Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-10-15 Transcription Page 1 Council Present: Alter, Bergus, Dunn, Harmsen, Moe, Salih, Teague Staff Present: Fruin, Lehmann, Goers, Grace, Hightshoe, Sitzman, Knoche, Sovers, Liston, Lyon Others Present: Monsivais, USG, Martinez, Alternate 1. Call to Order Teague: It is just after 6:00 PM on October 5th,2024, and I'm going to call the city of Iowa City meeting to order. [Roll Call]Here. All right. Well,welcome to everyone to your city hall, and to those that are joining us virtually,welcome as well. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024 Page 2 2. Proclamations 2.a United Nations Day Teague: We're going to move on to item Number 2,which is proclamations,2.a is United Nations Day And to receive this proclamation,we have Bijou and her daughter,Ne-Nemy-Nehema.And Bijou is with Johnson County United Nations Association. She's a board member. And let's receive them at this time. Maliabo: Hello, everyone.My name is Nehema Maliabo, and I am a proud member of the UNA-USA Johnson County Youth. I would like to take a moment to express my gratitude to the Iowa City Council for this proclamation that recognizes United Nations Day. Thank you,council for your support and for highlighting the importance of the United Nations.Your commitment empowers us as youth to take action and make a positive impact to our community. Let us work together to uphold the values of peace and justice that the UN represents. Together,we can inspire, change, and build a brighter future for all. Thank you. Teague: Thank you. Maliabo: Hello.My name is Bijou Maliabo, and I am a member of the Johnson County UNA-USA. I'm truly honored to receive this proclamation from the Iowa City-city council in recognition of the United Nation Day. For Iowa City,the United Nations represents more than just an international organization. It embodies our value of diversity,inclusivity, and social justice. The UN's work in promoting peace, addressing climate changes, and advancing human rights aligns closely with our commitment to building a vibrant and equitable community. The UN's efforts to tackle global challenges such as violence, conflict, and war directly impact us,whether through refugee assistance, sustainable development initiatives,or climate change. These issues not only affect our planet,but also shape the life of those in our neighbors,neighborhood, and families. Iowa City has long welcomed refugee, demonstrating our commitment to compassion and solidarity. By supporting the UN and working toward achieving the sustainable development goals,we reinforce our value and help create a more connected and compassionate world. I invite you all to join us in cel-celebrating the UN day on October 23rd at 7:00 PM at the Iowa City Public Library. This is a wonderful opportunity to learn more about the UN's vital work and discuss how we, as a community,can contribute to its mission. This program is in partnership with the Iowa City foreign relation. I also encourage each of you to consider becoming a member of the Johnson County UNA-USA. Together,we can amplify our voices, engage in meaningful action, and strengthen our commitments,the value we cherish.Your involvement can truly make a difference because the world need the UN and the UN need us. Thank you for your supports, and I look forward to seeing you all. Thank you. Teague: Correct. Thank you. Thank you both for coming. And thank you,Peter also for joining as well. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024 Page 3 3. Consent Calendar 3-7 Teague: All right,we're going to move on to item Number 3-7,which is our consent agenda,but we'll be removing items 7-7a and 7c for separate considerations. Could I get a motion,please? Dunn: So moved. Moe: Second.Moe. Teague: Moved by Dunn, second by Moe.Anyone from the public like to address,uh, a topic that is on our consent agenda. If you are online,please raise your virtual hand. If you're present,please raise your hand as well. Seeing- seeing no one in person or online for any items mentioned in our consent agenda,um,with the exception of item Ta and 7.c. We're going to move on to council discussion. [Roll Call] Yes. Motion passes 7-0. 7.a Bradford Drive Water Main Replacement Project—Resolution setting Public Hearing on November 4,2024,on project manual and estimate of cost for the construction of the Bradford Drive Water Main Replacement Project, directing the City Clerk to publish notice of said hearing, and directing the City Engineer to place said project manual on file for public inspection. 7.b Fire Station 1 and City Hall 3'd Floor Renovation Project—Resolution setting Public Hearing on November 4,2024,on project manual and estimate of cost for the construction of the Fire Station 1 and City Hall 3'd Floor Renovation Project, directing the City Clerk to publish notice of said hearing, and directing the City Engineer to place said project manual on file for public inspection. Teague. Could I get a motion to approve consent agenda item Ta and TO Alter: So moved. Salih: And second. Dunn: Point of order? Teague: Moved by Alter, second by Salih. Dunn: Point of order. Do we have to do those-Can we do those together or do we have to do them separately? Teague: We can do them together. Dunn: Okay,just can. Teague: Yep-yep. There's a consent agenda item. Welcome. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024 Page 4 Knoche: Good evening,Mr. Mayor and Council. Ron Knoche Public Works Director? We were overly optimistic during the agenda development that tonight we would be able to set the public hearings for the Bradford Drive Water Main replacement and the high service pump replacement projects. Unfortunately,the plans and specs are not complete, and we were not able to put them on file today. Tonight,we request you vote these items down instead of deferring the items because the items were setting the public hearings for your next meeting. We will bring these items back before you on a future agenda. Thank you. Teague: Thank you.Any questions for Ron?All right.Anyone from the public like to address that-those two items?If you're online,raise your virtual hand. Seeing no one online or in person. Council discussion? [Roll Call] Um,motion fails 0-7.All right. 