Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-08-20 Transcription Page 1 Council Present: Alter, Bergus (via Zoom), Dunn (via Zoom), Harmsen, Moe, Salih, Teague (via Zoom) Staff Present: Fruin, Dulek, Goers, Grace, Knoche, Havel, Ralston, Nagle Gamm, Rummel Others Present: Monsivais, USG, Martinez, Alternate 1. Clarification of Agenda Items Salih: Yes,it is exactly four O'clock,August 20,uh,we're going to call the meeting in order. I just want to acknowledge that we have the mayor uh,like,uh,joining us by Zoom and Council Andrew Dunn. Also Council Laura Bergus and Iowa City Attorney Eric Goers, all of them are online joining us. So I'm calling this meeting in order. We're going to go to Item 1, clarification of agenda item. Alter: Um,on the consent agenda, I'd like to pull out 6c,uh, I believe it's traffic on Brussel or something like that. Salih: 60 Salih: Anything else? Alter: No. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 2 2.Information Packet Discussion [August 8,August 151 Salih: Okay. We're going to item 2,Information Packet Discussion. We can start with August 8. Moe: No, Harmsen: Not for me. Salih: Anything in this one? Alter: No. Salih: Okay. We can go to-you have something Dunn? Moe: Um,. Salih: For the 8? Moe: Can you remind me I'm looking at the contentative meeting schedule the last time we discussed the organiza-not the organizational meetings,but budget meetings for next year. When are we scheduled to revisit that? Grace: Um, I think I'm going to put another memo in it like,probably early November. Moe: Okay. Grace: Just to have everybody see if they've got their schedules for January yet. Moe: Good. Thank you,Kellie. Salih: Okay. Anything on August 8?Okay. We're going to go to August 15,I have the-I think it's IB the Housing Trust Fund. I just want to comment on that,I just would like to- it is IB5,the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County Annual Report. HTFJSC secured and committed an additional 2,046,000 for affordable housing located within Iowa City during FY24 beyond the city allocation. So that was really amazing and the Housing Trust Fund will be holding the 20th Anniversary celebration on Wednesday August 28 starting at 5:00 PM at Terribl-uh,tere—Terry Trueblood Lodge. The program will begin at 5:30, everyone is welcome and I see Ellen McCabe is here in the-with the audience,the executive director. She's sitting there with us today,but we would like,really to thank you for all your hard work you've been doing in the city. Thank you so much. Anything else in August 15? Okay, I guess now Item 3. Alter: Well,do we need-do we need,um,with IP3,um,that is where there are questions from the City Attorney or do we wait until. Salih: We have that on that item. Alter: Okay. That's what I thought I just. Salih: We have on Item 6. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 3 Alter: Okay So just push it. Thanks. Salih: Anything else?Okay. I think it's time for the University of Iowa student. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 4 3. University of Iowa Studen Government(USG)Updates Monsivais: Hi, everyone. Hi to all the councilors online as well, I hope you all are doing great. I'm more than excited to introduce the new deputies liaison. I'm going to turn it over to them and let them introduce themselves real quickly. Martinez: Hi.My name is Ava Martinez.Um, I use they/them pronouns,I'm a sophomore at the -at the University of Iowa, and I'm really excited to be working with you all. Salih: Welcome. Monsivais: Yeah,it's going to be awesome year, and I'm grateful to have a good friend of mine as someone who I get to share my passion,we're for our local government with. Um,thank you to Geoff and Kirk for,um,informing our governmental relations team with the invalu-invaluable information for our parking initiative,um,towards the middle of the semester is when USG will look at purchasing parking validations for Dead Week and finals week.Uh, and we will meet with our finance director and hammer out some more details and logistics in the coming weeks. Um,USG held one of its first events of the year,which was a paint and sip event at Bread Garden,which attracted well over 200 baby Hawkeyes descending on the Bread Garden patio, and we did run out of room, and it was really great and really inspiring. Um,a turnout that we could never expected,but nonetheless,we are proud of,um, special shout out to our external relations director, Emily Cross,for coordinating this event. Um, and then since we have a deputy now, one on one meetings between us and City Councilors are so back.Um,I am using my discretion this year as a City liaison to change the requirement from once per semester to once per year,because they can be demanding and a little difficult to schedule. So,um,because of this,I hope that our meetings can be a little bit longer. These one on one serve as a chance for us to get to know you as a councilor and connect on a human level. So if you want to get them out of the way,we are open to start planning those now,but if you want to wait, absolutely,no worries.But if it starts to become March time,I will probably be on your case. Um,but yeah,that's all I have for right now. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 5 4.Evaluate one-year progress of Fare Free transit Salih: Yes,thank you so much and welcome. Okay,now is item number 4, evaluating one year progress of Fare Free Transit. And Darian Nagle-Gamm. Nagle-Gamm: Hi there. Good afternoon.All right,that's full screen. Okay.All right.Hi, everybody. Darian Nagle-Gamm, Director of Transportation Services with the City of Iowa City. I am very excited to be here tonight to talk to you about the Fare Free Iowa City program,which we launched one year ago,um,in August 2023. Of course,it was launched to,uh,measure the effects of improving access to safe, affordable,reliable, and sustainable transportation to the community. And,um,tonight we're going to talk about the Fare Free initiative kind of in the framework of all of the greater improvements and focus we've had on the transit system over the past five years and-and kind of where we're heading over the next,um 5 -6 years as well. So there we go. Sorry. I'll get my scrolling under control. Okay, so first,let's talk about performance management. Before we get into,uh,the Fare Free Iowa City transit program and results. I want to again,talk about it in the context of our overall transit mission. And we have,um,uh,we have been working over the past year with the Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative,which has been really exciting. Um,one of our strategic plan items on page 18 is to consider resourcing a smart city initiative that prioritizes data driven decision making through technology apda- adaptations and data analysis.And this was a perfect example so,um, since last fall,we've been working with,um,Bloomberg Harvard Leadership Initiative on the Data Track Initiative. And it's really a course,um,that we attended,um,over the last year,which helped us refine our focus on transit,develop a performance management plan, set goals, determine how we're going to measure success with our transit system, and develop interventions or solutions,um,how we're going to reach that goal?What are those intermediate steps to reach that goal? So really,in essence, it was a leadership training. We were really excited because we were,um,it was facilitated by Harvard faculty,which was excellent to have an opportunity to live in that world for a day. Uh,we received technical assistance through data experts at GovEx, and that's the Bloomberg Center for Government Excellence,which is an amazing resource for communities such as ours. And we received coaching from former government officials and from GovEx staff. So there was a lot of resources,we received a lot of,um,training, and we've been really excited to kind of institutionalize that training,um, first with the transit program. So ultimately,we-we learned how to use data creatively and effectively to improve the lives of residents. So,uh,really, Fare Free is just one piece in that bigger performance management plan.And so,first,I want to walk you through what that performance management plan looks like,because it certainly is not only a template that's been really useful for understanding where we're going with transit,but it can be applied to a number of different,um,community challenges that we have. So,um,we'll talk through Fare Free after we get through that performance management plan, and then we'll end with kind of the next steps.Um,first of those is,um,looking to you all for direction on the Fare Free program. But also,I wanted to just give you a brief update on some of the other really important milestones,um,towards,um,our new transit ridership goal,which we'll learn about in a second. All right, so what is performance management? So the Harvard Bloomberg team defined it as a process by which cities tackle their biggest challenges through activities that enable strategic thinking,targeted resource allocation, and responsive decision making. This is a very sensitive mouse, so I'm going to do a lot of back clicking I apologize. All right, so what are the steps in performance management? So,this is the process that we learned through the program that I want to share with you all tonight.But the first step in the process is to establish a project team,which we did.Um,myself, Geoff Fruin,Mark Rummel,from Transportation Services, Tracy Hightshoe from Neighborhood Development Services,Kent Ralston, from the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 6 MPO, and Chrissy Jones from Transportation Services,all were the project assigned as the project team for this particular project. And then we work towards developing a problem statement,which is really is-what is you know,refining? What is the challenge that we're facing?Um,you know,what is the current state of affairs? What's the ideal state we want to be at? We-from that point,once we develop that performance or that problem statement,we move towards identifying performance metrics that we can use to measure our success. So how do we know if we're successful?um,transit ridership is a clear indication,that's one metric,but are there other metrics we want to look at? So we spent a lot of time talking through how we can measure our success and once we moved through those and we set our goals,we de-started to develop some interventions or solutions.And the good news is that was kind of an easy lift for us because we've been working on solutions and interventions for transit for- for several years. So we're kind of in the middle of this process. Um,but once we got through that piece,we started, and this is kind of where we're actually at the performance management plan. We discussed stakeholder engagement and a communications plan to help get feedback on the initiatives and also communicate with,um,with our stakeholders in the community.From that point,we develop and implement a performance management routine,which we are just beginning to do now. Um, and you all- communication to you all on where we're at,um,with those metrics,will be part of that performance management routine.Um, and also with our staff and the greater public and then last,we act, evaluate, and adjust. So that's really when you start implementing your interventions, you analyze,you evaluate your metrics,um,you track and record your process-your progress, excuse me,um, and you adjust as you need to. So it's a really great kind of framework that really simplifies things, and we can see it as,uh,just a great and really useful template that we're going to be able to apply to-to many,um,different community problems,um,or challenges. Okay, so if you'll bear with me, I want to read to the problem statement because this is really the crux of the whole performance management process we developed. Um,it's really important,the problem statement is really important because it really allows you to clearly articulate the challenge,um, and- and get everybody to agree kind of on what the challenge actually is because that clearly set you up for the most success when you are-when you're,um,developing your solutions or your, um,interventions. So after declaring a climate crisis in August 2019,the City of Iowa City established an emission reduction goal of 45%by 2030 with a vision to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.Not only are marginalized populations most at risk from the effects of climate change,but existing income inequities have widened due to rapidly rising costs of housing, childcare,health care,transportation, and other essential costs of living,with lower income households being disproportionately cost burden. Since its peak in 2011,transit ridership has declined an average -at an average rate of 3.5%per year,while the population has increased by an average of 1% annually. The City views increasing public transit use as an effective tool to reduce transportation related emissions while simultaneously supporting reduced household transportation expenses.An efficient transportation network that includes a barrier free transit- public transit system can affect all constituents through greater community resiliency, efficient land use patterns, a less congested roadway network, increased discretionary incomes, and a safe, reliable and accessible transporta- and safe accessible transportation for all residents, employees, and visitors. So I know that's a lot to digest all at one time.But really, in order to move forward, we just want to make sure that this aligns,um,with your thoughts and your perspective as well, so that's something that-that you can all,um, give some thought to and consider.But this is what the -the project team came up with. Okay, so the next step, once we define the problem is, let's set a goal.Uh, so we looked at our metrics, and we thought,what's the most important goal that we can set?Clearly ridership goal,um, and a ridership goal that is founded in climate action. So really,the climate action plan of 2018 was really kind of the founding,um,uh, document that really initiated the movement towards improving our transit system.And in the climate action This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 7 plan it calls for a 45%reduction in transportation carbon emissions by 2030.And that equals out to about 64,000 metric tons with if you're like me, I haven't yet,you know,that 64,000 metric tons doesn't quite,you know,resonate with me yet. I'm not understanding that as a measure, I'm getting better at understanding that kind of impact,but,um,to help myself and hopefully to help you all in the public,I-I translated that into something that might make more sense. So that 64,000 metric tons is equivalent to taking approximately 13,900 vehicles off the road between 2010-2030. That's comparable to the annual energy use of about 7,700 households, and that's about a quarter of Iowa City households. And to-finally to absorb this amount of CO2,you would need to plant a little over a million trees and then let them grow for 10 years. Um, so if that helps to put things a little bit more in context for you. So that 64,000 metric tons,that can be easily translated because it's based on vehicle miles traveled over to passenger miles traveled on the transit system. So we know,in order to get that 64,000 reduction in carbon emissions from transportation,we can do that by getting our ridership level up to 1.91 million annual rides. So that is our goal. That is our North Star. That is,you know, going to be on the old thermometer in the hallway,like in school fundraising drives. Um,that is going to be our target in order to reach our transportation emissions goal. So that's a big number, 1.9 million. We're going to need to add about 400,000 more rides than we have today, and we just pulled arguably the biggest lever that we could pull,which is,you know,removing that fare. Last fiscal year,we finished at about 1.5 million rides on transit,which is extraordinary because we increased by almost half a million over the previous year, so that's fantastic.But getting to that 1.9 million,that's again,we're going to need to find 400,000 more rides in a year in order to hit that goal. Well,if you start to break it down a little bit more into each year,kind of break it up into more doable bytes. So it's about 68,000 over the next six years. We would need to have a add 68,000 in year one,add 68,000 in year two trips in order to meet that goal,which sounds a little bit more doable when you start to think of it that way. And when you start to think of it in rides per day,it becomes even more doable. So if you divide that 68,000 by the number of days we provide transit service in a year on average. That's 222 rides on average, a day,probably a little bit more for weekdays,probably a little bit less for weekends. I didn't average them out separately. And then you can also break that down to most people are taking a trip, and then they're taking a trip back. So that would be around I I I round trips per day. So really,we,in essence,we only really need to change the hearts and the minds and the habits of 100 people a year,which seems more than doable. It seems like maybe the goal was too low,but we're-we're sticking 1.91 million, and,you know,we'll reevaluate as we get to 2030 when we look towards 2050 goals. All right, so that was the first and most important metric. I want to share with you all,but the next I'm going to go through a few of the other metrics because one of the most important things in the performance management process is measuring your performance,right?How do you know how you're progressing if you don't have any measurements? So we already talked about carbon emissions reduction, and I will share with you what that was related to Fare Free specifically, and a few slides. We already talked a little bit about transit ridership. That's clearly going to be a very important metric. I'm also going to share with you the percent change in our ridership compared with the national average in Peer cities. We think it's really important.You know,we had a 43%increase last year. That's really great,but did the nation perform at 50%increase? We don't know,you know,how about our peer communities in the metro area or how about Ames,who's kind of our peer community in the state. So we'll show you how we ranked against those other comparisons. I also really like to keep tabs on the APTA ranking. That's American Public Transit Association ranking. So that is the ranking,the national ranking of all metro areas based on transit performance per capita. So it's when we come we compete against New York City and San Francisco and every other transit- intensive community, and we actually perform pretty well. I'll share with you where we're at and what our goal is. On-time performance is another metric that you will see from us in terms of how This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 8 we're performing. This is a really customer. This is for us,too,we clearly our drivers want to stay on time but this is probably the most customer-impacting metric that we have. So we'll share with you where we're at and what our goal is.And the last two are under construction. So these are things you're going to see from us in the future to measure, access to transit and capacity metrics. So we don't currently have ridership data by stop. So we know who's riding each route. We have- we have data that just says basically one person road on this route, so we can combine that easily. We have never had nor had the reliability and the technology really been there until now, automatic passenger counters,which will tell you where people get on and off the bus. And really,that's the most necessary piece of having a full complete data set for really effective transit planning. I will say that in-in the inter. So we don't have that now. That's something you'll likely see as a budget request item in the future. The prices are coming down,the technology is a lot better now. I will say,I'm really excited. Chrissy Jones,who's our management analyst worked with a team of data analysts from GOVEX to develop in our absence of a full complete dataset, knowing where everybody gets on and off to develop a way to estimate ridership by dwell time, which is how long the bus sits at a particular location that we do have. We track with the GPS, so we know how long this is where we get our on-time performance from. And in fact,it's a really brilliant way to estimate it in the absence of the full complete data set that we really need. And there is a podcast that was put out through GOVEX rough John Hopkins University that Chrissy, um,was highlighted on that came out today. I'm not sure if Geoff sent it to you,but if you haven't seen it,he'll probably send it your way.But if you really want to get into the data and the estimation process,it's a really neat,um,process that helped us develop,to help get us along until we have that full data set. All right,first- first metric I want to highlight really quickly is just transit ridership,which we've already talked about.You're looking at a graph of our transit ridership from 2000 until today. So basically about 25 years worth of data.And you can see there was kind of a steady climb, and we reached our peak,um,in the 2011, 2010 area, and we were there for a few years. We topped out at around 1.9 million,which again,goes to show that that 1.9 million goal,which seems really lofty,is not something that has not been done in this community before. So that's really great to see. And as I mentioned earlier,then you see kind of a 2015,you start to see that slide. And this is not just an Iowa City trend,This is kind of a national trend. And then we see the precipitous fall,which,of course,was COVID. We bottomed out in 2021 with a little,um,over half a million riders. And we've been steadily climbing and really quite a steep climb,you can see in the last year when we jumped 1 million to 1.5 million. So I just wanted to kind of give you a sense of where we've been at from a ridership perspective over the last 25 years. Salih: Can we ask question here? Nagle-Gamm: Sure. Salih: You know,if you go back here,what was having-why its really went to the peak on 2018 to 2013, I think, or 2015 even though we were like charging people for the fare. It was not free. Nagle-Gamm: Yeah. So national-that's a national trend,too.You'll see that in transit agencies across the United States. And my estimation, and there's never been a hard and fast rationale,but I think a few things.Um,Uber and Lift and on-demand really came into the fore at that time. Gas prices were very low at that time. We just came out of the-the great recession, and so there was a lot more, It's say,money,you know,household income at that point, so people could afford more transportation options. So I think that's three of the things that are most often cited. