffic cameras, we're going to continue to add main thoroughfares, so I wouldn't want the council staff to come back every time there's a thoroughfare that they want to add a camera. That is something that I would just say, the language should be inclusive to future decks and that type stuff. Dunn: Sure. Salih: But saying that, just follow up for that, do you need time to craft that language? Goers: Well, yes, again, if there's a consensus of councilors who would like me to draft a different version based on what I've heard from Councilor Dunn today, then I can certainly do that. I don't know if that's the will of the majority of council or not. Teague: I would be comfortable. Salih: Yes. I think is majority. Teague: I would be comfortable. I don't know where other people are. Alter: As long as. Yes. I recognize, also full circle that it's like exceptions upon exceptions, and we need to pull them apart so that we're clear about the intent of this ordinance. I do not want an unintended consequences that the language in trying to clarify for the two different departments for which they are primarily used for parking and for the traffic engineering that the ability for the police to not use it for investigative purposes or crimes that are committed somehow unintendedly goes away. I guess that's the place where we were most contentious and divided at its core the last time that we talked so before I say, yes, I'm good with these minor changes, I want to make sure that I'm not agreeing to something that I did not agree to last time. Teague: No, I agree. Alter: It is perfectly fine. I just want to make sure that that's what we are agreeing to that there's still the ability for the police to use these cameras for investigative purposes when a crime has been committed. Harmsen: I'm going to actually agree with all of that, and just add, I think we want to make sure we aren't again back to our city attorney's point of if it's not included, the courts assume excluded. Alter: Correct. Harmsen: I think there is probably investigative, absolutely, for sure. There might be other public safety things, for example, rerouting traffic around a major accident or some other obstruction, that is real time. It's not really investigative, but that traffic control would be a valid public safety use ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024 Page 26 and I want to make sure we don't accidentally just so we're thinking of those things too. Like we don't want to in good intention in good faith, create any situation where we actually end up putting some of our people at greater risk because we've taken away a valid public safety tool at some point. Which investigative traffic, which ties into the traffic, but there might be other things. Alter: Then, can I ask a question of Eric? Does that become a substantive? In your opinion, is it better to defer because the substance would change enough that we should have the time to digest that and allow for that or should we defer? Is enough going to change in the way that you're envisioning the discussion and the direction that hopefully we're giving you that this would substantially change the ordinance? Goers: Well, if I'm understanding what the will of council is at this point, what I'm hearing, and I hope you'll correct me if I'm hearing it wrong, is that you're okay with police continuing to use the data from both the automatic license plate recognition systems and the automatic traffic surveillance systems, traffic engineering cameras for police investigative and or traffic purposes, as long as we list their locations and allow. By the way, I would suggest that that just be adopted by council by resolution so you do not have three readings every time you do that. But if I'm understanding that that's the will of council, I would say that that is not substantive. Teague: Anytime there's a license plate recognition system coming in the future beyond what's already there, we're going to be notified about it. Maybe not the traffic cameras. Harmsen: Are we envisioning, like a 10 page document of every intersection in Iowa City? Teague: No, Harmsen: When we say work every place there's an intersection with cameras. Can we not just simplify it by saying in camera Shell, if you're concerned about the location in that way, she'll only be at intersections and the parking raps? I don't know what the actual thing is here, but you see what I'm saying? I just want to make sure we're not just saying we need that seems like micromanagement purgatory. Dunn: I think we can workshop the language and how the mechanism, but I think you understand the intent. Goers: I think so. If council agrees with how I just summarize it, then yeah, I can write that up. Moe: As a resolution? Goers: I would suggest that you adopt the listing of traffic engineering camera locations by resolution. So you didn't have to have three readings every time. This would sill, of course, require the ordinance amendment, which is three readings, yeah. Dunn: Oh, we’ve got to make a motion. Teageu: Well, no, that's just direction. I think, Harmsen: Don’s we have a motion on the table, don't we? ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024 Page 27 Dunn: Don't we have the motion to actually amend it? Goers: Well, you've got a motion to approve. Harmsen: We don't have amendment in front of us. Goers: As it is now, you can do a couple of things. You can of course, defer and wait for me to do the wordsmithing that's been described and present it to you or you can do second reading now and approve it and still get the wordsmithing, and then do a motion to amend next time. Again, if we're in agreement that what I've written is consistent with the council's wishes and if I'm understanding it correctly, I would not consider that substantive, so you could just move ahead. You would move to amend at that meeting and then could approve it and be done. Teague: Council, I would suggest that you can take whatever position on the current ordinance, but we've given majority direction for the city attorney to do an amendment, and I would suggest that at our next meeting, a motion for amendment is offered. Then it is up to the council of those amendments they agree with, and it's voted for the amendments, or if it's not, then we'll have the original one that is here before us, and then council can vote on it. They can defer it, have conversations about what additional amendment they want, but I would encourage us to vote tonight and do the amendments next time when we see the document. Salih: To vote for it as it is or to defer it? Teague: That's your choice to vote for it as it is, but we do know that there will be an amendment coming, which I'm comfortable with what I've heard tonight, knowing that that amendment for me would be approved but, of course, we have to see the language. Salih: Since this is the second conversation, I really prefer that to possibly defer it for next meeting, and just ask the city attorney to come up with. Teague: We defer a lot of things, Mayor Pro Tem. I would just encourage it but I hear you. I respect that. Salih: But instead of now vote for it as it is before vote or so, why don't defer it next time, we all vote for it and maybe even like mayor to vote together or something like that. Dunn: I am comfortable with any direction, personnel? Salih: I want to put a motion to defer it. Dunn: Second. Teague: Move by Salih. Second, by Dunn. Any conversation on this by council? Harmsen: I think even if we move forward and approve this tonight, we still have that third reading. If we want to defer it at that point, that we certainly can do so if we think that these changes aren't too substantive to move forward at that time, but I'll be voting against deferment just to move us down this path, one more step, knowing that we can still step off the path next time if we so choose. ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024 Page 28 Teague: I think I'm with you on that, that we can defer it at our third meeting. Roll call, please? That's just a voice on the vote for deferment. All in favor to defer this item until our next meeting, say Aye. \[Voice Vote\] Aye. All oppose. Nay. Motion fails 3-4. We're at our original motion, knowing that this will be voted on with some amendments. We're expecting that from our city attorney. With that being said, I'm going to say roll call.\[Roll Call\] Motion passes 4-3. Thanks, councilors and thanks everybody for coming on this item. ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024 Page 29 10.k Adopting Tax Increment Financing Policy – Resolution adopting City of Iowa City Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Policy. Teague: 10.k, adopting Tax Increment Financing Policy. This is a resolution adopting City of Iowa City Tax Increment Financing Policy. This was deferred from our \[NOISE\] last meeting of July 16, 2024. Could I get a motion to approve, please? Moe: I moved. Alter: Second. Teague: Moved by Moe, second by Alter. Anyone from the public would like to address this topic? If you're online, please raise your virtual hand. We will give 3 minutes. Thank you. Welcome. Please state your name is City you're from. Norbeck: Good evening. My name is Martha Norbeck from Iowa City, and my understanding is that, the proposal has not changed since the last meeting. I also understand that this change is linked to the impending to RFP for Lynn Street, and I'm concerned that, we're trying to rush a policy change for a single project. I will point out that in this evening, that policy created in 2017 is currently in the RFP. That means minimum that has a seven year staying power. You make a decision for one project, move that aggressively, just for this one project that's coming up. That seems short sighted. This has big implications, because this is what the developers see when they open that RFP. That's the policy they're seeing. That is your opening Salavo, as a negotiator is that, we expect a lease lead in silver with eight energy points. That's what you're saying is your minimum. You don't start a negotiation saying, well, son, we'd like you to get D-. No. You want your son to get an A. You only got a B. Well, that's a bummer, but we understand stuff happen. But you don't start off asking for a D-, and that's what the new policy changes are proposing, and that makes me really concerned. I sent a letter on the 29th to council. I put a lot of time into defining key terms, because you can't talk about this if you don't know what decarbonization means. It's hard to understand if the proposal has value. I encourage you to read that, and consider it. It also lists a variety of third party verification systems that don't just address buildings. They address infrastructure, existing buildings, major renovation. These are going to be applied to historic properties. I will point out a very great project that is a result of this current policy. It's the East College Street Development with Riverside and Reunion Brewing and the nest. That project initially, when they did the first design, it was a lot of glass and