6.k Dodge Street Reconstruction Project-Resolution approving, authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest an agreement by and between the City of Iowa City and Strand Associates,Inc., of Madison,Wisconsin to provide consultant services for the Dodge Street Reconstruction Project. Teague: Can I get a motion to accept correspondence,item 61? Moe: So moved,Moe. Bergus: Second,Bergus. Teague: All right.Moved by Moe, seconded by Bergus. All in favor, say aye'? [Voice Vote] Aye. Seeing no one that wants to talk on an item that is not on our agenda. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024 Page 5 9. Planning and Zoning Matters 9.a Zoning Code Amendment—Redemption Centers-Ordinance amending Title 14 Zoning Code to allow redemption centers in commercial and industrial zones.(REZ24- 0007) Teague: I'm going to move on to our next item,which is nine,which is planning and zoning matters 9.a. Zoning code amendment redemption centers. Ordinance amending Title 14 Zoning Code to allow redemption centers in commercial and industrial zones. I'm going to open the public hearing and welcome, Daniel. 1. Public Hearing Sitzman: Thank you,Mayor. Daniel Sitzman,Neighborhood Development Services. Uh, can anyone tell me, or let's just play a quick quiz. What does the state of Iowa have in common with California, Connecticut,Hawaii,Maine,Massachusetts,Michigan,New York, Oregon, and Vermont?I think this agenda item is probably a-a giveaway to that,but in 1978,the State of Iowa was one of 10 of these states to enact a beverage containers control law,also commonly known as a bottle bill. And state- in these states, 10 states laws allow retailers to collect a deposit at the time of sale of certain products and for consumers to receive their deposit back when returning the empty beverage container to a store or redemption center. In 2022, Iowa's bottle bill was amended by the state to significantly increase the handling fee for retailers and redemption centers from $0.01- 0.03 per container. This was aimed at incentivizing more redemption centers to open and operate within the state. And it was part of a senate file,which also allowed many retailers to opt out of accepting returned bottles and cans under certain conditions.As a result of this change in state law, a current operating redemption center in our city has,uh, come forward and asked for consideration of a change in their business plan operations that which would improve and expand their services in our community,modernizing their vending machines and automating a lot of their processes. So regardless of any opinion on the policy set by the state about bottle bills, our local zoning codes do play a role in the case with which these transactions occur in our community. So the proposed,uh, code change,uh,under consideration tonight is to address redemption centers in light of,as I said,a current operating redemption center. The Can Shed asking for consideration of that. They aim to expand their services, improve collection, and provide easier access to those services. Um, our current regulations,uh, are set up in a way that are a little bit out of date with the trend in current operating and the technology that's available to collect cans and bottles. It classifies,uh,these types of uses as industrial uses.Um,it includes, um,language about a very heavy processes-industrial processes. Really addressing recycling at the point at which the material is actually recycled rather than the point at which previous to that, it might have been collected for a deposit. It addresses redemption centers as stand alone, classifies them as waste related use categories.And with this interpretation,really only allows these types of uses to operate in industrial zones. In reviewing the proposed business plan from the Can Shed,it became apparent to staff a classifying redemption centers as they propose them. But as a very intense industrial use, comparable to a landfill or like I said, an actual recycling facility, did not accurately reflect the intended use or how they proposed to operate in the future. So,um, staffed agreed that the zoning code should be updated to respond to changing conditions and address a new recycling business model. To do so,we first began by reviewing our vision and goal statements of the comprehensive plan as we do with all zoning code text changes.Um, those really direct our efforts. Um,the comprehensive plan does have vision and goal statements related to fostering a resilient economy,promoting a diversity of business types in the community This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024 Page 6 through having a diversity of businesses hopefully to respond to changes over time as they occur. We do have goals and strategies addressing retention of existing businesses with the opportunity for growth of those businesses,incurring a mix of independent locally owned businesses such as a Can Shed. Um, addressing redemption centers in our zoning code to allow them in a more zooning-in more zoning districts, and they would currently be regulated as would make it easier for redemption center uses to locate in Iowa City and to retain those uses for those who wish to pursue them as such in an altered business model, and it would be consistent with our comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan does also focus on responsible use of natural resources and energy which, of course,recycling is a key component of And by allowing redemption centers and more areas of the community, our community members would have increased access and opportunities to contribute to waste reduction efforts in support of the comprehensive plan. The proposed amendment would also help further these goals by promoting waste reduction and contributing to the community's recycling efforts, I said,which are a key component of the climate action and adoption plan of the city. City sustainability and resource