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 9 Moe: Also a question about that blip in time. Was there anything happening within either our transportation system or the connected transportation systems like Cambus during that time frame where either service was restricted or it did have an increase in price, or is it just across the country?People stop riding the bus? Nagle-Gamm: I wasn't-I've never been able to find any local trends. I mean,we did make some,I would say,with the transit study that we did in 2019 to 2021. I think we made some improvements to how our three-agency system functions. So I'd like to think that that hopefully made things easier, but that's really impossible to flush out through the data necessarily but it's really remarkable if you look at national trends. We really-we really are mirroring trends through those time frames. And speaking of mirroring trends. So this is a graph that shows,um,comparison between our Peer city. So this is our Metro area, Peer city,Peer organizations,I should say,Coralville and Cambus. We also are comparing Ames,third great comparison for us, and then the national average. So you can see we trend pretty closely together. You can clearly see this is FYI to 24, so you can clearly see the pandemic impact-the pandemic impact really trends similarly.But you can see there are some differences to note. So if you look at FY22,you know,in the boom return back to campuses are re-opening,Ames really led the way with the largest percent increase in ridership.But CAMBUS was up there,too, and Iowa City Transit was up there as well. So that just shows the impact of the university and kind of the eb and flow in terms of the COVID precautions and the return to the classroom.But then you'll see in FY23,Iowa City started to sort of take off a little bit, our percent increase. We had a greater percent increase in our ridership from the previous year,maybe because we started a little bit lower. And then what I really wanted to bring to your attention was FY24. So you can see that we clearly are heading in the upward trajectory. You can see the national average,which is that dark gray. The national average was about 9%increase last year. So everybody's improving and coming out at COVID together, all transit agencies but we're really coming out with a full head of steam with the Fare Free. So that's a gap I really want to show you.And Ames,who usually trends very close to us,too, so you can see the gap between us and Ames. That's the Fare Free gap,right there. That's the difference,you know, otherwise,you can see the lines kind of similarly trending,but that gap is related to Fare Free. Moe: Is Ames CyRide and Ames,the same system? Nagle-Gamm: Yes. Moe: They do not have a duplicate system. Nagle-Gamm: They do not. They have one-one system. One community,one university,one system. So it's a little bit simpler- simpler from their perspective. Dunn: What's-what's the data points there between Ames and Iowa City? Like, what is the very end? You know,what does that gap represent? Nagle-Gamm: Yeah, I can get back to you on that. I was trying to load this up through Cava, and then I would've been able to click on the data points and show them to you,but I'm I had to use a PDF, so I apologize for that. I'm guessing it's about- I'm going to say it's maybe 12, 15%. That's my off- the-cuff graph guessing right now.But I can get back to you on that specific number. Dunn: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 10 Bergus: [INAUDIABLE] Teague: [OVERLAPPING] So they're talking about Ames. Do you mind sharing briefly when it comes down to the funding sources,how we don't qualify for,like,the regional funding?And I'm assuming that's the same situation in Ames. Nagle-Gamm: Yeah. We'll talk a little bit more about that when we get to the funding slide at the end.But yes,we aren't a regional-we don't have the population yet to become a regional system with a regional taxing authority. So we could become a regional system. We just would not have regional taxing authority. That's a difference between, say, Iowa City and our Metro area and Ames. They have the population, and they have a regional taxing authority which funds Dart. Harmsen: Did you mean Des Moines Nagle-Gamm: Yes. Sorry. What did I say? Did I say Ames? I apologize. I mean Des Moines Thank you. Harmsen: No problems. Nagle-Gamm: So last ridership metric, I want to take a look at really quickly is ridership by route. So this is a static map of-this was really focused on June. I'm borrowing it for this presentation,but June 23, June 24. But what I really want you to focus on is the FY24 average. That's the last column, the last bar,the tall orange. And I just want to show,um,you kind of the breadth of ridership average ridership by route. So leading the pack,we have Oakcrest, South Iowa City, West Iowa City, and Lower Muscatine. Those are our top four routes in terms of ridership. Oakcrest.No surprise. They've got 15-minute peak time frequency and high density along that route. That is a combination for ridership,right there. In the middle,we have Towncrest Court Street,the downtown shuttle, and Highway 1. And then towards the tail end,with the least amount of ridership,we have Rochester North Doge,Peninsula, South Gilbert. So then the East side loop,I always want to throw in there East side Loop only does two trips, and it's during school- school district session, and we send an AM trip out on the eat-just stays on the east side and a PM trip, and it's open to the public,but it's focused on getting students to and between the schools in that area. So only two trips. That's a lot of riders for only two trips, I will say.Um, so this data is important for us,not only to evaluate capacity and just have a general understanding of where the greatest ridership is,but it's also this is a key indicator for us from a planning perspective. So as we plan for future service improvements,or as we look to move service around to make the system as a whole more efficient,this is-this is something that we will lean on heavily to understand where the greatest ridership in the least ridership is coming from. Harmsen: Real quick question on this slide. The orange,the FY24 is that average per month? Nagle-Gamm: Yes. Average monthly,yes. Thank you. Harmsen: No problem. Nagle-Gamm: Average monthly. All right,Paratransit ridership. So transitioning off the fixed route system. So this graph shows ridership per year, and this is calendar year. So really,you want to focus your attention on the tail end of kind of the eggplant color. That was when we launched Fare Free, and which Fare Free on fixed route,also became Fare Free on our Paratransit system. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 11 So we did see an increase at the tail end of last year, and then,of course,at the beginning of this year,we didn't have data SEATS was transitioning over to a new data system, so we didn't have the data readily available for the rest of the months,May, June of the last fiscal year.But on the whole,ridership is about 20%higher than it was, and which is about what we estimated. It's still well short of pandemic levels. So that top 2019 line,you can see on the graph,that's representing pre-pandemic levels. So we have increased. It's about what we expected,but it's not above FYI level. So our infrastructure and our vehicles-the vehicles that we have,at least in terms of the number, it seems to be supporting the amount of ridership that we're getting just fine. We do track this,you know,besides that we're excited that Paratransit riders have access to free transportation as well,but we do have to consider the fact that Paratransit rides cost a significant amount more to provide to the community than fixed route transit.And you can see here, $29 per ride is what it costs last fiscal year per ride for Paratransit service. It costs $4.85 for every fixed route rider. So there's-there's a pretty big cost differential.And overall, our Paratransit ridership is about 5 or 6%of our total ridership, and it makes up about a quarter of 25%of our budget. So just to give you a sense of how different it is to be able to provide that service. Of course,Paratransit is a door-to-door service, and you can't take as many people, and there's,you know,more complications with door-to-door service that makes it more expensive. Alter: Darian, can you just say, again,I-I heard it, and it went right out of my head. What's the percentage of riders? Nagle-Gamm: Ridership,you mean?Paratransit makes up about 5%to 6% of our total ridership. And then about a quarter, 25%of the amount of expenses and funding that we need, 25%of our budget. Alter: Yeah, I clocked that one. It was just-. Nagle-Gamm: Yeah-yeah. All right,transitioning quickly to the APTA ranking. This is one I always get really excited about because it's really nice to see Iowa City's name on this list and in this company.But this is the top urbanized areas where the most transit travel. We are at 16th place right now as of the report that came out this March.But it's based on 2021 data, so we will see a big jump in this very soon.But I always like to highlight this because,you know,New York City is number one. You have Chicago in here,Portland.You have some college communities Champagne-Urbana. You have Ames in there up at number four. So our goal is to get up into the top five in this,maybe because we want to be Ames,may because we think we can get to the top five. I think we can results wise with all the positive improvements we've been making.But I think it's definitely an achievable goal. So you'll be hearing about- every year,you'll hear an update from us on where we're at versus the APTA ranking.All right. The other goal-excuse me, the other measure I want to talk about is on time performance. And so we've worked with the Harvard Blueberg team to kind of reformulate how we use this data and show it in a way that we think is-is much more effective. But this is just a on time performance by route and as on a whole, 72%of our trips departed within five minutes of the stops scheduled time. And that was up from 69%in the previous fiscal year. That bump is definitely attributed to Fare Free,because that speeds up boarding,which also allows us to meet our time points-have an easier time meeting our time points. We do have a goal of 85%. That is kind of a standard industry goal and we-now that we have,I'd say a more reliable data set,we've-we got new tablets in the last year, which is a new-our AVL,Advanced Vehicle Locator system is much more reliable. This is all based on cellular GPS data. So our old equipment was failing, and it wasn't nearly as reliable. So This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 12 we're excited that this-we feel more confident that this is accurate data, and we're going to use this to improve our on time performance going forward. Salih: I was really when to asked that question. I think this is could be like the answer if you can explain. I was guess-want to ask you did the ridership increase more in the area where affordable housing is more of like an issue, or did it increase more in the wealthy area or some other or maybe it is another pattern that even you know about it. Nagle-Gamm: It's a great question. So that's part of our metrics that are under construction right now because we want to see- if-we want-we want to measure exactly that.Are we seeing the increases where we feel like there's the greatest need. I can say anecdotally. It feels like that, if you look at the route, and you generally know where the route, sir,but we want to come up with a more informed data driven statistical way to respond to that question. Salih: Great. Yeah,because I really would like to know if the ridership increased, like,is there a money issue or just convenience issue or those kind of things. Alter: Where the bus stops.. Salih: Yeah. Nagle-Gamm: Yeah, and we're hoping in the future to be able to get some more qualitative responses to that too,with some onboard surveys or some community surveying to help,you know, answer- we'll have the data, and we can know-we can know more about access and capacity. But to get that-those more qualitative responses from the community,I think it's going to be really important,too. Salih: Thank you. Nagle-Gamm: Paratransit on time performance, it's a lot different. So,you know,meeting-meeting the goal is,you know,within 10 minutes of the scheduled time because it's a pick up situation. It's a door to door situation, so we're at about 83%,overall,our goal is to get to 99%. So we're going to be working towards that goal to help improve our service. Bergus: Hey,Darian. Nagle-Gamm: Yeah. Bergus: On the on time performance for both metrics,knowing that the Paratransit is- should be 99, and the other you said industry standard is like 85. What's keeping us from hitting those targets? Is it a multitude of factors or is there something you can point to? Nagle-Gamm: Well,we've had a lot. One thing is that the-the construction season. That's one thing that's a big challenge for us. We have to improve our roadways,but,you know,constructions and detours, and we've had these really,you know,great,impactful projects that have taken multiple years,but it does impact how we're able to provide service to the community. So that's one. We have a lot-in this year,particularly,we have a lot of new drivers. So it takes some time to kind of-to feel your groove and to be able to figure out how you can to meet those time points. So those are two things that come to it. Traffic in general,traffic-the unpredictability of traffic, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 13 especially at this time,I will say literally right now within the next couple of weeks and then when the school starts back up again,just being generally unpredictable. It's not as predictable as you would think if you're out there driving the same route every single day,it can- it can vary. So I think those are some of our biggest challenges.Honestly,I think one thing that's-that's going to help is we're going to start talking about it more.Now that we have a dataset that we feel really confident in,we can have those conversations,we're going to be able to drill down into more specifics about,is it certain areas? Is the time- are the time points not set realistically? That sort of thing. Like,we want to have those conversations with our staff. So having a better dataset,I think is going to-that we can launch from this point, I think is going to really help. Bergus: Thank you. Nagle-Gamm: Okay, so now we've gone from the problem statement to the metrics to how do we get to 1.91 million ride. So this is kind of where we came up with,what are our interventions and what are our solutions?The first thing is calculating that greenhouse gas emissions goal and then translating that into our transit ridership goal. So we've got that 1.91 million ride goal now. The next step, and we're kind of rewinding back in time here,but completing that Iowa City Area Transit study,where we completely to look took a look at the entire system, see how we can make it faster,more frequent,more reliable. We reduced our fares at that point for those that needed it most. We aligned our fare systems at that time with Coralville to make it easier to move between the two systems. And then,of course,now,last year,we move to-we piloted Fare Free, which is what we're going to talk about for the next few slides here. So I just wanted to mention, we won't get into future pieces. I'll talk about those at the end of the presentation,but I just kind of want to show those on a timeline for you.But I do want to say that there's a few assumptions regarding any interventions that we put into place for the transit system.And one is we have to- we're assuming that staffing is stabilized, and that has been our biggest challenge and perhaps our biggest accomplishment this year. We are fully staffed, and,you know,I don't want- I don't want to jinx this,but we're-we're fully staffed for the first time in many-many years. And that is a testament to the absolute mission that our staff- our administrative staff went on to rethink the way that we're reaching out to the community,refraining the transit driver jobs,you know, communicating all of the benefits that working for the city has to offer and new-the pay increase with the fiscal year,that sort of thing. But we-we just know that if staffing is not stabilized,that is where our focus and our attention has to lie and that's been where we've adverted quite a bit in the last few years. We also are working on the assumption that our fleet is operational. So if we don't have a fully functioning fleet, and we have buses that are out of commission for XY and Z reason, aging condition sort of thing,it makes it really hard for us to run our operations,because we often need to do bus switches and things like that just to make sure that we can meet the time points and our commitment to the community. And last but not least a robust marketing and communications plan.And our communications team and our climate action team have done an absolutely incredible job meeting the moment with all of the transit initiatives in terms of marketing-really creative marketing and communications and events, and- and they still keep coming up with-with great ideas and running with that. So we're working on the assumption that those three things are in place,but I just want to make you aware that if- if any of those,you know, fall sideways for us,that we have to