then they did an energy model, and they were like, we can't get the eight energy points. What are we going to do? They actually revised the proposal. I will also say that, that development team didn't bring silver to the table. They said we'll give you platinum, and then they went to sign it, and they said, we'll give you gold. That's evidence of the current policy working. I'm not saying keep the current policy. I'm cool with changing it. I'm not resisting that. I'm just saying be thoughtful and measured and take your time. I encourage you send it back to the economic Development Committee, talk to other people who are experienced in this world. Think about the value of third party verification, make it measurable, assertive, and verifiable. Teague: Thank you. Anyone else like to address this topic? Seeing no one in person or online, Council discussion. Moe: Happy to start with this one. I feel like I've spent a lot of time trying to understand the objections, and I appreciate the community input that the very thoughtful memo about all of these different ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024 Page 30 sustainability metrics. I think it's important to understand. I think the only critique we currently have that we're considering is about specifically the sustainability revisions. I think the other revisions are, I haven't heard anything from anybody or any objections. I think more specifically, the crux of the concern is LEAD and specifically the third party verification. That's that's the concern. Now, I see we do have our Sara Gardner from Climate Action here. But when this policy was written and TIF was put in there, I understand the history of that now after talking to a lot of people. But I also think we have some history of it existing for a while, and we have projects that are built to the LEAD standard in Iowa City. I still remain concerned that lead isn't getting us the level of sustainability that we really want, and it's not allowing the negotiators at the city, which would include climate action to actually weigh in and say, actually, for this specific site, for this specific use in this city, we really want you to focus on this sustainability metric, or you really want to do that. To me, it's just really it's a very narrow question for us. Is how much value do we put in LEAD, which includes third party verification and makes it very simple for all of us to say, yes or no. It's a point system. We don't have to think too much about sustainability. It's easy for the staff, or do we want to figure out a way to empower our climate action staff to do the vetting and tell us, yes, this is sustainable or not. I'm flexible right now as towards, how do we get to a point where we have flexibility and trust of professional staff. To be at the negotiating table, and to make value judgments and report back to us on what we really want and what specific things that serve this city are. I'd love to unless I'm missing something big, I think that's the singular issue. I did not feel it was appropriate to send a memo to council with all revisions, moments before the meeting. I just didn't want to do that. I have stuff written up, but I also feel I want to hear from everyone on whether or not this specifically LEAD and specifically third party verification is something that we need, or if we want to spend our money differently, empowering climate action to make those judgment calls and perhaps consult with third parties also as part of the process. Dunn: I think you and I Josh talked about this at length. I think as long as we're talking about third party verification and third party certification, that the plans and all of that is lining up. I think that's the direction that I would go as well. I think the flexibility is good if we can do it as you're describing. Very open to third party verification as a requirement for these types of environmental sustainability standards. Alter: I know that we've just gone through elaborate word smithing, so I'm not suggesting specific language. But I continue to say, is there a way in which there can be yes and in this TIF language to signal to a developer about metrics that we find valuable and important while not limiting it to simply third party potentially. But to indicate these have to be credible metrics. If it is third party, it's credible. Even if it's some new way of measuring, it can't be that it's like my uncle Bob down the street who has this really cool machine that measures this stuff. It has to be credible and valued within climate action communities and from experts. I am mindful of what Martha said, where it's like, they'll read it, and they said, This is what we need, so we want to give direction to say, we take this very seriously. These are our values. Is there a way in which we can indicate and say, such as these types of verifiable, credible, third party. Sorry, I'm repeating myself, but verifications and similar newer means that can achieve our goals? Again, I'm not trying to suggest word smithing, but I'm hoping that the spirit of what I'm getting at is there so that it indicates to a developer, we want flexibility. I want the city to be able to negotiate in good faith and have as many tools as possible to get the best possible outcome, and I want allow for developers to understand what we're trying to get at so, is there a way in which we can say, such as \[OVERLAPPING\] ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024 Page 31 Moe: We still think LEAD is a place to start, but come to us with the