management staff also participated in this code analysis and investigation with urban planning staff and helped in the preparation of the proposed code before you tonight. As staff surveyed the best practices across the country and those other 10, 9 states that have bottle laws,we focused on other states that had already had experience addressing this kind of business model.And we found that the State of Oregon and its local cities therein provided direct experience having already implemented code changes to address similar types of operations in the community. Um, in general,the State of Oregon takes an approach in their local jurisdictions,as considering this more of a service use rather than industrial use as our current code currently identifies it.And we did drill down to specific cities and the specific ways in which they were defining redemption centers and developed codes to address their operations. Um, at the local jurisdictional level- level,this research demonstrated a range of different regulatory approaches. Um, staff found that there were two main approaches taken by local jurisdictions either to categorize the redemption as an existing use or create an entirely new category to try to describe what was actually occurring and regulate it in that manner. Um,we-to looked at the specific standards that these cities were implementing,we also included Des Moines in our investigation since it was a little bit closer to home. Found that Des Moines was a lot more like how the City of Iowa City currently thinks of redemption centers as an industrial use,feeling that that really didn't fit the proposed business use. Um,we did look at the standards that the other cities were using when they,uh,were considering these as commercial uses in the best way to make sure that they fit into existing neighborhoods and into their communities.Analyzing the specific standards of redemption centers helped us envision additional uses that we propose in our ordinance tonight. So therefore, in this ordinance, staff is proposing several things.First,to create a new category to identify a redemption center to define it, and then to place it in the table of allowable uses for commercial industrial uses as we do with anytime we categorize a use. Also creating specific provisional use standards for redemption center to ensure that they are compatible and addressing certain features like parking that are common for all uses to have identified with them. So in identifying a redemption center,uh,redemption center is a use categorize-categorized as an indoor facility that collects empty bottles and cans from consumers,distributes payment of the refunded value of the deposit and may utilize some minor compressing machines. These are not the heavy industrial processes that would be involved in taking a material,perhaps shredding it,re-packaging it and sending it off for actual recycling. This is simply what you hear happening inside a reverse vending machine when you hear that crunch. Really just maximizing the amount of cans that can be collected at one time. There are some accessory uses typical to a redemption center,things like the office for the staff and the parking. Also,exceptions would be written to still identify those actual true industrial waste related uses and keep them in the appropriate districts. Talking about This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024 Page 7 the zones in which this new redemption center classification could be allowed. We show here the table of various industrial uses and commercial uses. The P means permitted by right, and those are still happening in our industrial zones. They would be simply permitted to continue to operate or establish an industrial zones. The change here would be to allow the PR designated lines and the commercial zones that we have them designated here. That means provisional,that means they could also go into commercial districts if they met a set of certain specific standards. Um, there are two commercial zones here where they are permitted. The commercial highway or highway commercial and intensive commercial. Those are two commercial districts that already allow outdoor storage,which is kind of the key component of being a redemption center occurring inside a building.Uh,allowing them to be permitted in commercial zones just simply follows the base standards that are already allowed in those commercial zones where outdoor storage would be allowed for other uses as well.Um,the specific standards then,that when something is provisionally allowed in a commercial district that staff is proposing is a limit on the overall square footage of the operation, and that outdoor storage of materials is just simply not allowed. These uses help to maintain the character and scale and intensity of the use to ensure that they're compatible with other things happening in commercial districts. And then for parking requirements,the proposed ratio is one per 1,000 square foot of floor area,no bicycle parking required. And then we did look in at anticipated impacts. So taking a look at the map,where these zoning districts that would now allow redemption centers are,uh, and then whether they would be allowed either as provisional or permitted use,kind of highlighting the two different colors here. So these are areas of the city that are already zoned commercial where,um, an additional service industry like a redemption center would be appropriate and could occur. So as far as code adoption process,our existing zoning code,the last time it was completely readopted was 2005. These are standards that are changing since then,creating,like I said,the new definition and a new use category for redemption center. Would not be anticipated that any property necessarily is being re-zoned or a commercial district to allow this. The Can Sheds are simply looking at existing commercial properties where they might like to operate. So based on a review of the relevant criteria and best practices, staff recommended approval of the zoning code text change before you tonight.And at their September 18th-24th