refocus our attention,or it delays the implementation of these other planned initiatives.All right. So let's talk more about Fare Free,which is the intervention of the moment tonight. So better frame up the impacts over the last year, and we're going to start with climate impacts because they have been significant. So we have increased ridership on transit in one year with a Fare Free program by 450,000 rides,which is incredible. So that is 43%increase over where we were at last year, and it happened nearly simultaneously. So it This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 14 wasn't,you know,a long ramp up. It was people really hit it hard. In fact,I think we had the greatest percentage increase last August. I think we ended up at 60 some percent,which was really remarkable. So ridership increase was amazing, and that translated to a really significant carbon emission reduction. So this seems like a real specific number,but be sure it is an estimate. We reduced the metric tons of carbon emissions by 31,251. And again,I'm going to walk you through that equivalency so you can help-you can work with me on trying to understand what that means.But it's equivalent to taking approximately 6,800 vehicles off the road. It's equivalent or comparable to the annual energy use of about 3,800 homes in Lowa City. And again,to absorb this amount of CO2,you'd need to plant around 514,000 tree seedlings and then let them grow for 10 years. So climate initiative made a huge climate impact in the first year.But that was not all. There was also big community benefits. Moe: I'm curious about the metrics that you're showing on climate action and carbon reductions. Does that account just for,you know,taking the car off the road,but also for the transition from diesel buses to electric buses?Is that baked in? Nagle-Gamm: It is not. Moe: Okay. There's an additional income? Nagle-Gamm: There is and that's something we're going to work to refine. And as we transition to more electric buses,yeah,we can-that's something that we need to work into the equation,because that is a significant difference as well. Moe: I hope it is because I would love to see the numbers if-if it's firing out so- Nagle-Gamm: We'll work on that. We'll get that-we will get that baked in. I know this is not-this is not inclusive today, so it's really slightly higher than that number of climate impact.And then if you impact, so now I'm going to go down the rabbit hole,but if you-if you base it on the fact that it's an electric,but it's-it's running off of clean wind drive and energy,there's an even more impact that you're making from a climate perspective. So if we can dig into all of those,that will be fantastic. But we we'll-we can represent that in the future. Alright, so community benefits,$ 1.29 million were put back into the pockets of transit riders,which has been reinvested in savings in you know-in economic development,in our local economy.All of that money has gone back into our transit riders pockets,which was part of our equity subinitiatives,right? It's not just all about climate action,but that's our equity goals, I mean,our strategic plan. That's our economic development goals as well. And as we talked about before, 3%improvement in on time performance. That is-that really great jump. We're really looking forward to seeing that jump even further with some more action that we're going to put into place,but that was clearly related specifically to Fare Free. It's also faster boarding. We-in general,we've improved access to affordable transportation. We've made it easy to just hop on board. You don't necessarily have to have a car. You don't have to afford the 10,11,12000 per year it takes to own and manage a vehicle. We-we've improved access and we've reduced traffic congestion. So for any one of you who's been in a car and you've been behind a bus,hopefully,you know this will-this will resonate with you,but,you know,buses stop.But they have bus stops, and sometimes as-as a vehicle driver,you'll get stuck behind a bus,well,that bus is preventing anywhere 40-70 single occupant vehicles from being in front of you. So if you imagine what your commute would be like,with every bus that you meet,if they were full,you could have 40 sitting,up to 70 standing. It makes a big impact on reducing traffic congestion. And last but not least staff benefits. So This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 15 again, faster boarding is great for the public,it's great for our staff. It reduces that time point stress. They're always thinking about they need to be at a stop, and they're trying to negotiate the- the traffic world and the roadway network in order to get there. And it has reduced conflicts at the fare box. We don't have this documented per se. I think we will. A little bit more in the future, we've started to track-the FTA is required that we start to track verbal assaults,if you will. I think that's what the-the federal term is,but when it doesn't rise to a physical incident,but it's definitely something that causes concern for our-for our staff, something that is reported we're starting to track those now so we can have a better handle on how often that's happening. Another benefit is there's less staff time involved in fare administration and collection. So that is not insignificant from-from either our customer service team, selling fares, our selling passes,to ordering them and designing them, and then the daily collection of funds. There's a lot of staff time wrapped in to-to the fare, so that's reduced that time significantly.And then overall staff retention. I will say,one,very close to retirement transit driver. He-he keeps punting his retirement, and he's like,it's just really great with Fare Free. You can just people hop on board. You just say hello.You don't have to quabble over you know,whether they have $0.95 or,you know, It just it's made them want to continue to stay with us even longer. They're kind of kicking their retirement down the road. So we think it's also beneficial in terms of staff retention. All right.Now,funding last section before we get to the next step. So we have been funding the pilot using COVID stimulus funds. So for the last year we've used federal funds. We will continue to use COVID stimulus funds for the next year, so we have the two year pilot covered. We also have annual federal funding that is authorized by Congress. So with the transportation legislation bill. So I think we're two years, I believe,into a 5,2 or 3 years into a 5 year authorization. We never know exactly what happens-what the next authorization will be. We don't historically see a trend where it falls off. I- I can't imagine that it would,but I-I can't- I can't speak for congress. So I would like to think that we would see that level remain the same,or hopefully,if- if the advocates are doing their job rights,we're advocating for higher funding level.But we do have a portion of our transit funding that is based on ridership. So the MPO is working on developing some estimates of what our ridership impacts could be if we move the metro area needle in terms of ridership. So we'll have more information for you in the future of what exactly that is or what that could potentially be.But that we do-we will still have our federal funding to help support our operations. Alter: Darian, can you? Nagle-Gamm: Yes. Alter: How much is that funding? Nagle-Gamm: So it's, oh, gosh. I want to say 2.9 million last year. Is my estimate off the top of my head? I can get you the more specific number. Alter: Yeah, I just be interested in, and it may be that it's,um,wrapped up in the whole,but how much it runs-how much it's costing us total?And then- and then how we're covering it. Nagle-Gamm: Right-right. Alter: And it's just a reminder I know it's in the budget. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 16 Nagle-Gamm: That's-exactly. So yeah,we'll-and we'll talk through a little bit of that.But the parking fee increase is-is something of interest as well,because that was,um,the-the funding proposal was that if we increase our parking rates,um,we would be able to generate 2.9 million in revenue. Which a good chunk of that would go to parking,which the Capital Improvements Program is significantly larger for the next five years than it was the previous five years due to the aging condition.Also funding the downtown,um,ambassador program. Which has been really successful in helping to-to maintain the downtown.But 1.5 million of that,um,increase was designated to help support Fare Free. And we still anticipate we're going to need to and on top of that. We anticipate we're going to need 2.5 million, so that really leaves us with a one million dollar gap.And that is where the proposed utility tax comes in. So we're proposing utility tax,um, anticipated not next year because this is a-we have COVID funding for this year,but for FY26 to help to cover that gap. And- and the combination of all of those,um,is going to support the transit system without a fare. That would be the proposal to support it without a fare. Moe: And this would be franchise fees?You say utility tax,is that franchise fees? Fruin: [OVERLAPPING] Yeah. Moe: Would it be targeted at natural gas or natural gas and electric? Fruin: Both. Moe: Okay. Alter: Okay Nagle-Gamm: Next step. This is the last slide. So,again,we're here tonight,um,want to give you,um, sort of our year in advance, our year in rear look at Fare Free Iowa City Program and- and get direction from you all. I will end with one note that our fare boxes are at the end of the useful life. Usually,we may become to closer to the end of the- closer to the end of the pilot program. We're in the middle,but we are asking for that direction because the fare boxes are at the useful life, and they're no longer supported. So if we are going to return to a fare,we-we would need to know basically now. We need a long advanced time to ensure that we could get them in and have them ready to go before we return to a fare. And then in terms of the next steps,or interventions or solutions,um,the-the things that we're going to do to help get us to that 1.91 million rides is new transit facility is coming. And that's really exciting. We had an RFP,um, out this year for a design team to help us design the new facility,the shared transit equipment facility.Um,we expect we will come back to you all this fall,with a-with a-we're in contract negotiations right now. And that,ultimately,we expect that to be completed in 2027. That will be a huge leap forward in terms of,um,our operational environment.And also our ability to expand service to meet the needs of-the future needs of our community. We can't fit any more buses in our facility at all, so we would not be able to add any additional service,really.Um, and then age and condition issues,which you all are well aware of. We're also launching the Bus Stop and interchange improvement program. So we want to get an RFP out,um,to have a consultant come on board and help us evaluate every single transit stop in the community.And what do we need at that transit stop to make it a safe, comfortable and accessible place for our community members? And that includes a Downtown Interchange. So we're going to look at everything holistically, help develop a plan.Um, and then you will see,um,us come in the future,um,for,you know, CIP projects likely to help fund these,um,bus stop improvements. Of course,we're looking to This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 17 expand our electric fleet. We are really excited. We have some state funding. We can,with our current capacity,we feel like we could add two more electric buses right now, and we have the funding to do so. It's a long lead time, so we won't see them in the community for another couple of years. It's just the nature of manufacturing right now,but we are working towards that.And then last but not least enhancing our service levels to reach ridership goals. So this is something we're constantly evaluating. Do we have the service levels that we need in the places we need them in the community?And that's going to be in part informed by that,um,data that we're going to evaluate. So,happy to answer any additional questions that you all have. Moe: Are-are there any communities that have,um, fare optional kinds of systems? I've heard more than one person say,they love this Fare Free, and they want to keep it that way,but they'd be willing to pay something. Like,is there any community that has a-a system like that, or is that sort of a administrative headache that's probably not worth the effort to collect? Nagle-Gamm: I don't-I'm not aware of any systems that have that. Um,it-it makes me chuck a little bit because we have gotten some donations,um,memorial donations. Moe: Yeah. Nagle-Gamm: For people in the last year who have passed,who've been longtime riders that they wanted to help support. They wanted to help support Fare Free. So we've received it in that way,but not so much at the fare box. Moe: Making it as easy as possible to do that seems like a- a low barrier to potentially support this. Nagle-Gamm: Yeah. Salih: You know, I know that you are working now in many metrics and many like measure-like many thing that you want to measure it through like for this. So I really will be interesting to maybe add uh,you don't have to answer this question because I'm just like saying it so you can-while you are doing all these measuring and metrics. Like,how many people are more able to afford their houses because of the free er bus services? I mean, like,do the people really feel very comfortable after they get the-the free bus?Is this like free bus services good enough that, some family will sell their car to just depend on the bus, and,you know, decide just to- I don't know. I don't know if you understand what I mean,but just like- Nagle-Gamm: Oh,yeah. Salih: If the family will feel comfortable deciding to sell a car to better afford their housing uh,because our free bus you know,if we can so think about that,I just want to start tieing everything that we do to affordable housing, so we can really start acting. Dunn: Mayor Pro Tem,if I may respond. I can-I can speak to this anecdotally,you know,with-with people in my life.But I- I don't know of anyone who's quite sold their car,but I do know of plenty of people who have,uh,nearly completely transitioned,uh,their transportation options to- to public transit. Uh, so I think that's a fantastic goal for us to shoot for- for,you know,a system that means that you can live just fine in Iowa City without a car. Um, and I know that plenty of people are doing that. So just sharing those-uh,tha-that same goal with you,Mayor Pro Tem. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 18 Salih: Yeah. Thank you. Moe: So we have all kinds of opportunities to provide additional transit,uh, specifically regional transit. I know it's kind of interesting conversation happening.Um, and the big challenge for us is to decide where the public dollars go. And be curious to know what kinds of data we have that's still valid about what people want. Do they just want more service here in Iowa City? Do they want access to Coralville and North Liberty?Um,wha-what-I know,we did the transit study years ago. Is that information still valid or are you still collecting information on you know,there's so many opportunities,right?New bus stops,more routes,you know,week-more weekend service. Like,how-how-how can we get data? Nagle-Gamm: I think onboard surveying is a good way,um,crafting an onboard survey. And we did do that. We got 1,000 responses,um,with the transit study, so that might be worthwhile going back and taking a look.But I think it was more-it was less service enhancement specific and more kind of demographic, and just trying to understand where people are going from. So we did capture a little bit of that,um,where are you going now,but that doesn't account for if there wasn't a way to get,you know,they were going somewhere that they could currently get on the transit system,not somewhere if that makes any sense.They were-. Moe: Yeah. Ngle-Gamm: They were limited by the transit system at that time.But I think having some- and we've talked about this as part of the-as part of the performance management plan is coming up with a way that we can-we can get some of that qualitative information,that feedback from the community. It's like,where-what are your next priorities,uh, for the transit system,given-here's some options that we have,uh, in terms of service level changes. I think-I think we could-we could go directly,we could do online surveys. We could do-um,we could do public meetings. I mean,there's ways we can get that information. Moe: Yeah. I just- Alter: It was more of a response to you, and then I was like,well,no,it's a response. Moe: Yeah. I guess the-the sort of last thing that's more of a-uh,I think we talked about this in the-in the budget discussions is,yes,Fare Free seems to be something our community wants. I hear about it all the time.Um,the idea of using the money from parking garages,though, from the enterprise fund to me, I still have a little bit of discomfort about that,because I know these parking garages are going to have massive expenses, and it feels like we're-we're borrowing. It feels a little bit like a shell game in some ways, and that gives me discomfort, and so I-I'm not sure,um,if the right mechanism to pay for the free bus is actually the parking garages. I really like the idea of franchise fees supporting it. That to me is-that's perfectly in line, I think,with the-the kinds of trade-offs we're trying to make and how it impacts climate action.But just-it's a personal concern I have because when I think enterprise fund, I think this is a silo of money,like, with wastewater treatment. It's protected with,you know, some of these other funds,but that one we seem to be maybe a little bit more flexible with. Fruin: Well,I think you just view it as a transportation system as a whole,as opposed to just parking and just transit. If you look at them as integrated,um, services,then you can get past that,but I understand, it's very different than how we've operated in the past. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 19 Moe: Yeah. Fruin: We'll talk more about the utility tax with-with the budget proposal that you'll end up reviewing in January and February. Um,but if-if the-the council as a majority felt that you wanted to shift from those parking fees to the utility tax,you have the ability. We have the ability to increase that utility tax another 4%. We're at 1%now. The state allows 5%, and it's generally about a million dollars per percent.But understand that has its impacts,too. Moe:Yeah. Fruin: Um, so it's-um,those are difficult decisions. Moe: Yes. Harmsen: When you do you- Salih: Go ahead. Harmsen: When do-you had indicated, especially here on this last slide that you're looking for some direction from counsel now,uh, or then-or soon,uh,how-how now and how soon are you thinking you need some sort of a direction from us? Nagle-Gamm: I would say within the next two months,we would need probably by the end of October, we would need to know. Fruin: And we're working under the assumption. Obviously,you-you,um, approved the parking increases that we talked about this winter, and we were very transparent. That a portion of those we're going to support Fare Free beyond the federal stimulus. So we're working under the assumption that,um,Fare Free will continue to be supported,but conditions can change. And data like this may-may change how you think about it,too. So yeah,you certainly have some time,but as Darian mentioned,we're going to need probably a good year to re-institute the-the fare collection system if you ever decide to go that route. Harmsen;And I think just kind of based on the feedback I've gotten from the community,my own observations, and the presentation tonight, I-I honestly can't imagine not supporting it moving forward,right? So [OVERLAPPING] I just want to be clear on timelines and things like that. So I didn't want to indicate that I was having second thoughts because I'm really not. This is fantastic. Um,you guys have done a wonderful job getting this new Fare Free instituted. It's wonderful to hear,you know,thinking back to our discussions,what about a year ago,we were talking about this and kind of leading up to that.About some of the issues that our drivers were seeing in terms of conflict, and- and you kind of alluded to this a little bit. We talked about it more last year, and that was creating all kinds of ripple effects, including a difficulty with retention of drivers.Um, you know, so this is-it's just-it's-it's really-for me,anyway, it was really nice to hear the change in several of the things that were trending negatively ah,before we switched to Fare Free,which now seemed to be going in the opposite direction in a big turnaround, and,you know,that's-that's due to the-to the work of staff and all the way to the drivers, of course,who have that actual interaction with the public. So- so well done. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 20 Salih: I agree 100%. And I'm also absolutely not going back. That's not something I'm going to support. But also like-just like you make me very exciting today,you comparing like the City of Iowa City with all those cities, and just like here for like Ames,you said exactly because that gap is because of the free fare. So this is by itself exciting news, and I don't think we're supporting-I'm not supporting to go back. Alter: No-no. Dunn: Is now at appropriate time for just general comments, or are we still doing questions? Salih: You can do a comment. Dunn: Okay. I-I would like to,you know, echo a number of-of prior comments about how-how impressed I am with this presentation,with the-the results that we've been able to achieve as a- as a community. I would also echo uh,no desire ah,to-to go back to a-a paid system for our Public Transportation. Um,a little bit of a differing opinion than-than Councilor Moe. I think that results like this emphasize,at least to me,the importance of continued investment in transportation services and the real limitation of the funds that are available for-for funding those things. You know,I-I think, as most people in the room may be aware, I-grew up in Ames,Iowa, for the first 13 years of my life. So I'm very familiar with CyRide services. And one thing that they absolutely have over us from my experience is the type of,you know,areas of refuge,you know, structures that exist at our stops that prevent people from getting rained on,places to sit. All of that type of stuff costs a lot of money.And I-I really want to see us investing,you know, our community funds that,you know,broadly benefit people in additional-uh, additional infrastructure for transportation. In that way, as well as exploring ways that we can further expand our public transportation infrastructure um,terms of service in terms of integration. I see that Councilor Bergus is going to talk about-talk next.But I just want to say and give her props because,you know, she's been working really hard with all other stakeholders in our county to do, you know, integrated transit throughout our-our communities. I think we should be looking to that direction as well. So,broadly speaking,major props to Laura Bergus,major props to our Transportation Services Department,the City Manager's office for getting this done. Um,we should all be as a community, as a council, as public servants, incredibly proud of what we've been able to achieve, and everyone should be patting themselves on the back here. So thank you all very much. Salih: Okay. Council Bergus. Bergus: Thank you,Mayor Pro Tem and,uh,thanks for those overly generous comments,Councilor Dunn. I just want to echo what Councilor Harmsen said and what,uh,Mayor Pro Tem said,uh. And I think just,you know,knowing that we are working towards a more holistic and hopefully Regional Rransportation System,having real data,having real metrics, and being able to just evaluate what we've done and to be able to then pivot and make changes as we can see what's actually happening. It's just so exciting. Really huge thanks to staff for pulling this together, and I'm so grateful that the Harvard Bloomberg,uh,program,offered this opportunity. And just,yes, for the record, I also am not interested in going back to a fare-based transit system and hope that we,you know,keep pushing towards our mobility goal from our strategic plan of talking about the Regional Transportation System. Salih: Thank you. Any comment or. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 21 Alter: I was just going to say. Oh, go ahead. Teague: Yeah. Alter: Go ahead. Salih: Go ahead Mayor. Teague: Oh, I was just-yes,I was just going to say this is great thanks to the staff, and for the presentation today of course,Harvard Bloomberg did show that data makes a difference, and we're trying to become a more data informed system,which would allow us to really look at what we've done in the past and how we'll be able to better by services in the future. The one thing I wanted to comment about is the change and behavior that is tasked before us because we see that if we can increase ridership by 222 per day,which is,uh,half of that, if we have round trip riders 111,it's something that we absolutely can do. And so,how do we ensure that we can inform the public and get them excited about this opportunity.Mayor Pro Tem, I have to tell you that if we get some data on people that have sold their vehicles,um, and the financial impact that that has made within their life,if our transit can fully meet their transit needs, I think that would be phenomenal to hear. I'm really impressed with the staff. Thank you all again,uh,for the presentation. And I do know that it's a hard topic when we're talking about funding,where did the money come from?But we do have an opportunity to enforce that makes a lot of sense. So we don't have all the money in the world, and we do have to make those hard decisions. And so far, I am with,you know,those that say,you know,we're not going back to Fare Free because of the opportunities that it really does mean for our community on so many levels, especially,uh, money back in the-in the pockets of those that use the system, and the effects that they have on our climate as well. So thanks to the staff again for this presentation, and look forward to future conversations. Salih: Okay. Council Alter. [inaudible] Salih: Okay. I think thank you, Darian. Alter: Yeah. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 22 5.Downtown parking discussion Salih: Thank you. That's it. Thanks. Okay. We're going to go next this item number 5,downtown parking discussion. And Mark Rummel will lead us on this. So. Rummel: Good afternoon everyone,Mark Rummel with Transportation Services. Uh, I will be really brief here so that others can have time to-to talk,but I'm just going to give you a really brief summary of our parking spaces downtown,uh, so that you all can discuss the topic of the meter rates. So our parking facilities,the ramps downtown,just a real breakdown of their space counts. So the Capitol Street Ramp has 875 spaces. The Dubuque Street Ramp has 625. Tower Place has 511. Chauncey Swan behind us is 475. The Court Street Transportation Center is 600, and then our newest ramp the Harrison Street parking facility is 550. So that's a total of just over 3,600 spaces in ramps, 36 is the exact number for ramped spots.And then outside of that,the on street parking,which is where all our meters are. There's-there's kind of two categories we use.Um,the off street surface lots. There's five of those in the downtown area with a total of 187 spaces. And then the other meters are actually on street on the different streets in the downtown area,uh, and those make up 985 total spots. So as far as meters go,both the surface in the on street or the surface lots and the on street we're at 1,172. So really,there's about 3,600 in the ramps and about 1,200 on street that put us at about 4,800 spaces total in the downtown area. Our last rate increase was was this last,um,July. So FY25 was our- our meter increase, and before that,it was,uh,in 2013,was our last increase. This additional revenue,uh, as Darian mentioned earlier,is-was-is programmed or planned to be spent on Fare Free,uh, our increasing ramp maintenance projects, that's all the concrete work,the membrane,things like that that we're doing for all the ramps on an annual basis, and our block by block ambassador program that's new this summer,uh,which is just a- a great program that we've got in the downtown area. Um, I've got a map. I'm just going to put up on the screen for you that will show. Let me see if I can make this bigger. And I was just going to show this real quick, and we can leave it up,if you like.But,um, it's basically displaying every single meter that we have in Iowa City. So the blue is really the core of downtown. Those are all our three dollar meters, and all the red dots are $1.50 meters that are out there. Um,I hope this helps with your discussion. Like I said,I was going to be brief,but I'm here to help answer any questions you guys have throughout the night so. Alter: I forget how much are we funding the-or how much is the cost for the program that the city is helping to fund with the ambassador program? What's our-what's our contribution to the ambassador program? I can't remember. Rummel: Um, do you remember that? Eight-hundred and twenty-five. Alter: Okay. Thank you. Fruin: So the increase of the parking rates was intended to fund a little over 500,000 of that. Alter: Okay. Salih: Five-hundred. Alter: Based on the current rate or on staff recommendation? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 23 Fruin: Uh,the staff recommend-the staff recommended rate was sufficient to cover the block by block expense. Moe: Do you have any. Teague: And just for-just for a comparison,can you tell us what the cost was previous before we had the block by block services? Fruin: Just roughly the difference between the two, so right around 250-300,000. Moe: Do we have any-I know that previously, I think Darian had presented latent parking rates, although like how many-how many hours people are parked in a specific spot? Do we-the new rates have only been enforeced for a month. Do we have any data that indicates there's more available spaces? Is there any of that kind of information available to us yet? Rummel: We don't really have that information yet. I can't tell you just looking at July. 2024 to July 2023. We've seen an increase in revenue deposits from the on street meters and a slight decrease in actual transactions. So it's-that was,like, a 34%increase in revenue coming in and about 1.5% decrease in transactions.But to be honest with the July is not-I mean,it's one month, and it's not even a great month to use just between some of our street closures for Jazz Fest and students not being here and things like that. So- so I don't have a right number for you. Harmsen: That's okay. Out of curiosity,what's the difference in number between the blue dots and the red dots?Like how many of- it looks like there's about twice as many red dots just eyeballing it,but is that? I'm just curious how many we're doing at the $3 rate versus the buck 50. Rummel: Give me-I don't know that I have that handy,but I can definitely get that back. Harmsen: Yeah,thank you. Rummel: I can get back to you on that. Dunn: Just another follow up question,approximately how many dollars are we anticipating going towards Fare Free from the funds raised from this? Fruin: 1.5 million. Rummel: Yeah. 1.5 to Fare Free. Dunn: Okay. Salih: Okay. Any questions,or more. Rummel: Like I said, I'll be here. If you guys have any more questions while you're discussing,I'm happy to help. Salih: Sure. Thank you. Rummel: Yeah. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 24 Harmsen: Who wants to dive in. Alter: Pardon. Dunn: I'm ready to go. Well, I have a number of-of-of thoughts on this issue. I understand a lot of the concerns,uh,that have been shared from members of the community,from people in the business community,uh,especially about,the parking rates that have been implemented. Those concerns are well taken and understood. And I think that we do need to take action to mitigate some of the effects,particularly on business owners and workers. I don't think that,uh,you know,at least from my perspective,uh, it was the intent of this Council to increase an effective tax on,uh,you know,relatively,uh,you know,low wage service workers or small business owners,uh,in our community. I don't think anyone here wants to do that.Um, so I'm very glad that our city manager's office, and other relevant agents and government are working to try to address that concern. Um,And I do hope that we can get something done on that. With haste,really.Um,with regard to the broader conversation of moving us back to the staff recommendation of two dollars, um,I- I do find that,um, at this point,very concerning. I think that,you know,if we want to use this as a pilot rate,either for a quarter or,you know,just the first semester of school,you know, I would be very open to examining that and to,you know, implementing that as-as a-as a potentially a temporary measure,uh,to see what happens,uh,to see,you know, if our- our business owners concerns about stops within our downtown are really there. I mean,um,for people to see that and for the sticker shock to,um,you know, cause emotions that cause people to,you know,want things to go back the way they were is understandable.But,um, I don't necessarily think that in a case like this where dollars and cents are few and far between, and the alternative might be increasing taxes like actual taxes.Um, I think we need to think long and hard about going back within a month or two,um, of a decision that is going to have major financial implications for everything we just talked about,um,we did make the decision to spend 1.5 million dollars worth of these funds on our Fare Free. And as,uh,councilors are aware, our parking, infrastructure,uh,new stuff is happening every day,uh,you know, and every week. Uh so- so these types of things are concerning,um,you know,the community's concerns,uh,are, you know,well taken and understood.But I think that we need to be very careful,uh,about potentially moving back to the staff recommendation immediately.Uh,I think we need to lead using policy,uh,pardon me,not policy. Lead using,uh, statistics,the numbers and facts.Um, and if it is the case that,you know,there is a decrease in traffic downtown.Uh,there is a decrease in business downtown. That's a concern. Um,but I don't think we should look past the fact that in our conversation where we implemented this,uh,you know, our desire is to offset people who are taking trips to downtown with our more quality public transit. If we eliminate an opportunity to fund quality public transit,we're-we're limiting our ability to advance public transit as quickly as possible,uh to-to,you know,accelerate our climate goals more broadly. So that is to say,um, you know,broadly speaking,if people wanted to consider using this as a pilot,uh,for the first semester or something like that, I would be open to-to doing that and,um,you know,looking at this using a data driven approach.But as of right now,I think I can say that I'm against moving immediately to the two dollar per hour rate. Salih: Thank you.Now Council Alter. Alter: Yes. Thank you for your comments,Councilor Dunn. I- I think that to provide more facets to the conversation, certainly,I'm among all of you who do not want to go back.Um,but you raised a couple of interest- some interesting phrases that I want to kind of tack onto here. Certainly,we This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 25 don't have bad intentions when we make decisions,right? Or mean to create bad impacts.And yet we had a meeting where the announced amount was for two dollars. That was what we were going to discuss.And within that same meeting,we actually didn't think long and hard about impacts. We raised the rate to three dollars,where there was no opportunity for stakeholders to weigh in. So that's one thing. I think that we should have this conversation now so that and to allow people to talk about the impact.Another thing is you are absolutely right, and I completely agree with you in terms of looking at dollars and cents.But I also know that the optics of having three dollars an hour for the core downtown,not everyone is immediately going to think. I want to take the bus instead. That's just a fact. Additionally,during football weekends,basketball weekends,regular events,people come from out of town and drive down to here. They can't take public transit or they won't. Either one is true. I am worried about the optics of how inclusive and inviting downtown Iowa City. The core is to say,it's $3 an hour. There is no way to do partial, and if you're using an app,it's 340. That actually doesn't scream equity to me. The optics,in some cases actually do matter in terms of how people perceive what the reality is,right? So I'm not doing this as any kind of a knock,because I think fundamentally,we need to find out where we have programs available-where we can find funds.But I also know that the staff actually looked at this and said,how can we do this?We haven't raised fares in a long time. I think it's safe to say that we're not going to wait another nine years before we raise parking rates,right? So this is a big leap.Um, I certainly understand piloting.But in this case,we decided in one meeting to raise the prices. I think it's fair for us to tap the brakes a little bit and say,perhaps there are other options available. Um,I just want to make sure that one other thing that I want to point is,um, out is the core, as we've been talking about,it's always been more expensive than the others,which I think is absolutely appropriate because we want turnover. We want people to come in and we want them to leave, or if they do want to stay for longer,then go to the ramps,right?Um,the ramps currently have- if we are in fact, going to see potentially people not coming in,then you're going to lose the fare altogether of people coming to Iowa City because they won't go to the ramps, and they won't park in the meters. So we're not getting any revenue that way. So I just wanted to point that out, and I apologize,uh,Councilor Dunn. It's just you had some phrasing that worked really well for me to do some counterpoints.Um,but these are directed to all of council for us to think about. Moe: I- I appreciate you bringing up the point that we did take a- a carefully crafted budget proposal. And in the course of a few minutes changed it.Um, I appreciate you bringing that up.And I also,I guess I have a question for um,Mr. Fruin. The $1.5 million that's in the budget. Was that predicated on the increase that was only to $2,or has that been adjusted with increases to,um,to $3? Fruin: That was based on the $2. Moe: Yeah. So I think we still achieve our goals. I mean,you know, in principle,we-we-we want people to see the street parking spots as the premium,the short-term parking,the first class seat. We want people to drive to the parking garages and whatever we can do to drive people there,we need to. So I believe that means we got to have it be slightly more expensive than the parking garages and maybe sign it really clearly,like,you're picking a first-class seat.You know,but there's a garage over here that's really great and really close. Alter: Well,just to interrupt,they actually-they already are premium because the first hour in a ramp is free. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 26 Moe: Sure. Sure. Harmsen: Oh, at$2. Moe: Yeah. And I think that's good.Yeah. As a principle,we want to drive people to the ramp.And also the idea of a test case,though,makes me concerned as far as running it for too long because if it does really harm businesses,they're not just going to quickly bounce back and come back. If we shut down a business because it's too expensive,that could be a permanent thing.And so,um,I'm a little hesitant to just test it out,roll the dice, and see what happens. Um, so I'm at a place where I-I think there is maybe a way that we make sure that it's-it's slightly more expensive than the ramps,but maybe come down a little bit. I'm not sure where the sweet spot is because this is-this isn't science, guys. This is a gut check of where is that magic moment in time. I've also been a little bit,um,miffed,maybe is the right word by people writing who are business owners who are like,well,now it costs me a lot of money to park on the street in front of my business all day. And I don't know that that makes a lot of sense. Like,the-if you're a business owner,I'd hope you'd go drive to that ramp and leave that premium spot in front of your business open for your customers. And so there's some I don't know,behavior things that would be really great hopefully this conversation and maybe adjusting parking fees can-can lead to.Um,things we haven't talked about are like,the fact that we have a lot of people who work nighttime, and maybe come when parking rates are still going. I know that city staff is working on a nighttime pass for those people. Alter: Yeah. Moe: Strongly support that effort as fast as we can make that happen.And then getting business owners access to passes. I'm not quite sure,how-how is that process working or not working or do you need any kind of council instruction to-how to make that better, or is it? Fruin: Yeah, I'll invite Mark up to respond to that. I will say that I think over the last few months,this discussion has helped facilitate a lot more transactions for permits from businesses into a tax. Rummel: Yeah,we've had a lot of communications with various business owners downtown in the,like, Geoff said the last couple of months,especially,I'd say in July, for sure,when the rates went up. Um, and we're really trying to work with them as much as we can.Um,they're-it's a communication back and forth.For us,we're trying to determine,um, a little bit more information about their business. You know,obviously,if they're-if they're open and working later in the evenings,there might be some other opportunities that work better for them in some of the different ramps. Um,we've been able to help quite a few with some permit requests that they've made. So I think that part of the conversation is,uh,is-is definitely something that's improved, and it may have been more of a communication,uh,issue on our end,that now we're getting the word out to them and- and just working with business owners. So I think that has improved a lot. Moe: As a business owner-is there a waiting list to get a parking pass as a business-if you're a downtown business owner,how what's the wait to get a parking pass? Rummel: So,like I said,we're kind of evaluating that on a case-by-case basis and- and really doing our best to get anyone,uh, a permit. Right now,there's no waiting list. So if someone contacts us, we're trying to get them a permit. Moe: That's great. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 27 Rummel: Yeah. Dunn: Geoff, if I could ask a question real quick.Um, could you kind of detail what the approval process for this change was in the first place?You know,what was noticed,how many readings we did of something,whether that's part of the budget itself because I-I understand the sentiment behind the comment that this was made in one meeting because ultimately we did make the decision in one meeting.But as far as I understand,I think that there was a lot more opportunities for public involvement regarding this, and I just wanna-I want to be corrected if that understanding is wrong or misguided. Fruin: Right, so the decision from the council to increase from the staff recommendation came in a work session,one of your Budget Work Sessions when this was initially discussed,probably in February, I would guess,maybe January,um, and staff received that direction to increase to $3 an hour in the core,the blue dots on the map there. Um, after that,you had to approve the budget, which would formalize,um,those-that intent, and then you would have had to change the ordinance. So there would have been three readings. So at three separate,um,public council meetings,you would have,uh,taken a vote to approve those rates. Salih: But did we like advertise somewhere or just like council meeting? Fruin: Just a just a council meeting. We didn't advertise. We certainly wasn't,um,I think we were very transparent about it with the Downtown District.Um,but we don't take special advertisements out when we have any type of ordinance like that. Salih: Okay. Dunn: Yeah. Salih: Anyone else? Dunn: Thank you. Teague: I wanted to just mention,um,that when-when I went downtown and it was for an event, some type of a festival. And right before the event,the staff had really emphasized parking at the parking ramp,um,on the other side of Burlington Street, and they gave information about the distance,the time that it would take to get from that parking ramp to kind of the Ped Mall area. And so I did that. And I was shocked. It was easy to get in. It was less cars, and the walkover was quite fast.And so when I'm thinking about all of the street parking, as well as the ramp parking, proximity and time,um, should also be factors. So if you're trying to find a park,you know,in the core of the downtown area, oftentimes,you're going to circle quite a bit to find a parking spot. Whereas if you go to,you know,one of the parking ramps that are right there downtown or even if you cross the Burlington Street,time in the parking-the time that it takes to park a car and walk the distance to,you know,whatever your favorite business that you're going to be going to that day, it may not,um,really be that big of a difference. And so,you know,the equity I hear,um,on some level,which we all would agree that,you know,the busing opportunity that it gives for individual with lower financial means to get on a bus and ride for free, it just- it,you know,it helps people get to their work and all the other things. So there are some good things about where these funds are going. Um,but when I think about how we let-got to the $3,you-you know the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 28 ramp it is,uh,you know,the first hour free,the second hour is$2.A part of my rationale was, what is the incentive to get people to go to the ramp in addition to education.But what would be that incentive? I mean, if you have $2 on the street,you have $2 in the ramp,the first hour is free, you're going to be down there two hours.You know,there's no difference in the fee. You're going to pay yes, $4 on the street,which is just$2 additional. So I think a part of my rationale was,we wanted to make sure that we were,you know,kind of redirected as many as possible to the ramp, um,because there are some additional benefits for that,um, as well as we cannot underestimate the educational opportunities that we as a city have,but also that we can share with the business owners,um,impress that upon them to share with their-with their patrons that you know,my business is this far from this parking ramp. It takes you this much time to get here, and it costs you this money. First hour free, second hour, $2. And so I do think that,um,you know, some educational opportunities and how we led to this$3. It was a-I think, an informative conversation, and we did our job. We told our staff,what we felt-we believed was right for our community. I do appreciate all the business owners that have come and expressed their concerns. I do hear you. It has not,um, gone without great conversations that have happened with some business owners and others within our community. The other thing,I would- I would encourage staff to continue to do while we're thinking about these,um, other incentive or opportunities,like for the nighttime pass for staff. And then I know that we got,uh,the USG gave us a recommendation for finals week,um,but are there other things? When I first came to Iowa City, you will walk around and get a stamp,you know,on this little card and your parking ticket,it would be reduced. I know that we're more electronic now,but are there opportunities within our, you know, systems for businesses to,um,you know,give a reduced rate to someone to park on the street? So I would just,um,maybe tuck it in the back of the mind for the staff. The trial period, I- I don't think that that would be right for our community,um,but I just wanted to chime in and again, say,thanks to everyone that limited their voices on this. I do hear you. I-I am comfortable with where we are on this opportunity for our community,um, and I'll just leave it at that for now. Harmsen: Thank you,Mr.Mayor. Good. When we decided on this,one of the things that was salient to me,um,this spring was the argument that,um,the goal, other goals of pushing people into the ramp,um,trying to increase bus ridership or greater use of other sorts of things were all listed from different council members as-as a- as a rationale. The one-to me that actually,uh,in terms of what we can accomplish and expect to accomplish with this was the idea that we wanted to increase those prices in order to have,uh,people move towards the ramp and leave the close by parking spots for businesses,rather than people staying for the full amount,um,that we would- that we would see greater turnover,that we would see people moving more often thereby ultimately increasing the flow of traffic into the businesses. To me,that was-that was the argument that we had heard,um,what have been thrown out there as-as,you know,as one of the impacts of this,um,that would ultimately have that impact of not just moving people to the ramps,which,you know,is great,but ultimately if they're driving, and they're driving to,you know,park along,uh,Clinton Street or park in the ramp, Old Capitol Mall ramp,that's the same in terms of,like,uh, environmental impact,right? So- so that's not really it. It's really about those spots and to me,about the turnover and- and into the businesses,really. Otherwise,you know, why else would we care about how long somebody parks there? I mean,that's sort of the-the gist of it.Um,what we're hearing or what we've heard since then is that rather than that-to me what I thought-for me,what was the desired effect is that it's not actually,you know, creating more business for the downtown business.Um,you know, I mean, so ultimately,that-that was when I agreed with it,that was the idea that it was going to,you know,also be helping with that economic sort of engine.Um,you know,obviously, an increase was necessary. The city staff This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 29 came to us with their original proposal,which they felt was going to get us to where we needed to get to fund the other things,which I-I agree with Councilor Dunn. We-we certainly don't want to sacrifice that,but I don't think if we-if we were to-to go back to either the original staff recommendations or something close to it. That doesn't sound like we'd be sacrificing that funding,uh,for the free transit. Um, and so I would-unlike-you know,I would be-honestly, didn't feel very strongly about the increase. I know that during the discussions,uh,um,uh,Mayor Pro Tem had raised some concerns too about people that yeah, if it's me,like, I hardly ever park on street. Like,for me,it's really easy to park on a ramp. Most businesses are within what two blocks of a ramp. The further you'd have to walk unless there's some big festival, and they're full, that doesn't happen a whole lot, other than the first couple of weeks of classes here. I think we'll see some of that a little bit until people sort of figure stuff out.But,um,you know, for,like, you've got a carload of kids. You need to get in and out. It actually is a bigger deal to unload,you know, and- and,you know, so what it does is it then changes the habits,which,getting back to Councilor Moes'point,a little bit slightly different angle, once you change customers'habits about where it's convenient,they might not be keeping track of you know, say we're to do the pilot route,um,they might be, six months later,well,they've changed it now,they've already found someplace that's convenient. They've gone in,they've found something they can get somewhere else. Um, and that's not going to come back quite so easily. And so for all of those reasons, I-I would be totally fine revisiting,bringing it back down either to the original recommendations or if,uh, council wasn't,you know,two and a quarter,maybe,but I'd be-but I'd be okay with the $2 as well.And I think now that we've gotten this feedback, and,you know,if it's not-if-if it's not working or not going to meet what I was hoping it was going to do,then I don't have any desire to keep doing something that's not accomplishing the goals that I was looking for.But that's-that's me sitting in my one- one of seven seats. Salih: Okay. Councilor Bergus. Bergus: Thank you,Mayor Pro Tem. I think I just want to kind of re-reiterate what I heard the Mayor say,um,which has been my lived experience as well when I did drive downtown.Um,you know, you would go around and around for much more time than you would to actually just go to a ramp and park in the ramp and walk to where you were going. And I think the incentive for businesses,we need to be thinking about the downtown as a whole. And I think a lot of people, when they can park on the street may just run into one place, get back in their car and leave. And we want people to experience the downtown and stick around,which is why we have the first hour,you know, free in the ramps.You might stay longer and I just,um,you know, I don't have super strong feelings about what exactly the amount should be,but I think for the incentive reasons, it really needs to be more than the hourly rate in the ramp. Ali, I thought the Mayor spoke to that well, and whe-wherever the council as a whole lands,I think it's very important that we have a tiered system so that those spots in the city center are the most expensive. And the other piece I would point to is what I heard,um,Mark say, as far as the data that we have so far is that we don't know much about turnover,or certainly we don't know much about who's patronizing businesses because it is summertime, and,you know,we've got a lot of construction happening downtown. So I think we would need more time to know that but also the-the revenue has increased 34%. So people may not like it,but they are paying it. And I think that's an important fact as well that to see that significant of,you know, an increase. I-I think if people were really scared off by the parking rates and it was going to be the decision between being downtown or not being downtown,we wouldn't have seen that increase. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 30 Salih: Okay, for me,I really-you know,I'm very glad that this item came back because in the beginning, I really was not supporting it but I kind of vote,yes,when everybody just decided,you know,to go with it. I did not even talk if I'm saying yes or not because it was a work session. Ali,but I really don't support this. The first thing,you know,we always depend on the staff. The staff will calculate everything because we don't know how to calculate this,The staff calculated. So $2 is really good for them to,like, subsidize any program that they have. So they did a calculation,not like in a one day,you know,meeting. They-I think they did this for a long time and they find out that$2 is really appropriate to do it, and that's why they bring it to us. So I was shocked by the $3 suddenly from 2-3. That's $1,which has become more expensive than parking in Washington,DC in front of, ah,the passport agency where-when they park in front of it. So this is really too much and- and talking about respectfully Councilor Dunn about the pilot programs, and also,I don't know somebody else like the Mayor mentioned for the USG. I think if you want to do it to USG student,then do it around the-maybe the library for low income people who come to drop us a book. We-if we're going to start doing it for like a group of people,as a group of people will come here and say,hey,this is our reasoning for,you know,we come this area too much, and the parking is really expensive. So I don't want to see that.I want to see like lowing the parking for everyone. And I don't think we'll make benefit out of the residents, or we-we are not making profit from our residents,because if the staff set$2 is enough,I think that's enough. We-we need the money that to cover only the expense of the city needs,not making profit and put it away. So, I think if the staff say $2,I will go with that, I will really and it is appropriate to go back. The resident would be happy when we make bad decisions,and we bring it back. That doesn't make us look bad,or look,we don't know what we're doing,we rush this through and resident-the resident and we cheer us and say,hey,you're doing great. You bring in this back. And I think if we talk about also business owner, sometimes business owner,yes,I'm with you. They need if they're staying there for a long time back on the ramp.But sometimes,like in and out,kind of, like,bringing something to review business,they want to go back and bring something else and I think that's why they use,like,the park in front of them. And mostly,if they need to stay,they can stay on the park ramp too. So I will be really open to go back to the $2 and I think that would be a great-the right decision to do. Alter: One other thing, if I may, is if-if I remember,um,when we were at$1,the blue core, you could incrementalize for, like,a half an hour or what have you,right? Harmsen: Yeah. Alter: I don't believe that we have that capability now. It is a flat$3.And then if you use the app, it's 340 for the length of that. Am I- am I misremembering that? Salih: Maybe Mark can tell us. Alter: I was going to say if that's the case, then we are actually making more money. Rummel: Um, I may have to check on that and get back to you. I can tell you when we went to credit cards at the meters. This was back in 2013 when we changed the rates back then was when we- we-because of all the fees associated with that,we had a one hour minimum on that credit card. Um, so I believe the credit cards are still that way. If you're paying at the meter,it should give you credit per whatever coin you put in there. Harmsen: You can put coins in to get small quantities. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 31 Atler: Or you can do that. Rummel: The credit card is a one hour minimum. Alter: Okay turn along. Rummel: We've just got a lot of fees and there's a lot of extra cost for that credit card pie. Alter: Sure. Harmsen: To be fair. It's a lot of coins. Salih: I see Councilor Dunn you're raising your hand'? You have any [inaudible]. Dunn: Yeah. Yeah.No,I-I just want to express you know, a couple of things. Um,the first thing is again, I really want to emphasize the importance of us using a data driven approach to this.Um,there's been a number of comments about,um,you know,this not having the intended effect,um you know,with relation to a comment by Councilor Harmsen. Ali,I don't think a two month data collection period with no data to present will allow us to gauge whether or not,you know,the-the intended effect is actually occurring. Um,you know, additionally, I think that we need to understand that again, our- our dollars and cents are finite resources with finite sources.Ali,if we are taking away, ah,our opportunity to raise funds for public transit and other ah,parking repairs from a situation like this,well,let's say,what-what is that tax?If we're going to look at this as a tax or a charge for service,but let's just call it a tax,even though it's not technically.Um,that's a tax on the people who are able to afford cars,who are able to afford parking generally,who are able to afford vehicle maintenance,right?Ali, if we are shifting that cost, as I understand,is proposed to a utility tax,that's tax on necessary and vital services, like gas that's heating people's homes in the winter. Um,I think the difference between our funding streams here is-is very important to consider. Um, and I think the fact that, as Councilor Bergus mentioned,the funds- the fund raised has gone up comparatively, and we haven't seen a significant. I wouldn't consider 1%during the month of July, a significant decrease in usage. We have not seen any data to suggest that traffic downtown has,eh,you know,declined in any meaningful metric,especially considering so many of the students already use public transportation,or are already located downtown for their classes.Ali,they are the main economic driver of our community full stop. Can't-we can't ignore that,right?Um,they're not going to go anywhere any time soon. If we are not considering those facts,the facts that we lack data,the facts that we are going to shift,ah, a tax, from one group of people that have significantly more resources than another group of people who may not have as many resources and have to purchase a service as a part of their lives, I-I don't think we can ignore that. And I don't think that we should ignore the fact that the increased, like cost of parking was going to go towards a lot of the things that we just had a conversation about, do we want areas of refuge for our bus stops? Do we want to expand services?These are the questions that we have to be thinking about?And are we going to fund that off of a required regressive tax, a literal tax,in this sense,towards our- our utilities,or are we going to do that off of something that we've already implemented regulatorily wise?And that we have no data to present that it has otherwise affected our business owners that has otherwise affected business or traffic in downtown. I think that that is unwise,ah, at this point, and I will be very disappointed if that's the direction that we go at this time. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 32 Harmsen: I just want to push back. We do have data,we have-we have qualitative data. We are hearing from those business owners.Now, I absolutely agree that with the whole idea that we need to make data driven decisions, and it would be great to have more numbers. I 100%agree with that. But to my earlier point,this isn't just a neutral impact experiment in the process of gathering this data,we could end up changing the habits of potential customers,hurting our downtown businesses in ways that aren't intended.Backing up to sort of that general thing,we are starting to hear already from the people who are talking to the customers every day who are giving us that feedback,um,you know,that we're getting that. So that is also data.Now,I agree, it would be great to have a year's worth of data. Um, and I think if we knew that they would have a neutral impact, I would agree with you 100%,but I'm not convinced that it would have a neutral impact. Um and I'm also-we also, again,the questions about um,utility tax,that hasn't been brought for us that's next year's budget. If we get into the discussions for next year's budget and say,well, now we have a choice between A and B options,then we should absolutely do that at that point of the conversation.But by that point in the conversation,would we have changed people's habits to coming to our downtown,um,unnecessarily. Like I said, I think when we get through that and we get to that point in our discussion of funding past this year, looking at those budget options,I 100%agree with you,Councilor Dunn. We should totally have that-have that discussion.But again, I- I don't think that's something we have to parse out or make a part of this at this point. I think that's cart- cart head of the horse a little bit. Alter: I would also just mention-just mentioned that in terms of us talking about going back,it's still ra-a raised rate from what it was before July. It's still$1 more. Harmsen: It's a doubling. Alter: So I-I do think-yeah it's doubling. And we could. I mean, as I said before, I don't think we're going to wait nine years to raise rates. I think it is safe to assume that this will become part and parcel of how we do this. I think incrementalizing it and saying,let's go at staff recommendation then allows us to then let the public know in advance so that this is going to be a more regular way in which we do this,but I also agree that people can unlearn habits very quickly and form them by, you know, I- I think it would be very hard to miring that bell. Salih: Yeah. I'm just listening to like,I receive a lot of feedback from the public,even-even the people who go and just grab a cup of coffee from the downtown very quick and they find a spot and they just went in. The-that will increase the price of the coffee. Paying$3 for just a few minutes to go inside and come back and you get charge that amount, and you buy the coffee. Why should I go and buy it from downtown? I just go somewhere else. So I think this is really have affect-effect on the business downtown. Moe: So I'm just going to cut to the chase here. I'm kind of keeping my little scorecard to sort of see where everybody lines up, and I hear sort of two people who say, let's keep it at three,two people are like, let's go to two, and three people who are maybe a little bit less somewhere between 225, 250. If you want me to name people like I'm misunderstanding. [OVERLAPPING] I-I believe that-that I had done say $3. I heard you and you too say $2 and I'm in sort. Sahli: What are you saying? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 33 Moe: I'm- I think that we should 225,was a random number that Councilor Harmsen in through out.And that's kind of where mine is, is 225,250. We react to the public who says this is too much,but we also signal something that it is a premium spot, go to the garage so. Salih: I think let us look at it right now. We have four councils saying that we want it to go back. Okay, whether it's $2 or 225. I guess that's you. Moe: Go back,I guess,yeah. I-I'm in the. Sallih: Go back. Harmsen: Yeah I'm in the $2 and if everybody wanted 225, I would be. Salih: I'm in the $2. Alter: I mean,I prefer staff recommendations because they had put it in. [ [OVERLAPPING]. Salih: It's real do you want to join us? Moe: No,I'm not a three person so I'm a 250 person, so or 225 person,but I also. Salih: [inaudible] because it is [inaudible]. Harmsen: We have this come back to us. This is a work session, so we're not voting on it tonight. Salih: Yeah, I know.But we just given them direction so they can know where we add. I know that Geoff always want to hear what was the council at will make his job easy. Fruin: Yeah, so we're getting pretty close with the evening permit, and it's the same code section that the rates would be in. So ideally,we'd like at your next meeting to bring both the evening permit and any change should the majority of the council want to see a rate change. Salih: Okay,then,it sees we have enough discussion now,you know where we are at, and we can-we can you can bring it next time,right? Fruin: Um,I'm not quite sure if-if the majority is at two or some number between 2-3. That's-that's what I just like the majority. [OVERLAPPING] Teague: I might recommend that we go to recess and pick this conversation back up. After the formal meeting minutes. Salih: Yeah,it is only five minutes let us yeah go to recess, and we will come back after the meeting. That works. [break for council meeting] Salih: We are back to our Work Session. We're an item downtown parking. Okay,we're going to continue the discussion. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 34 Moe: We have our friends online, all of them? Salih: Yes,we have everyone. Dunn: I'm here. Harmsen: Um,just kind of putting us back. I think where we left off was we were sort of seeing if there was enough feeling among enough members of council to give staff a direction for when they come back to us,combining this with the-. Moe: The nighttime pass. Harmsen: The nighttime pass stuff, yes. Thank you. Is that-there everybody else remembers where we left off? Moe: Yes,correct. Salih: And we was trying to see who is supporting into the law 2.25. I think- I guess guess hearing from the woman who was talking here early, and she wasn't even know that we were talking about the parking. So that's really moved me. And she talked about,like,paying for people. I really encourage the council to do whoever support to go back to do it$2.Because this is reasonable. Maybe we wait next year or year after that and we can revisit it again for 50-25 cent.But I really encourage you after we just hear this woman talking about the parking. Teague: One of the things that-that,um came to my mind when I heard her talking about the parking, and one I want to say,thanks to her for doing that kind-for doing that kind deed for individuals.And it goes back to something I mentioned earlier. Are there other programs,um that we could think about that the business owners would be amenable to. One of the reasons we have 1 hour parking on the street is to kind of have people moving around,not staying downtown.And the limit is 1 hour. They have to leave in theory after 1 hour.And so,you know,Mayor Pro Tern,I heard you talk about,you know,the person that wants to stop and get a coffee, certainly, I do understand that I wonder if there are opportunities for a reimbursement type of program um that,you know, essentially does like that parking stamp that was back in the day, and that was an initiative to get people to come downtown to,you know,patronize the businesses. So I don't know what opportunities out there are out there, if it's something that can be used with the street parking meters or if there is,um a less labor intensive way for the business owners to kind of reimburse people when they show that they're parked on the street, and then there's a reimbursement on the back end from the city. I do know,when I say that, I hear administrative burden,but potentially there could be a win win opportunity because when we are talking about the utility tax,that is a tax that will be,you know,maybe in the minds of some as regressive. And certainly,we know that it will be paid by some individuals that,you know,really,you know,could use the money stay in their pocket. So I think before I,you know, I would just ask us to consider,maybe throwing this back to staff and to the Downtown District to navigate with some of the business owners,what other opportunities are there.But that people are thinking that we're beyond that point,I do understand that. I did hear about accessibility. You know, do we have enough accessible parking on the street?You know,maybe you know, and- and you know,we had a lot of conversations surrounding data. I think data is necessary. We're becoming more and more of a data driven city. And if we're finding that the accessible parking is always occupied,then we should probably consider having more spaces for those that have accessible needs downtown. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 35 Dunn: I would echo the-the comments of the Mayor. I think,um I'd like to see more comments or more communication between the Downtown District,business owners,our City Staff,as well as individuals to see what other do to mitigate this. I think at this point, I've made my feelings overall,very clear.Um,I'm-I'm not interested in,um you know,going below$3,but if the will of the Council is to reduce, I would support$2.25. Moe: Um I'm supportive of$2.25. Salih: I support$2. Alter: I could be supportive. I'm mindful of something that you mentioned,where if nobody's happy,then we've been successful. Moe: A compromise.No one's happy. Alter: I can support. I mean,I-I was the one leading the charge for$2 along with Mayor Pro Tem,um because that is staff recommendation.However,you know, I understand the other points as well, I would be willing to say, split the difference and go at$2.25.Um,then that way,if we needed to look at a rate increase, it would be again,at,like, essentially,it could be 75 cent increments. So that's cart before the horse,but I feel like that does,um help assuage some of what the Downtown District has been,um experiencing.And,um at the same time,I-I believe that our city is going to be very well served by being data driven.But I do wanna,um keep in mind,as Councilor Harmsen said, qualitative data is data also. And we are a city made up of people. And so at a certain point,numbers aren't going to be convincing. So I think that we need to take these things in hand and sort of look at how do we merge and mesh those two things.Um and so I think that this is a way to recognize that,yes,we want to build revenue through our enterprise fund. So that it goes back. And again,by going back, as we've been talking about,this is still an increase from what it was before July. So I would be willing to support$2.25. Salih: I think we have a direction. Harmsen: Yeah. Moe: Yeah. Harmsen: So I could support either$2 or$2.25. Salih: Yeah. Teague: Yeah. And I guess,just for the record, I can certainly support$2.25. I do think,um if we say we moved too fast on this before in a work session right now,we're also,you know,given staff direction,which is our role, and I'm comfortable with the $2.25.But I would also say,um you know,we don't know what that 25 cent means. If we're talking about the utility tax,you know, maybe staff will just take that into account.And then we may be looking at this again. Um,you know,when we are debating about, should we have the utility tax or not,then we're going to be going to,you know, another quarter. So I think if we're going to deal with this,we may want to, as I would say,begin with the end in mind at this juncture, and just pause for a minute.And allow staff to go and have some conversations.But again,look at what does that 25 cent mean in This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 36 relationship to the entire budget for that we were hoping for the free fare, essentially. So I'll leave it at that for now. Salih: Yeah. And if the 25 cent is not like a lot of money we make it 2$, so it's not going to make different. Anyway,you have clear direction,Geoff right? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 37 6.Tobacco Moratorium Discussion [continued from August 6] Salih: Okay. We're going to move back to number 6, Tobacco Moratorium Discussion, and Eric will sit and Eric will sit out lead us on that. Goers: Thank you,members. Can you still hear me okay? Salih: Yes. Harmsen: Yes. Goers: Excellent. So hopefully,you've all received a memo that I drafted from August 15,in which per your request,the City Clerk and I laid out the questions we would have for Council in order to move forward with bringing you modified ordinance amendments. To be clear,you have from the last packet,that is information packet for your August 6,meeting three draft ordinances. Please consider them draft ordinances. They are subject to change depending on the input you provide this evening. And so I'm interested in your thoughts. I will also add that Susan Vileta is present. You may recall she's our Johnson County Public Health Educator. I am uncertain whether Becky Connelly who is a prevention specialist with Community and Family Resources is present,as she was here earlier in the evening,but I'm not sure she's rejoined. Grace: No,not at the moment, and she's not. Salih: She's not yet. Goers: Okay. Maybe she'll be able to join us?Maybe not. I guess we'll see. Um, she was probably here for more comments on the Kratom discussion,which I have last in my memo in any event. So maybe she'll be able to join us,by the time we get there. So if it's okay with you,I'll go through in the order in which I listed them in my memo,which starts with the permit cap.As I mentioned, we presently have 62 issued permits within City Corporate limits. Would you like to see the cap somewhere below 62 and then allow for grandfathering and attrition?Would you like to keep it at 62 or would you like to move it someplace above 62?And before you begin, I can't remember. Kellie, do we have or do we have the ability to put up on the screen so that they can kind of follow or at least the members of the public can kind of follow along? Salih: That would be good. Harmsen: Before we-I think before we, for me anyway, and certainly,if other council members do not agree,before we get into parsing out,uh all of these different,very good, and thank you,by the way, for coming up with these questions, it's really for me it was really illuminating to understanding what it would take to make this happen.But as we take a look specifically about the tobacco stuff,as I understand it,we have two different things really really approaches,we could do one other or both. One is the permit cap, and the other is the zoning. I know as I sit here, and as I've kind of looked at this sort of at the higher level view,um you know,before we spend a lot of time debating all these details on the permit cap,you know, I'm just going to throw out there and maybe if the majority of the council agrees with me, I'm not sure the permit cap is going to have the bang for the buck that the zoning would.And so for me, as I went through all of this material and reflected upon it,whereas much as I would love-try to think about what's the stated goal, and for how much,you know,we really get there. I think to me,the zoning is more This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 38 elegant and keeps,you know,the setbacks away from schools is going to be a much more effective in terms of cost benefit,um to everything it would take to make the permit cap. So if the majority of the council thinks we need to parse through the permit cap stuff, I'm happy to do that, but I also don't want to spend an hour and a half doing that and then realize that four of us really as into that as we are with the zoning.Again,if I thought that the permit cap would do all the things that,like, originally, I thought that was the way to go and would accomplish the things. I just,you know,on the record, I you know,have I'm not a tob- something I use,not something I support. I've watched people close to me die of smoking related cancers, and so from that perspective, I'm not supportive of in general the sale,but also in terms of what it would take to whether this would actually how much of this would move the needle,how much effort it would be to get a very small payoff. I'm just not seeing that as-I'm not as convinced anymore that that's going to be the most effective way forward. The zoning,the setbacks. I find that I currently think that's more effective. So I'll throw that out there.And see kind of where everybody's sort of maybe falling on that. And then if there's enough of us that want to pursue the cap,we should totally dig into that. Moe: I-I-I appreciate also this list of questions. I think,you know,the devils in the details comes to mind when we start looking through,how would we actually execute the caps and what kinds of indirect or unintended consequences we might get really got me concerned. Concerned that we A wouldn't affect the change we want to change,but then also there's a real possibility that if we get too aggressive,we might have people in Des Moines who don't want us to do this. Um, and this is something that I don't know. The permit cap to me seems like the thing that is um-is least valuable, I think,when I and I would say there's three things,not just two. There's zoning separation from other retailers,zoning separation from vulnerable populations, and then permit cap. So yeah, it's kind of like part A,part 2A, and 2B.Um, I am-I feel like also the zoning mechanism is-is uh probably going to give us the most bang for our buck. I also think that we've had a lot of conversations about this and I want to act, and I'm hungry to act, and I feel like that's the one that we can just send it to P&Z, say,make these-make these things and do it now. Some of these permit cap things,I feel like we're gonna drag it down even longer. Dunn: I share that sentiment personally,especially about the unintended consequences. I don't know how to understand,truly,you know,what the consequences or long term potential consequences, I should say, of the permit cap would be at this time. So I think it's something that interests me. I'm interested in learning more and trying to understand in other places, and maybe that's something that we pursue in the future. Should council decide that.But,um at this time, I-I agree with both Councilors Moe and Harmsen. Alter: I think that,um, zoning,what I appreciate is that we had time to sue with this. I want to act. I want to see what's going to be most expedient and most effective. Um, and the more I sat with all of the options,you