proposal and how we get there, and trust the staff to say, "Hey, we're going to use this alternate system." I think the other part of this that I said last meeting, that's really important is every single TIF project comes before us. We'll have a chance to say no, and the public will have a chance to say, no, no no you have screwed up. You've been taken advantage of somebody has made up a fake sustainability metric you should not say yes to. This has no teeth. We don't have to have this policy. We will still see every single TIF project that comes before us. I guess I keep coming back to that also is like, we'll get a staff report on these things. If the TIF comes to us, will be, I know, a long process for us to consider that, and we'll have time for the community to see it, and investigate it and write their concerns to us if they don't like it. Bergus: Given the concerns with I guess if it's fair to characterize it as, like, if it were only LEAD Silver, maybe that's not good enough. Is that a fair characterization of, I guess, Josh, even your concerns? Moe: My concern with LEAD is you end up missing opportunities, I think. I think we have TIF LEAD projects in Iowa City. We have LEAD projects that the city procured not through TIF because they're publicly owned projects. I look at those projects, and through my eyes, I see missed opportunities for full building electrification, for a really careful analysis of exactly what materials are used to construct that building, and a really thoughtful discussion about how we can reduce the embodied carbon. Those are the things that I would really love for that high level conversation to happen. Again, at this professional staff level that we now have, because we didn't have that capacity in 2017 and now we have it and we also understand that maybe that's a cost of the development is to say, when it's way over your head, just get a third party involved. A licensed engineer, a licensed architect can do that vetting if we feel uncomfortable or feel there's some opportunity that we're not certain if it's a good one or not. Bergus: I was really sensitive to what Geoff said last meeting of put whatever standards we want, and we'll pay for it. That the way that we use this as a tool is to require higher standards of development than would otherwise appear and we know that those costs more, and we should expect that the gap may be larger if our standards are even higher. I guess I would just say to my colleagues, I am not at all opposed to being really aggressive with whatever we think the floor is because it may be that the TIF ask becomes a little bit bigger. But if we're talking about 100 year building and a couple million dollar, that seems like a reasonable trade off, if that's what our staff think we should do. I guess I just want to make sure we're seeing the tool in that way rather than just saying, no development would happen but for the TIF, which is how a lot of cities use it. We're saying we want this quality if we're going to be financing that for you. Moe: Fully agree with that sentiment. There's going to be tons of trade offs to make, too, with all of these proposals. I want that ability for staff to say, "Hey, this is a huge opportunity for some other thing that's in our strategic plan that we desperately want." Fruin: Yeah, I think that's the caution I would give you when you're thinking about this and really whatever way you want to go is going to be fine with staff. But we're not just going to be negotiating with the developer of any project on just the sustainability aspects of the building. We're going to be wanting potentially affordable housing, potentially subsidized small business space, potentially subsidized space for a social service or an arts organization. Any number of things that have a cost have to be negotiated. To your point, there's these trade offs, and then we have to pay for it, too, and the gaps not unlimited. We can't do 40 year TIFs or 50 year TIFs. We ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024 Page 32 have to find an acceptable amount of rebates. How long are we willing to rebate somebody and withhold those taxes from our general fund from the school district, from the county? Those are all things that you have to weigh. It's okay if we want to have the highest sustainability standard you can place in there, but it may be to the detriment of other public benefits that you prioritize if you make it a very hard target. That's where I would enjoy the flexibility is because, when we get to the negotiating table, there's going to be seven or eight variables and I'd like to be able, and Rachel, alongside me, would like to be able to move those variables around and get to a point where I think the public would be really excited about a project, but also one that is financially viable and could potentially be paid off in 10 or 15 or whatever the acceptable amount of time would be. Dunn: The one thing that I would also bring up is I have a strong aversion to self-certification or self policing. I don't know how we or if counsel is amenable to some type of language in there that says that we are looking for something other than self-certification. I don't know if that's our certification, or if it's a third party certification or what. But generally, for sustainability questions with this type of policy, I'm averse to self certification. Harmsen: You mean by the developer? Dunn: Yeah. Moe: I would love to be in a position in the future where our certification could be done by our city, where we could do