meeting,the Planning and Zoning Commission concurred with this recommendation and unanimously recommended approval. I'm happy to answer questions if you have them. And also the Can Shed is here tonight,if you'd like to speak with them. Teague: Okay. Bergus: As I understand it,Daniel,if we wanted to, let's say,discuss bicycle parking that being a textual code amendment,would have to go back through planning and zoning as well,is that right? Sitzman: I'm going to let Eric decide that one. I will say, as far as bike parking,that did stand out to me as well, so I just refreshed my memory about where we do and don't require bicycle parking. There are other commercial zones that don't require bicycle parking. They're typically uses that probably don't lend themselves to arriving on a bicycle. So our animal related uses, so like your vet, or things that are simply vehicle oriented like quick vehicle servicing. They don't require bicycle parking.Building trade, contractor shops,don't require bike parking.And then if we do require bike parking,I'll just put it out there,there's a range of the amount of it, anywhere from 5- 25%of the vehicle parking expressed as bicycle parking. So there's a wide range. I don't know if staff- staff felt like this particular use wasn't the kind of use that would lend itself to needing bicycle parking. Generally,we support bicycle use and parking as a key component of being able to easily use your bike to go places. So they'd have employees who might want to arrive on a This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024 Page 8 bike, for example.But as to whether if we add in bicycle parking,whether that needs to be a substantive reconsideration or not, I don't know. Goers: As council is aware, I've become a little more gun shy, feeling like I was a little aggressive at the last meeting about calling something non substitutive.For that reason, I think I would probably want to send it back if that was a change you as a council wanted to make. Bergus: And just-just to highlight that,you know, one of the reasons people don't ride their bikes to some of these commercial areas is you can't park there. And I'm having lived in this community,there are individuals who collect and redeem cans on bicycle that I've seen regularly. So having an opportunity to lock that up,maybe the folks from the Can Shed,if they can just hear that and consider doing that voluntarily,that would be wonderful.But I appreciate,uh, our city attorney's opinion as well. Moe: In our existing zoning code, can you walk through some of the standard buffering requirements that we'd see in all these zones?I mean, shrubs and setbacks is got to go. Sitzman: Screening standards. Moe: Yeah, screening standards. Sitzman: Um,I'm not sure if I could do that off the top of my head. Those screening standards tend to be for parking lot areas. So we're not proposing to change any of those. So if a commercial zone requires screening of those areas, it would also this use wouldn't trigger any special screening. You can imagine this use being in a strip center and a-a variety of uses coming and going from those tenant spaces and not impacting the parking lot. Moe: Okay.And then would this allow-I've seen in other communities they have drive through can redemption,but are zoning code allow that? Sitzman: I've seen that. It's intended to occur entirely inside the building. If you want to drive through, you'd have to get a special exception for a drive through, and I'm not sure- I'm not sure of all the standards where a special exception is even allowed. There are some zoning districts like neighborhood commercial. The only types of drive through you can have are for a bank and I think one other type of use. So you couldn't have a restaurant drive through. So I think the possibility of a drive through might exist,but it would go through an extra special exception review at the board of,uh, adjustment, and they would look at a site plan and take into consideration the impacts at that point. I don't know specifically though,which of these zoning districts do and don't allow drive throughs. Teague: Thank you.All right. Anyone from the public like to address this topic? If you're online,please raise your virtual hand. Welcome. There is a sign in sheet right there, and you'll be able to sign in and give us your name and the city you're from. And this is also an opportunity where the public can speak to the council,but we cannot engage or debate until the appropriate time for a council discussion.But welcome. Willard: Okay. Thank you.My name is Troy Willard. I'm the owner of the Can Shed,here to kind of see where-what the questions may be and stuff and how we can address that. Just from that conversation, I certainly recognize that we do have regular customers who bicycle and a lot. So I This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024 Page 9 think that would be a value added thing for us to have some type of accommodation for that.Um, outside of that,you know,we're excited about the opportunity,uh,to move into some better space that has,um,more visibility,more access, and again,allows us to bring some of the latest greatest technology in the redemption world to Iowa City. Thank you. Teague: Thank you.Anyone else like to address this topic? Seeing no one in person or online. I'm going to close. Goers: Before you close the hearing. Teague: Oh,yeah. Teague: So before I close the public hearing are- is council inclined to vote with P&Z? All right, I'm going to close the public hearing. 