know,I was very mindful of some of the things that came up about,um, possibly,you know,people holding onto licenses that we could possibly be driving up demand. What do we do if a new, say, a supermarket or a gas station wants to come in on the west side or on the far east side,or on the north side? Is there an exception made,or do we say no?And they say,wow,that's not going to be helpful for us by I80,right? So there-I'm very,um,very much in agreement about we don't necessarily know what the implications of these are.Um, and I think that we can make this-it can-zoning can do what we need it to do,right?Um, I just-and I also think we've talked about it a little bit some councilors and I,I mean,ultimately,I think that capping this, and I realize this is to say,yes. Let's-I'm in favor of zoning but I-one of the consequences too, is,again,there's,um,not just optics,but actually,what kind of regulation are This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 39 we doing,um, and that this is,we all know, smoking kills, smoking is dangerous. It is something that,uh,is addictive.And yet,is it on us to regulate that to the extent,um,that it becomes potentially an equity issue, class,location,age? It appears much more like a value judgment from the City rather than a health concern. And I realize that may not come out very subtly,but,um, I do think it-that's something that we need to think of too. So at any rate,I'm in favor of zoning to do the work for us. Goers: Okay. Well, I've heard four Council members,if I'm understanding correctly,you've indicated they are not interested in moving forward with the permit cap. I'm I understanding that correctly? Alter: Yes. Moe: Yes. Goers: Okay. All right. Well,then let's skip those questions and move on to the zoning,uh, questions. Those are quite a bit smaller in number. Um,does Council wish to have separation distance both between applicants,uh, and other retailers and,uh,with school property? This is kind of the 2A and 2B to which Councilor Moe referred earlier. Moe: Uh, and I'll just elaborate on what I said. I have this feeling that our stated goal should be keeping people from starting smoking, specifically young people, specifically people who are underage, and we know that there has been an increase of tobacco retailers and vape shops,very close to where we have large numbers of young people. Like it's very clear they're targeting that population. So separation from schools,including the University of Iowa,which has a large number of underage students is to me the best bang for our buck and the cleanest to execute. We can just draw lines around university and schools and say,not here. Um, I think that I'm less,uh, supportive,um,but I'd like to hear fellow Councilors'comments about separation from one another. I think the separation from one another is,you know,it's-it's legal. We're doing it with alcohol permits,but it does create an indirect consequence of creating sort of long-term tobacco or excuse me,long-term alcohol locations. Like you get that spot and you sort of stake your claim, and you never give that up.And I feel like the separation from one another,um, sort of encourages that. So separating from schools,vulnerable populations is the thing that I'm very much interested in doing, and will certainly support the,uh, second one. I'm curious if everyone has similar feelings. Goers: If I can interject quickly,uh,Ms. Grace has been kind enough to load up the map. I suspect that that's why she's at the podium although,I can't see,uh,what's being presented. If Council is going to consider,uh,just going with the 500-foot separation distance from school property,uh,Ms. Grace will be able to show you that-what that looks like just for your consideration. Harmsen: I know the one thing as we talk about the two, and I,uh,I'm in complete agreement with the educational facilities,the schools, and so on. Um,that I-to me,that's-tha-that's pretty clear.Ali, the one thing I wonder about the separation from each other, and obviously,um,you know,uh, is-is to avoid now that we've got-we want to make su-do we want to have the potential for clustering,um,of anything like in particular area?And that nesse-would that possibly affect,you know, I mean,just what-that might mean,what that-which areas might be-be more susceptible to that. I mean,we look at the map,we see,you know,the-the major highways,Highway 6,um, you know, going out to,um,you know,you can count where all those little green dots are because those are the gas stations,right?And I get that and whatever,um,but there's also-yeah, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 40 so that just-that's the one thing I- I don't have like a,uh, I'm not as firm on that as I- I'm about the educational things,but I just wonder if anybody else had thoughts about whether or not it's worth pursuing the setbacks from each other because of,you know, as let's say, a new place develops,as somebody mentioned,do we want a cluster to develop?And,you know, anyway, anybody else had thoughts on that? Dunn: I think I go-I've gone back and forth on this one. I've really appreciated my-my conversations on this issue with Councilor Moe.Um,it's-it's certainly changed my perspective and- and the ways that I think about this. But,um,you know,I really think that for me,I could go either way, either with,um,the setbacks from the individual businesses,um, and-but absolutely, of course, inclusive of the,ah,the educational institutions.Um,yeah,that's,yeah no question.Um,but I could go with or without it,to be honest. I'd support it if we did it,but,you know,it's-it's a tough-it's a tough issue to grapple with. Bergus: I'd be in favor of keeping,um,both the distance from educational institutions as well as distances from each other,um,because of that clustering potential that Councilor Harmsen mentioned. I think,you know, some of why we were looking at this was the proliferation of the vape shops in- in certain areas,right? Like very close together downtown, for example. And I-I think it could be encouraging,um,yeah,clustering that we would otherwise want to avoid that just happens to be still 500 feet from a school. Alter: And actually, and I hadn't- I haven't really teased through my ideas,but I'm thinking,um,I'm tending to think that actually keeping both makes sense because of the clustering, and I'm mindful of actually in the South District.Um,there's a proliferation or plans too. There's one in Iowa City Marketplace. Um,there's been another one that cropped up right across the street from Casey's, which is only a block away from,um,I can't remember what the name of it is,but anyway,but I'm also reminded of kind of days past where the same thing happened with alcohol stores.Um, there was at one point,there was,like, five liquor stores within a three-block radius in the South District. So for that reason, it's like,it does happen if and retail space is cheaper out there, and they will-if you build it,they will buy. So,um,yeah, I'm- I think I'm more in favor of-of keeping the- Harmsen: Both. Alter: Yeah. Teague: So I can,uh, certainly support the distance from the educational, and thank you,Councilor Harmsen, for kind of leading us down this,um,narrowing discussion-narrowing the discussion down,um,because I do think zoning is probably the better path,uh,because looking at the permits,um, I think would have some unintended consequences,um,although,um,as Councilor Dunn,you know,mentioned that,I mean,it would take a lot of work to fully understand,you know,what the effects would be. The only thing that I would say is when we're talking about separation between businesses,again,we have that little element of,you know,business coming to monopolize,um,within a community. And so I just haven't thought through that well enough to make a comment at this moment,um,because if you only have one,you know,close to the neighborhood and,you know,depending on the distance and the reality of other- another place where it would make sense for a business to open,um,you know, it could be a mile down the road. Uh, so I just haven't thought through that one,um,to make it,you know,to comment on This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 41 that right now,but I just wanted to mention,um,that I'm supportive of the distance from the school zone. Salih: I agree too. Okay.Any another discussion on this item? Goers: So let me make sure I understand. So what I'm hearing is a- a consensus of counselors who would like to lose the distance separation between,um,retailers,but would like to preserve the 500-foot separation with schools and university property or did I misunderstand? Salih: I think- Dunn: I'm not sure I'm certain to be honest. I'm not certain that we are. Moe: I have my scorecard here, and I'm kind of confused,too. Salih: The school separation- Moe: [OVERLAPPING] Is everybody's on board on school separation. Grace: Just so everyone knows the map that I have up is without the 500-foot buffer between retailers. This is only the school buffer. Harmesn: Could you pull the-please? Thank you. Dunn: For the-for the sake of my support,you can put me in the line of supporting with the separation between retailers. Harmsen: It doesn't look like we have-we have a few that overlap now currently,um,but a lot of them are close to that 500 like they're not. I don't know. Salih: Is it 500, [inaudible]. Harmsen: It-mostly where we have the clusters,it looks like gas stations,probably,right?The greens? Fruin: Not necessarily. Moe: [OVERLAPPING]Not necessarily,that's true. Harmsen: That's true. Fruin: And again,our buffer around the University property is not perfect,um,at this point, so I'd rely more on the orange shading than the-that's the brown lines on it. Harmsen: Because sites will be grandfathered in, and we're really talking about new sites. For that reason, I'd still be okay keeping the, ah,buffer between-also the buffer between the-the,uh,locations. Um,but again, I could be persuaded elsewise perhaps, if there was a good argument. Goers: Well, at this point, I think I've heard a majority of you folks say you would like to have both 500- foot buffers. Does that seem right? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 42 Salih: Yes. Goers: Okay. Salih:No,I'm saying yes for myself. Harmsen: Yes-yes for Harmsen. Dunn: Yes. Goers: Okay. Alter: Yes. Goers: Ali,then we'll move on to the next,uh,question,which is,uh,does the remainder of the ordinance that I drafted for your consideration,including the 60-day grandfather rights retention period meet with your approval? Alter: Yes,it does for me. Salih: Yeah, for me too. Harmsen: Yeah. And that parallels sort of how we do it already with the alcohol permits, is that correct? Goers: Well,it differs a little bit. It's a year for alcohol. [OVERLAPPING] But otherwise,the principle is applied in so far as how it works. It's just the time is different. Harmsen: Yeah, I should have been clear. That's what I meant,but yes,thank you for clarifying. Salih: Yes. Goers: Ali,okay.No other questions or discussion about,uh,the zoning law? Dunn: Yeah. Teague: I-I- can you clarify again the time frame? Goers: The what?I'm sorry. Teague: The time frame of when someone would lose their license if they-if they close. Goers: Well,yes. So again, as a reminder,unlike alcohol licenses,every tobacco permit runs or I should say, expires on June 30th and needs to be,uh,renewed,uh,well,before July 1st in order to continue with sales.Um, so I've used in this draft ordinance 60 days in two different ways. One, um,is that once you stop using,um,it or, ah,that let me see if I can pull up the right section. I guess this would be the seventh section of the ordinance for non-conforming,ah,tobacco sales uses. I think that's what you're referring to,Mayor.Um, and I'll just read that language, ah, briefly. Um, any tobacco sales-oriented uses as defined in this title that was legally established This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 43 prior to the effective date hereof, and that is non-conforming with regard to separation distances required under this title may continue unless any of the following conditions occur. If any of these conditions occur,the non-conforming rights cease, and the use must convert to a conforming use.First is the tobacco permit is revoked.And by that,I mean,they've sold to minors too many times, and so,uh,their,uh,permit is revoked for that reason. The second is the tobacco permit lapses or is discontinued for a period of 60 days or more. The third is tobacco sales-oriented use ceases for a period of 60 days or more. That is,even if they maintain their permit if they don't sell tobacco for at least 60 days,then they will lose their permit. Uh, for example,there is one,um, defunct Kum& Go location at Mormon Truck and Benton that has maintained their tobacco permit but has been closed for months. If they were to go 60 days, and I'm sure they already-well,I'm confident they already have,they would lose their ability, ah,to be a non-conforming location there. I would have to check to see whether they are,in fact, a non- conforming location,but I think so because I think they're close enough to both Hartig drug and Fareway over there. That's just one example. Finally,there has been a change of use as defined in another code section. That is,instead of becoming a tobacco use,they open up as a clothing store. Okay. Well, 60 days don't need to pass.As soon as they open as a clothing store,their use has changed and they would lose grandfathering rights immediately. Harmsen: Makes sense. Moe: A quick question,um, about how you envision drafting this again,part 2A,part 2B ordinance, would they be two stand-alone ordinances so that if one piece of it wasn't working,it would be easy to severable, I guess,or if it was challenged? Goers: Well,um,right now, I'm just reviewing it quickly, ah,it is both con-they are both contained in, uh,Part 6 of this amendment,I believe.Um,let me just confirm that that's correct. Yes. I believe so. They're both in the same ordinance. That's not-I'm sorry,the same code section. Um they could certainly change if your question is,would it be severable in the event that one is challenged and one is not, for example. I guess I don't see why the whole thing would be stricken although that's hard to predict. Moe: Yeah. Well, do your best to make it work. Teague: One-one-one thing I would say,as far as,like that 60 day,it would be better if we did have separate resolutions,only because I-I am having a little trouble with that 60 day. I really do believe that if it was maybe a year, I can support it.Again,we have small business owners that, ah-you know,may go through a mental health challenge, and they-you know,they have a lapse in a permit or um maybe their staffing is totally out of control, and they're trying to you know pull them in,which maybe I'm not going to go so far um and- and- and give support for someone that's selling to a minor.Now,that you know,it should be a no,no.But someone to lose that element of their business um because of whatever their situation is,that doesn't sit well with me. What we're talking about um if a person ceases to use their permit for 60 days or more I-Mormon Trek and um Highway one or six,where that McDonald's is being renovated. Well,that McDonald's, let's say that they were selling,you know,tobacco products,which they're not. Well, they're probably right at 45,maybe a little closer to 60 days of not being in operation.You know, construction remodel. We know that things take longer. I personally have had,you know, buildings where,you know,what might have had someone else,you know,renovate a building in a year, I mean,like,you know,three months. It took me a year. So in other people are like,you This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 44 know,like that,the money is not there. They don't have the resources, and so this-this to me that 60 day,I have issues with that. If it was a one year, 365 days,I could support it. Harmsen: Out of curiosity,now,because people currently have to renew tobacco licenses in order to sell tobacco. What is the and they're all still on the same cycle, is that correct? Grace: Yes, correct? Harmsen: When do they have to renew? Grace: So we initially send out,like, a first renewal notice on April 1st. And then we send out a reminder notice on May 1 st. And then we email mid to end of May if we haven't gotten their paperwork, and the deadline is May 30th. Harmsen: Okay. And then- and then that new license currently goes into effect June Ist,right? Grace: July 1st. Harmsen: July 1st. Grace: So we do that ahead of time so that we can hit the June meetings for a council approval. Harmsen: Sure,of course that makes sense. I remember you saying that now. Grace: Yeah. Harmsen: What happens to-currently to tobacc-tobacco people who-vendors who fail to get through that process? Can they sell tobacco on July 2nd? Grace: No. Harmsen: So I mean,it automatic-it is already an immediate-they're breaking city ordinance. I mean, that's what our current standard is. Grace: It's a state permit, so. Harmsen: But- and they-if they were to be selling tobacco on July 1 st or second,they would be in violation of the law. Grace: Correct. Harmsen: So I mean, so- so there's already sort of that like, immediate consequence.Now, does-how often does it happen where somebody does miss all of that?And then we have to come back?I just don't remember if we've done that,like in July. Like does it- Grace: We've had stragglers. Harmsen: Have we? Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 45 Grace: They typically go on a July meeting. Harmsen: I guess what I'm getting at.Again,I'm-very very well taken comments from Mayor Teagues, especially on the-the remodeling scenario,which, again,that-that probably would be unfair if, you know,they never remodel,they thought they'd be done in a month, and it's now three months later,where we all know here at the city what it's like when projects don't finish as fast as we would like,um so I'd hate to throw rocks from that glass house.But at the same time, I'm just wondering,too,like,how much of an issue is that because there's already a process. I mean, if- yeah. So I'm just- I'm just curious, like,what is our current situation. Grace: Sure. Harmsen: And so do we have very often?You said a few stragglers,but they're usually they straggle, but then they're here within-within a month or within 60 days. Grace: Right. Well,I mean,typically,we have that one July meeting, and I mean,they-most of them will make it for that meeting. I don't know-recall that we've ever had anybody have to wait till August. Harmsen: Okay. Grace: Again,because they can't. Goers: If I'm-. Grace: Sell starting July 1, so that typically gets them in here. Harmsen: You would think,yeah. Goers: I can just interject. So again,there are two different ways that 60 day period comes up. One is the tobacco permit lapses or it's discontinued for a period of 60 days, or the second one, and I think this is what you're talking about with the remodeling. The tobacco sales oriented use ceases for a period of 60 days or more. So you can change one or none or both of those. So if,for example, you were focused on the rehabilitation and remodeling and so forth,you could change the tobacco sales oriented use ceases to 180 days, 360 days or something. Or I could write in an exception for remodeling if that's what you wanted to do.Uh,you could change that without having to address, you know,your permit lapses for 60 days.You can treat them differently if you wish. Harmsen: Because it seems like a permit lapse would already have pretty immediate consequences. Like, you couldn't be operating your business for two months if your permit lapses. Goers: Right. That would be a violation of state law. Harmsen: So I mean,you're going to be yeah,that's probably going to-you're probably going to feel that much quicker. It's not going to catch anybody by surprise. Goers: Shouldn't. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 46 Harmsen: Should-yeah. I mean,that's,you know,when yeah. So I don't- I don't know if that addresses Mayor Teagues uh thoughts and all. Teague: Yeah. I appreciate the clarification. What I would- if we could treat,you know,the cease-if you stop using the tobacco or cease selling tobacco products, I give that.You know, special consideration with a different time frame,whether that is,you know, six months and you know, with an extension or just go 365 because there could be various reasons,you know, someone selling their business. We already talked about we didn't want to have someone lose the ability to sell their business,you know,to someone. So,there could be various reasons why that cease could happen. So I guess I would propose we do 365 for the cease of selling tobacco.And remember,these are all grandfathered in and,these are not. Well,I guess it would be a new person after they come on board.But maybe we treat that one with a little different definition. When it comes down to the lapse,you're exactly right,Councilor Harmsen, and,you know,they can't sell because they don't have a license anyway. And so if I'm hearing from Kellie,you know, it's,you know,the next month. I don't know if we've ever had a situation where,you know, someone wasn't aware. But maybe if we went to-maybe the 60 days is okay there as well.Um, I'm-I'm-I'm used to 90 days in-in the world that I live in,they give you at least three months to figure,you know,to be-to become aware and get things correct. So I don't know. So,I won't push that too much if people are more amenable to have conversation surrounding just the ceasing of the sell just to extend that time. Will people be amenable to six months? Harmsen: I think I would be amenable maybe up to six months,uh for me personally. I mean,I think that's not out of the realm of possibility. I'd probably be okay with half that amount of time,but if the majority of the council felt six months was more fair, I could go along with that for a change use. Three months?Is what you're thinking? Moe: Sure. I don't have a strong feeling on what the difference. I-I-I think that we're-the details are great we're talking about them. I think big picture, like. Harmsen: Yeah. To make sure we're-I mean, I think Mayor Teagues. What-what I'm taking from Mayor Teagues is making sure that as we do this, and nev-w-we're being-we're still being fair to all parties. I think that's valid. Salih: That's why I was saying three months will be really in the middle kind. Harmsen: Yeah. Salih: Yeah. Teague: And I don't know what's happening with the Casey's on Mormon Trek,um but aga-but again, you know, I-I think about business owners and getting funding in place,if they're selling their business,if they're trying to,um you know,kind of remodel their business.Maybe they're going to cease selling. They can have the permit. The permit is cheap. But if they're not selling, I don't know. It still seems to me like a year will be appropriate because they're going to be-they're going to want to sell as soon as the project is done. So I don't know if we need to really limit that so much and,because they're going to try to remodel and they're going to try to do everything to get their business back up and running,but things do happen. And,you know,if they go,um you know, six months and one day,then they can't sell that product anymore. I'm not exactly sure that that is the intent that we're trying to get after right now. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 47 Harmsen: I think bottom line, I think we're all-we're all okay with- I think we're all in-we're all okay with the 60,or the original 60 days with just license lapsing.But we're probably- I think most of us are okay with a different length of time for the change in use.But maybe we-I don't know, do we let the city attorney draft something out now realizing that we may still-as we-as we move this closer to an ordinance,we may still have some discussion and decisions made on that number. Like the general idea is the same,but we might adjust that number. Does that- does that sound-that's what I'm hearing. Does that sound- Salih: Yes. Harmsen: What everybody else is hearing? Goers: We-we could do it that way. Just to be clear,uh a change use happens immediately. That is the clothing store opens, and now I'm not selling. Harmsen: Oh, sure. Goers: Tobacco anymore. We're talking about a ceased use or a lapsed use. Just so I'm on the same page as the rest of you.And insofar as drafting an ordinance and changing the number later,we can do that. Um certainly,my preference would be Council decide tonight what you'd like to see, and I'll just write it in. Otherwise,I'm not sure what to write, and I'd hate for members of the public to get caught off guard if I pick one thing, and then Council ends up deciding to choose something else. Frankly, it might be a substantive change depending on how far you folks move it. So for those reasons, I would really prefer Council come up with a number this evening. Teague: I think we have an example,with the-you know, in the downtown-you know,with the alcohol. If-if someone doesn't use alcohol within that 500 foot rule within a year,they lose that ability to do that. And so I would just say,we have an example it has worked for various reasons does that- does that one year. It-it can really make a big difference. And so I would suggest us going on with that 365 days. Dunn: I think at this point,it's 90 days. Bergus: Yeah, I'd go with three months as well. Salih: Three months. I see consistence for three months then. Goers: Okay. I'll draft it up that way, and of course,the first stop for this because it is a zoning ordinance, will actually be Planning and Zoning and not Council.You should have made that clear before. Um, all right. So that moves to last couple of questions that I have that were actually included at the end of the permit line of questioning,but I think it's still is pertinent. That is for starters, question number 7 under permit, is Council okay with granting the City Clerk administrative authority to write a tobacco permit application addendum to secure the permittee information needed to administer the various ordinance amendments Council is not considering. So here, mostly that would be about separation distance uh because we're not doing a permit cap.But there could be other things as well. Dunn: Yes. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 48 Harmsen: Yeah. Moe: Yeah. Salih: Yeah. Goers: Okay. Great.And finally,does council wish to time these amendments and resolutions in such a way as to have them all take effect at once and also lift the moratorium kind of at the last item on that council meetings agenda. That's the staff s recommendation,but you could certainly do something different if you prefer. Dunn: Yes. Harmsen: I think. Moe: Yes. Alter: Yes. Salih: Yes. Goers: Okay. Uh,then I think we're ready to discuss Kratom if there are no further comments on zoning, or I should-I should ask if Ms. Grace has any additional questions on the zoning one. Grace: I do not. Thanks. Goers: Okay. Salih:No. Goers: All right.No other Council?Okay. Well,then uh Kratom,our first question is,does Council wish to ban outright or regulate um in some fashion or take no action at all?And just to list,I listed some possibilities,uh possible regulatory subjects,age restrictions,marketing to children, adulteration and contamination, strength,labeling,testing and sampling,registration and permitting. These are all um,taken from various other regulatory schemes in other parts of the country or in other state laws,that is o- other states. Staffs recommendation is that the City does not have the expertise or capacity to engage in testing for strength,contamination,or,frankly anything else.Policing marketing to children would be extremely labor intensive, and as you can probably imagine, is a bit mushy. Registration and permitting would not likely be useful unless we,you know do have an entire regulatory scheme needing to be enforced.But,you know,if we had just,you know one or two things that were more bright line,then certainly that could be done. Um imposing age restrictions may be more readily enforceable,but would still require police resources to perform compliance checks. As with alcohol and tobacco, I'll just note here that there is typically state funding available to do compliance for alcohol and tobacco. I'm not aware of any such funding for Kratom checks. So we would need to absorb that ourselves. And so as a result of those factors,the staff recommends that Council either ban Kratom outright or leave the status quo in place that is leave it legal and defer to state and federal regulatory agencies to take action. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 49 Dunn: So,I-I you know, since this is something that I've kind of been spearheading, I think that I'll share a few ideas and comments. I think one of the greatest concerns with Kratom in a lot of communities is the fact that there is a lack of regulatory oversight from,you know,regulatory agencies within the federal government. Um,I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment that we lack the capability to adequately regulate,um you know, an opioid like substance,um,that has potentially a lot of- of negative effects for-for users, and- and broadly is marketed and sold in areas which fall under this 500 foot sensitive areas ordinance that we are starting to put in place. Um, so that being the case,um,a lot of,you know, concerns about the substance, a lack of strong medical research about the efficacy of the substance and an ongoing regulatory environment within the federal government.Um,I think that the best thing that I could advocate at this point is banning of the sale. I want to be clear. Um,as I did with the interview with KCRG,I don't think this council seeks to criminalize the use to criminalize,you know,possession or- or anything like that.But at this time,the substance is considered by,you know,the FDA as an absolutely adulterated substance. You cannot get by FDA standards,the pure substance in a way that could be used as a supplement or something like that. So,I find that very concerning, and that's the direction that I would like to pursue. Harmsen: I reached some fairly similar conclusions,too. I've been sort of digging into this a little bit and looking at it. So a couple of- couple of different ways that I've been looking at it.Um, one of them is, and I think interestingly,one of the things that few people can agree on,um is that there needs to be more study done and more information on this substance. That said,the FDA and some other different things are not thinking of it as a benign substance in the meantime. So what that leaves me the question with is,in the meantime,is it-which is more likely to be a harmful thing,banning or not banning or leaving it at status quo. So that's one question I have or one thought I have. The other thought is,what do we hope to accomplish with this?Um,certainly banning the sale,that might-that might make it,uh you know,it's not like-it's going to be hard to get otherwise,right? So whether that's a good thing or a bad thing,you know,we would be,I think,alone locally,to my knowledge,to a ban for this. So then what do we want to get out of it? For me,the benefit that would still be with a ban is that and this kind of overlaps a little bit with one of our thoughts about the tobacco is that the advertising,the ability to sell it. And I agree with you,Councilor Dunn important people understand,we're about the sale of it.And if you can't sell it,then all of those signs, all of those things come down. Um,it doesn't give the tacit approval. Especially, and I'm thinking more about young people now, again,with the tobacco. That's my primary concern to go in and like uh be able to see, so,hey,you can buy it legally, so it must be safe. That's-that's dangerous for something that's not regulated yet. So if a question is between, like,we should wait for the regulation to kick in before we act,um, or if we should act before the regulation,you know,which could take who knows how long? There's no, like, set end date to that. Then what's the consequence in between? So I find myself also coming down in favor of a ban of the sale for as much of the reason of,like,limiting some access,maybe,but also limiting the sale and the marketing and the promotion of that sale within city limits in these places,you know, all these different tobacco stores and places like that that currently have the ability to sell it, and,you know,it's a product which they can make money off of, and so it's for sale. I find value in a ban because it would take that marketing out of every time,you know,my kids or anybody else's kids walk past tobacco store downtown or anywhere else or gas station or any other place that sells it, and especially because we do have reason to be concerned and feel that it is not terribly safe. And I don't know if it's since we're in the discussion, since we do have a public somebody from the Public Health Department,maybe that has some thoughts on that. I This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 50 don't want to put you on the spot if that's not something you're prepared to speak with,but I would certainly welcome. Salih: Go on. Harmsen: To correct my knowledge or add to my knowledge or if I've got something wrong. Grace: Becky. Salih:No, she was, and she left. Grace: It's under Susan. Salih: Oh,under Susan,okay,okay. Connelly: Sorry. I didn't realize that I that. I needed to change that. Salih:No problem.Becky welcome. Connelly: Thank you.And so as you mentioned,the lack of regulation is one of the biggest issues with Kratom. I'm sure you've already heard from the Pro Kratom people.And,you know, I've been, you know, at one of my presentations about Kratom. I had a gentleman show up specifically to make sure that,you know,I wasn't maligning it.And there are risks with it,but a lot of the risks have to do with using it in an unregulated,um,fashion,um, and the potential for either not understanding how much of a dose you're getting of the active substances or having it contaminated with something,which has happened. Moe: I guess I have maybe a question for our attorney, and that would be,do we have any-what is the wisdom behind having a ban that says,we want to ban this stuff until the federal and state government actually acts and,provides something to-that actually provides a regulatory framework. Is that wise to do that to sort of,you know,once the state or federal government finally says,we're going to test this stuff and regulate it,um,then our restrictions would go away? Goers: Well,its not-the ordinance that I drafted is not written that way. That might be the end result if there is such a vast regulatory framework that our ordinance is preempted through field preemption, for example,but that's kind of hard to predict. Certainly,if there is a regulatory scheme passed by either the state or the federal government,we could revisit and then present counsel whether they feel that regulatory scheme is sufficient to achieve the ends they wish to see, or if they would like to continue to,uh,keep the ban if-if we have one. Moe: I guess I personally just struggle with is Iowa City the right regulatory body to regulate this? But in lack of anyone else taking action, like,let's try something. That's kind of where I'm at. Alter: That's well said. Dunn: One thing that I want to bring up that I just thought of with regard to this whole conversation. I think that one thing that we should strive to do is actually achieve the intended effect,um of the ordinance or whatever it ends up being. I'm thinking about Washington DCs initial laws surrounding marijuana legalization. They had it such that you could not sell marijuana.But you This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 51 could sell someone a$30 cookie and then give them a little gift on the side. So just so that that's a real thing. I see a laugh in there,Councilor Harmsen or face fallen,yeah, it is. That was a real thing.And just so that,you know, City Attorney's office is aware and everyone else in the room is aware,the intent would be also to prevent something like that,as well. Goers: The way I wrote the draft ordinance before you included a definition of to distribute,which is defined in this way. To furnish give away,exchange,transfer, deliver, or supply whether or not for monetary gain or other considerations, such that even if it was a freebie added onto some other presumably overpriced item,that would still violate this ordinance as drafted at present. Dunn: Awesome. Thank you. Moe: How does this impact Internet sales? If someone,you know,people want to purchase something from out of state,desire ordinance does nothing to affect that. Alter: How could we? Goers: Well, I think it could. I mean if it's-if it's distributed out of Iowa City and mailed elsewhere, I haven't given a lot of thought to that,but I think probably that would be a violation, and I don't think it would violate the Dormant Commerce Clause or anything because we'd be treating,you know,intra state sales the same as inter state sales,that is banning them both. Alter: Do we have the numbers? Salih:Not really. Harmsen: I'm in favor of ban. Salih: I'm in favor of ban too 2,3. Bergus: I am as well. Moe: I'm in favor. Salih: I think we have enough people for banning. Harmsen: So to get it on to a formal agenda. Salih: Yes. Goers: Okay, I'll finalize this version that's been presented in your packet and bring it back to you. I can't recall if we got an answer about kind of the timing of all this.And I'm sorry. I've already missed it. Everyone's in line with kind of having it all come into effect at once? Bergus: I think that's a good idea. Salih: That's a good idea. Harmsen: Simplicity. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 52 Salih: Yes. Goers: Excellent. I'll do that and resolution lifting the moratorium at the same time. Thank you. I think that's all the questions I had. I'll certainly defer to Ms. Grace if she has any additional questions on this topic. Grace: I do not. Salih: Okay Council. Goers: Thank you. Salih: Anything else on this one or? Harmsen: That was a lot. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024 Page 53 7. Council updates on assigned boards,commissions, and committtees Salih: All right,yes. And that's why we're going to our last item because that was a lot. Okay, any I know the counsel update. I know that you did already earlier,but if somebody want to say anything? Harmsen: Real quickly,on the City of Literature,we are busy evaluating Engle Prize winners.And so hopefully that process moves along, and that's a pretty prestigious award.And I know that Councilor Altra did that the last two years, and so is familiar with that.And- and anyway, so it's exciting to be looking at those kinds of things. Salih: Okay. Alter: Super, super briefly. I was able to attend the Mayor's Innovation project,not this past weekend,the weekend before. And,um it gathers mayors from all different size cities nationally and,um different cities, and are on panels to discuss particular topics. Um, and I think the thing that was the coolest was to hear people talking about things that we're working and to say,we're investigating that or we're already doing it. So just in terms of how our city stacks up,I know that it can be a deluge of feeling what's going on?And how are we new?How are we doing?We're doing really well. We are doing some really innovative,interesting things that other cities,maybe they're ahead of us a little bit. It's showing that the work that we're going towards is paying dividends, and in other ways we're leading. I just wanted to say,we thank you to the staff who has really been innovative when you've had the space to do it.And a lot of times, actually,you haven't had the space, and we make you do it anyway.And it's just-it's remarkable. It is a real shot in the arm because you hear from different communities, and you can really talk in a safe space, as they say.But,um,the ideas that are coming out,we are doing so many of them, so just kudos. Harmsen: Thank you. Salih: Any another counsel when I give us a date. Online. Bergus: None for me,thanks. Salih: All right then we adjourn. Thank you. Harmsen: Thanks. Alter: Thank you. Moe: Join the meeting. Teague: Thank you. [MUSIC] This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of August 20, 2024