that work. We're not there yet. We don't have those resources, but we can contract those resources out from third parties. City attorney office will hire another attorney if there's something outside of the area of practice. I don't have a problem with that. I assume that just becomes again a cost of the TIF and the development of that proposal. Fruin: Yeah, I mean, typically in these situations, the burden to hire a third party certification professional would be on the developer. But like we do with the financial aspect, we hire a third party to help us review the financial aspects of a project. We could hire somebody to certify that, but at least off the cuff here, I'd be more comfortable with the developer hiring the third party to verify the work that's being done. Moe: This is a little out of order, but again, the reason that I wanted to bring up the topic of a scoring matrix for 21 South Lynn is because I think that's the opportunity for us to have when we would score those projects to say maybe you get 10 points for a LEAD Platinum building, and you get one point for, I'm going to do better than energy code by 15% or something. I don't know. I don't know if we want to be open to that or not. What if we're presented with projects that provide an incredible amount of affordable housing? Again, that's not necessarily tangent, it's our work session. Alter: It's definitely down the road, but within view, so not far. This is slightly off topic, but I'm just no. It's broader. I'm going out at the 30,000 feet vista. I think one of the things that we absolutely have to keep in mind is that we're not going to get a Unicorn building where we have everything that we want. It is going to be that we have these priorities, we have these values, and how does a developer propose and marry these together in a way that we think is going to work best for the city and for more importantly for the people who live here? It has everything to do with the flip side of negotiation is also compromised. I guess I just want again, I hazard it is, like, this is at the 30,000 foot, because we're getting so specific on narrow pieces, and it's like we're going to return ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024 Page 33 to it when we talk about the RFP language itself, and what do we want? That I guess let's start with aspirational. Let's start with lots of tools for what do we want to see? But again, if we're a little too prescriptive from the outset, then we may be cutting off our nose despite our faces. Teague: I'd see the pros and the cons. And, you know, I heard Counselor Burges talking about let's go high. People would have to start high and maybe negotiate from there, or we go with the proposed language and give staff that flexibility. I just listened to the Johnson County Joint Entities meeting because I wanted to hear the presentation on the trains. I heard about this little battery that's going to operate a train. I heard that it's so small. They didn't have a sample, but I wanted to see it and I bring that up because as things change in our community, and in the network of we have some bright people out there that are doing some great things trying to bring in products that will be climate action I don't know. Give a lot of climate action impact. If we become prescriptive in this policy, which, yes, we can come in we can amend it, but I do trust that if we give some wiggle room to our staff to negotiate, I'm comfortable with that. Of course, I do see the benefit of starting high and going low, because certainly, if you start at the D level, I do know that often people are going to stay there. They're going to check that box. I got everything done, and I'm done. You got to move it through the P & Z. Then the council we got you because this is where you started. I am comfortable knowing all things, definitely understanding thoughts from different people going forth with what has been proposed. Again, we could always find ourselves in a position down the road where maybe we do want to change it, but I'm comfortable not being too prescriptive, as you said. Dunn: I guess the thoughts that I have are twofold, I guess. We have a discussion about setting a floor, and we also have a question about, third party verification. Those are things that I would like to see personally in this policy, more explicit, not prescriptive, like giving the options and having that flexibility to be there, but they're definitely being the floor. Alter: Such as. Dunn: Yeah. Alter: That it's signaling like, it can't be Uncle George's magic metric machine. Dunn: That's what I'd like see. Alter: No, that goes but I concur because I think it gives shape to the discussion to signal, these are the types of things, including third party verification and X Y and Z, but it does allow for new methodologies, new ways to treat this. What's been going through my mind is how quickly AI is advancing. Imagine with the climate urgency that there is, there are new ways that people are measuring success and equally drawback to how buildings are constructed and how well they are working through addressing climate action. Salih: Even if we want to go that route, do we send it back to the economic development commission or how is this going to work? Alter: That's a good question. Can it go back to the commission or not? Moe: I have spoken to both Counselor Burges and Counselor Dunn after it left committee and so I don't know what the? ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024 Page 34 Goers: I'm sorry. I had a hard time hearing the Mayor Pro Tem's comments? Was the question, whether we can send it back to the economic development? Salih: Yeah, if we want to change it, do we send it back to the economic development and what do we do, how we proceed? Harmsen: What can we change it on our own? Is that what you're asking? Salih: Or we can change it in our own right now? Goers: You could do either of those things. Teague: I guess the question would be for the resolution itself, if we need to have the such as in the resolution, I don't think so. I think as long as the staff I don't know. Dunn: I'd be comfortable sending it back to economic development to do some more surgical wordsmithing. Salih: Work with the staff on that. Moe: Flexible. I just want to make sure it's permissible since a majority of the economic development committee or a quorum of the economic development committee has met about this. Goers: Yeah, I don't love that, but I think you could do it. Dunn: You shouldn't talk about it after we forward it to. Alter: Done deal. Dunn: We're done. Salih: How we proceed here. Do we defer it? Do we send it? Moe: Or we just decline it? Goers: Well, yeah, you could do a couple of things. You could just vote no and with direction to staff and the economic development committee to take another look. You would want to give some guidance as to I guess I'll look to those members of the economic development committee as to whether they feel like they understand what the consensus of council is to achieve. That would be one way of doing it. I suppose you could defer, as well. But I think it would be cleaner just to vote no and then bring it back. Teague: I have a question. If it's the such as, is that what we really wanted to add? Alter: That was a suggestion as opposed to specifically saying, in this moment, let's add that. There might be better. I would prefer it not to be written on the dias. ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024 Page 35 Moe: Yes, I agree with Counselor Alter. We eliminate some bullet points and add a third party note, and it's the same policy, but we do that. Alter: Cleanly. Moe: Cleanly and let the public see it before we vote on it. Teague: Yeah, so there's a couple of thoughts. Well, our attorney just talked about some avenues that we can go down. We can certainly defer this, and then if there's a new version that comes back. Dunn: I'm comfortable with whatever. Alter: I think I heard our attorneys say, \[OVERLAPPING\] go ahead. Salih: The same thing. I think, he said it's cleaner and easier to vote. No, with the recommendation that the economic development commission to look at it and send bring it back. Let's do that. Alter: I second that. Teague: Roll call, please. \[Roll Call\] Motion passes 7-0. Goers: Motion fails. Teague: Motion fails 7-0. Dunn: Succeded failure. Grace: Actually, mayor, can we get the motion for correspondance. Teague: Can I get a motion for correspondence? Dunn: So moved. Alter: Second. Teague: Move by Dunn. Second by Alter. All in favor, say aye. \[Voice Vote\] Aye. Any opposed motion passes 7-0. ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024 Page 36 11. Council Appointments 11.a Human Rights Commission Teague: We're on to items number 11, which is Council Appointments. We have 11A for the appointments tonight, and that's the Human Rights Commission. We want vacancy to fill an unexpired term plus a three year term upon appointment through December 31st, 2027. Council discussion. Harmsen: Lot of good applicants here. Some of them we \[inaudible\] the ability to look at a few times. I will throw a name out just to get us started, Anya Shafer Von Hut. Dunn: Yeah, I would agree with that. Alter: She's good. Salih: Yeah. Teague: Sound like we have a majority for Anya pronounced Stoffer Ven Hot. Can I get a motion to \[OVERLAPPING\] Alter: Shafer. Teague: Shafer, can I get a motion to appoint, please? Harmsen: So moved, Harmsen. Alter: Second. Teague: Move by Harmsen, second by Alter because she's louder. I can distinguish which voice I heard. All in favor, say aye. \[Voice Vote\] Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes 7-0. ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024 Page 37 14. City Council Information Teague: We're at item Number 14, which is city council information. Moe: There will be a listening post. Counselor Dunn and I will attend at the farmers market. Teague: Great. Audience Member: This Saturday? Moe: Next, sorry. Next to Saturday. Yeah. Sorry. I'm trying to get the actual date up. Grace: August 17th. Moe: At 9:00. Thank you, Kelly. Salih: When is that? 17th. Moe: The farmers market. The 17th Saturday. Yeah, nine o'clock. You can come, just not more than three of us. Harmsen: Be sure to say Hi Gary when you're there. Moe: I will say Hi to Gary. I think that that's, like, an open day for CWJ. We have another event. Alter: Well, I'm excited to say that I am actually going to the Mayor's Innovation Project Conference in two days. I've been once before, thanks to our mayor. I'm excited to go it's in Knoxville, Tennessee. It's going to have a panel on urban walkability and about dealing with violence prevention and climate action and affordable housing. There's actually a big hunk on that. I believe the Mayor of Waterloo is actually going to be speaking on one of the panels. It'll be exciting and I'll report back. Moe: Cool. Excellent. Teague: Great. Anything else? ________________________________________________________________________ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 6, 2024