2. Consider an Ordinance (First Consideration) Teague: Can I get a motion to give first consideration,please? Dunn: So moved, Dunn. Harmsen: Second Harmsen. Teague: Council discussion. Harmsen: I think that this just makes life easier for residents in our community trying to take back cans. I'm dating myself here,but I remember as a kid what it was like before we had this bottle law and the amount of trash cans that would show up in highway ditches all over the place. More recently, I was in Kansas City a year or two ago, and they don't have this.And I saw that again. So making this easier,making it more convenient for residents of our city with under the new Iowa law, I think is a-is a big win. So. Moe: I just like to say, I think it's be great too if the people show up with thing that can't be redeemed, if we make it as easy as possible for people to get that recycled anyway. I know sometimes you have that extra water bottle that doesn't have-it's not worth a nickel,but being able to make that available for recycling would be great. Dunn: Really support the work you're doing. Thank you for being here. Teague: Supports climate action. All right. [Roll Call] This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024 Page 10 9.b Zoning Code Amendment—Tobacco Sales Oriented Retail Uses-Ordinance amending Title 14, entitled "Zoning Code",to address tobacco sales oriented retail uses. (REZ24-0006) Teague: Motion passes 7-0. 9.b Zoning Code Amendment, Tobacco Sales Oriented Retail uses, ordinance amending Title 14 and title zoning code to address tobacco sales oriented retail uses. This is the first consideration. Can I get a motion,please? Dunn: So moved. Salih: Second. Teague: Moved by Dunn, seconded by Salih. And anyone-well,before we go there,we'll have our city attorney kind of start us on this item. Goers: Well, as council will recall,we discussed this item last,um,meeting, and,uh,there was a change made at the meeting to,uh-for the grandfather rights upon a cessation of sales went from 90 days to one year.And I opined that that would be a non-substantive change, and thus could move forward. Uh, I have since, as council is aware,reconsidered that following the three to two vote on that motion and some public,uh, opposition. It- it's become clear that this is a substantive matter. And also,to just out of an abundance of caution in the event that there's ever litigation on this matter, I thought it'd be best that we treat it as the first reading. That said,um,the-the ordinance before you is as amended,um, and there have been no other changes since the last time, so I really don't have anything else to report. Okay Teague: Anyone from having any questions for Eric on council? Harmsen: I did have a question on especially,um,because it was a 3-2 vote, and in light of some of the additional information,what would it take or what's the process if the council wanted to either go back to the 90 days, consider doing that, and or- and or looking at a different number that is not one year or 90 days? Goers: I'll take those two in turn. So to return to 90 days,that would be a motion to reconsider,because you're returning to-you're basically undoing the vote that took place at the last meeting. While as Robert's rules allow for any,uh,member who was on the prevailing side plus any member who was absent to make that motion,the council rules limit a motion to reconsider to just those who are on the prevailing side. So those- any of those three council members who are on the prevailing side of that motion to amend to make the motion after the motion is made,if there is a motion made, any council member,regardless of whether they're on the prevailing side or not, could second the motion. So that's to go back to 90. If it is the will of council or if there's a motion to change it to anything other than 90,then that would just be a fresh motion to amend. Any council member could make it, any council member could second it, and it would be a motion just like the last time,that is four votes to prevail. I shouldn't say like, last time because last time we had five,uh,members, and so it only took three votes. This time,we have seven members present, so four votes would be required to pass the motion. Dunn: Further question. If there was a successful motion to reconsider that was accepted and it went back to the 90 days,would this be considered a second consideration? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024 Page 11 Goers: This would be a second consideration? Dunn: As amended. Goers: I would say that the next one would be a first consideration. Okay.Motion. That is,it would be a third first consideration. Dunn: Okay-okay. Goers: I know that that sounds odd,but yes.Because of my ruling that-that would be a substantive change. In turn,we would need to go back to a first reading at the next council meeting. Dunn: All right. I get it.You don't want us to get sued. Goers: I will note to that,of course,Council having had by that point,held several meetings and had many opportunities for the public to weigh in,could certainly collapse if that was the will of council. Bergus: And just as a reminder,what's the current status of issuing tobacco permits?We still have the moratorium? Goers: Oh,yeah. There's still a moratorium in place. And that runs until December 31 st unless it's lifted earlier by council,uh,based on earlier discussions with council_ The plan is for us to submit that the lifting of the moratorium,do you coincide with the application of whatever ultimate ordinance you folks pass? Bergus: Thank you. Teague: Great. All right.No other questions for Eric?All right.Anyone from the public like to address this topic?If you're in person,please raise your hand.Yep,please. Welcome. There is a sign in sheet at this desk where you can sign in.And also,once you start speaking, give us your name and your- and the city you're from. If you are online,please raise your virtual hand. Gautam: Hello.My name is Bodha Goltham. I'm from the City of West Burlington, Iowa.And I- Teague: And you have up to three minutes. Gautam: Sure. Already. Gautam: We-we signed the-the purchase agreement for the Mormon track whole common goal.And we are moving forward to close the deal, and I'm here to make sure that we are redoing that property, making the convenience store with the gas. So we-we want to make sure that as long as we follow all the rules and regulation,whether we'll be able to obtain the tobacco and liquor license on that one. So that's my question. Teague: Yeah. And we won't be able to answer,but you can speak to the council at this time. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024 Page 12 Gautam: Right. So this-this-this joining things I read, so I thought maybe it's a good idea to come here and present what is- so that location been there for 40 years with the convenience stores, and we- our plan is to continue the same way to redo the property,make more convenience store than the gas. But down the road,we will work to get the gas station too,but the beginning will be the gas station and our request. We want to know that whether there will be the license obtainable down the road until the lifted end of 31st December or something. So we want to get a little more information. That's what I'm here for. Thank you. Teague: Thank you.Anyone else like to address this topic? Dunn: Can we ask them questions? Teague: You can. So,um, I'll just,uh-when the council deliberates, council may ask either staff to respond or the council can,you know,follow up with the speaker. Dunn: Okay. Teague: During our deliberations only. Dunn: Thank you. Teague: Yes. Yes,please. Come. Welcome. Please state your name and city you're from. You have up to three minutes. Gautam: Hello,everyone. This is Depes Gautam,living here Kalona, Iowa,doing a convenience store business about a decade now.And we together try to get that property and roll in.But while we knows that we come down to see applications process in the city hall last week and sHe you was telling us that happening,uh,discussion here in City Hall today. So we are here to ensure that,uh, we are going to the right direction or not. So basically,uh,the location was serving that neighborhood since 40 years, so we are thinking that we can do the same thing one more time again. Thank you. Teague: Thank you.Anyone else like to address this topic? Seeing no one in person or online, council discussion. Dunn: Can you clarify? Did we have the regulation set to parks too? Geors: I'm sorry,I missed the last part. Dunn: So the proposal,is it set to parks as well as or just schools? Goers: Oh,it's just schools and university property,not to parks. Dunn: Okay. Cool. So I don't want to say anything definitively,but I looked up the-the property.And if you guys could confirm,are you talking about 955 Mormon Trek? Gautam: Yes. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024 Page 13 Dunn: Okay. So just looking off of the GIS data,it looks like you guys are over 1000 feet from West High School and way over 1,000 feet from any other educational property. So would it be fair to say that what they're trying to achieve would be acceptable? Goers: Actually,they're within 500 feet of another tobacco retailer. I believe Fareway and perhaps Hartig Drug, I would need to check,but I believe that they are within the buffer zone. And so they would only be able to do,uh,that business that they're describing with grandfather rights in effect. Dunn: Okay. Goers: And I'm happy to follow up with these two individuals if they'll leave their contact information with me or with Mr. Lehman here, if that would be easier, I can follow up with them. Dunn: Sure. Okay. Thank you. Teague: Any other comments? Harmsen: Specifically about this property or about the orders gets more in general? Teague: I mean, it's it's council discussion at this time. Harmsen: Um,well,I-I guess, I don't know if any of the councilors who voted in favor of the year are willing to reconsider at this time,changing it from 90 to a year. Oh. They had changed it already from 90. Changing it back to 90 days. Is that any of the three that voted for that that I'm not saying you have to. I'm just that is because that would guide where I go next. Dunn: Yeah. I would personally appreciate the discussion just because I am on the 90 days train personally.But yeah, it is within your rights. Teague: I guess,you know,I've shared in multiple meetings,the rationale for that. If there's a specific question that someone has,I will be more than willing to answer that. What I will say is when I step back and look at the entire thing that we're doing with the tobacco sales,I mean,if you want to restart- if this isn't-if you want to,you know,have some more conversations, I think we started this with some hopes of change in one area within the community, and then it spread across the city. And there are some unintended consequences that I think go along with this,you know, entire blanket of what we're doing with this. So it's not perfect,but I think it is a public safety issue, a public safety concern. That's why we're going down this route.Um,but there-I mean, there are other things that I think in the future we may want to consider, depending on how things are going. Right now,we just say all tobacco sales,but there are some places where we know their tobacco sales are probably not the,you know,predominant of their business. And so there being,you know, everybody is in one big bubble in a way. Whereas, I think if we were to,you know, do further consideration, it may be worthwhile talking about, should we just have this blanket where every tobacco- anyone that wants to-to sell tobacco,whether that's 10%of their business or 90%of their business,they're held to the same standards.And I'm not exactly sure that when we started this conversation that we intended that to be the outcome,but it is the outcome. And there are people being-I mean,there's going to be something, some consequences that were not intentional. You know,tobacco is what it is. I'm making no judgment call even though I might have stated that it wasn't,you know,the best,but people do it.But at this point,I am comfortable,you know,not recanting the 90 days. I think there are more important things that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024 Page 14 we can talk about if we want to re-look at starting this back over kind of for reconsideration or anything. Alter: So if I'm hearing you correctly,Mayor,there's actually two separate kind of streams of thought. One is about the distance between buildings and- and like,the percentages of sales towards tobacco. Um, and whether it's fair to just do a one size fits all in terms of that. The other then is about the timing of the-of the extension,right? Teague: Yes. Alter: And you're still proposing a year for that. One of the things that I had heard,um-have heard from constituents is that while the impulse or the intention is to make this standard with alcohol licensing and that it could take a year for the alcohol license,there's some unintended consequences there as well. And Eric,I think you also have been drawn into this conversation. Can you talk a little bit about where there might be confusion between is it usage and the permitting itself?Can you,please explain that. Goers: Sure. So as part of the ordinance before you,there are four ways a property can lose grandfather rights that presently exist. The first is if the tobacco permit is revoked,you know,that would be because they've sold to minors repeatedly such that the state code would call for the revocation of their tobacco permit. The second is if the tobacco permit lapses or is discontinued for a period of 60 days or more. Recall that tobacco permits are issued on an annual basis for one year every- well,they expire on June 30th of every year. The third is that tobacco sales use ceases for a period of one year or more. That's what we've been talking about 90 days changed to one year at the last meeting.And that was-explain to allow for renovations or the kind of thing. That might take longer than 90 days, I think was part of the rationale for that.But if they maintain their tobacco permit,but just aren't selling,that would be the exception or that would be the consideration or variable at play.Finally,if there's been a change of use,that is,if they sell tobacco today,but they open a T-shirt shop tomorrow,they've changed the use, and now their grandfather rights are gone. Alter: Thank you. Goers: Sure. Alter: And you did say-I may get it. Is it June 3rd or June 30th? Goers: Oh,June 30. I'm sorry. Alter: And that is a static date. It is an an annual static date. Goers: Yeah. That's set by state code.Unlike liquor licenses which go from a year from when you applied, so they're throughout the year. Tobacco is one time. Alter: So anyone who is selling tobacco knows that it has to be done by June 30th? Goers: They would all have to know that,yes. Alter: Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024 Page 15 Dunn: I guess something that would just be helpful for the whole council. I mean, since a number of us weren't here,where are people at?I know it would still take an action of someone who prevailed in the previous discussion but in terms of just,like,the general support,where folks at,I'm at 90 personally. Moe: And the previous meeting, I voted for- I voted no, so I was with Councilor Harmsen in the negative. Harmsen: Negative meeting keeping it at 90. Moe: Keep it at 90. Dunn: Retaining 90. Alter: Honestly, I was one of the positives, and I would be okay going back to motion to reconsider. Harmsen: Are you making that motion? Alter: Yes. Harmsen: I'll second. Teague: So we have motion by Alter, second by Harmsen. Any-well,we can continue discussion.But it's on this item on-on that part. Goers: On this motion. Yeah. Teague: Yes, on the motion. So what I would say is,um,the one year the rationale that I gave was for really current owners, and if there is a renovation that's happening that-while that's happening, there's things happening take a longer that are beyond their control.Ninety days is not a lot of time in any construction at all. We have all types of construction here. So, if a business owner, you know,went through and wanted to renovate something,now they have to do it within 90 days so that they can resell the tobacco sales. I do wonder if- and maybe this is a question for Eric. I think the concern that maybe this council has in the example that we just-well, I'll not say that.But maybe the concern that this council has is or would it be more palatable if it was only for the current owner to not to cease sales for up to one year or up to six months,or the council doesn't care because not I would recant that or that doesn't matter to the council.Because I do think there is going to be a time where this council will have to reconsider a stable person,you know, someone that has been in this community a long time that is going to go through a major renovation, and this is going to be a sticking point, and this will come before this council and they're going to have to reconsider making an exception where there has been other folks that have not came to council,didn't make a consideration and,you know,that business current owner or not,but in this new example that I've given,current owner would lose their business essentially,because if it's,you know, 100%tobacco sales or 90%tobacco sales. If they can't have that,then they're going to be shut down. So That's my-I don't know if there's any thoughts of limiting just like we did above for the distance and separation,how they spelled out,um,how they are going to measure the 500 feet. Talk about a straight line from the nearest property line. Do we want to just go- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024 Page 16 Alter: Percentages of sales. Teague: Yeah. Do we want to go one step further with the tobacco sales oriented uses ceases from a period of one year or more. Well, I don't know if I should say more. Goers: Well,it wouldn't be or more,that's the one years. The max. Teague: Yeah. Here it says a more,but it needs to be changed. Moe: That's correct. Goers: Well,no,that's correct because it ceased for maximum time you put. Teague: I get it. Yes-yes. Yep,understood. So that's my only thing.But I'm not,you know-I'm not going to stand on the hill and die talking about this.But I do think for business owners, it is important that they have some latitude, and we don't want to make it where they need to come back to the city to make a special request. It will happen. It's going to happen. Goers: Mayor,before you or anyone else comes in, I want to respond to one part of what you said in that speaking about referencing or- or giving different treatment to a particular owner. This is a zoning ordinance. And so in zoning,we're more concerned with the use than the user. In fact,we have to focus on the use and not the user. So I would not think it would be appropriate to treat users differently. We have to focus on the use. Teague: Got it. I understood and in our respect,I think the reason that came to mind is because we were first considering a limit. Goers: Yeah, a permit cap. Teague: A permit cap.And so that's the rationale.But sure, if that is not something that we should be,you know, thinking about is more of the use,then that claim doesn't stand. Goers: Yeah. Salih: Can you get someone like,let me understand. If somebody has a license, and they decide to do a construction.But the license still under effect,right? Goers: Yes. The permit. Salih: I mean. Yeah. Goers: No,that's fine. If the permit lasts for a year,now folks can turn in a permit to get a refund if they so choose,but the permit for the whole year only costs 100 bucks. So it's been the experience. Salih: That's what I mean. Goers: Yeah. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024 Page 17 Salih: If somebody have, for example,license for one year and they have a construction, and that construction take one year, is still they can-they are not going to-they already renew it. They lost $100 and maybe by the year over, even the they permit almost expired. They can renew it while they're doing renovation,right?They can still come and say,I want to renew my license even though I did not finish my renovation yet. Goers: Right. I mean,to use the example of 955 Mormon Trek,that's a business that's been closed for months and months and months,but they still have a valid tobacco permit because they renewed it. Salih: They renewed every months. Okay,then what's the problem? Goers: Well,because there's two different standards. The losing or allowing your tobacco permit to lapse, that's set at 60 days.You can't allow that for more than 60 days without losing your grandfather rights. Whereas the tobacco sales,um,that-that speaks to the use,that is the,um,you know, ceasing making tobacco sales. And so you could have your tobacco permit for a whole year and never sell a pack of cigarettes. Salih: And all you lose is a$100? Goers: Um,that's right. Well,you wouldn't really lose anything. I guess that's opportunity costs or something.But yes,you would have wasted, I guess,um,the $100.But my point is that you would not offend,you know,Hlb,that is you did not allow your tobacco permit to lapse more than 60 days. It's still renewed. It's still good.But if they didn't sell tobacco for more than a year at present,then they would still lose their grandfather rights. Otherwise,you could imagine a hypothetical in which you had a business that was closed for 10 years,but they kept renewing, you know,the permit every year for 100 bucks a year and could thus,retain grandfather rights for that whole 10 years. Alter: Meaning then if it's grandfather rights,it's that allows them to sell to somebody else. Correct? Is that what you? Goers: Oh,none of this would prevent anyone from selling the property. The question is just whether-a transfer over that. Yeah,whether the use could. Alter: That's what I meant. Goers: Yeah. Alter: Regardless of how mere. Salih: That's why mayor,I'm just thinking like now to me, it doesn't matter if 90 days or 10 days, or anything as long as you have the opportunity to renew while you are in the- Alter: And Mayor Pro Tem,there's a specific date once a year that it expires. So- so they know. Salih: They that if our license expire on January 1 st or so before that,we can go renew it even though we are in construction and we're not doing anything. So I think here, don't you think the 90 days is not even important now? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024 Page 18 Goers: Well,no,it is. I mean,if you imagine,you know,that instead of a year,it was two days for that part. Then if you had any kind of,you know,we're going-you're closing up shop for a week to go on vacation to Florida. Well,now you just lost your grandfather rights because you were ceasing use for more than two days in this hypothetical. So you have to consider both of those two numbers. They're treated separately and have to be considered separately. So you could very well imagine a circumstance in which someone maintains their tobacco permit throughout the whole period of time,but loses their grandfather rights because they stop selling tobacco right now for more than a year. If they stopped for more than a year,they would lose their rights even if their tobacco permit was renewed every year. Salih: Cool. Bergus: Can we talk about the effective date of this then? So the ordinance is written to be effective after the final passage but there is a moratorium. So for a new,um,user, for-for someone who wants to initiate a use where there hasn't been use for,rather it was 90 days or a year,but they have a valid permit. What's their situation? Goers: Well,let me first start with the timing. So the ordinance,whatever council eventually passes, would take effect upon publication. So that's going to be a little bit after the third reading unless there's a collapse to bring it sooner.But if your question-I want to make sure I understand your hypothetical.Your question is whether someone who currently has both a permit and is actively engaged in the sale of tobacco could sell to someone else or? Bergus: No,the use has stopped. So under-I'm just trying to get to the 90 days versus a year. Right. So under He, if the sale use-let's just say,has stopped for more than a year,but they do have a valid permit,when does this restriction on the grandfathering kick in? Goers: Well,if I understand your hypothetical right away. Bergus: Is it look back and say,how long have you not been selling? Does it begin at the-the effective date of the ordinance? Goers: There's two parts of that.First is kind of a retrospective versus prospective application of the ordinance. And that's,uh,you know, subject to some argument in statutory interpretation. However, if I understand your hypothetical correctly,the definition of those who would maintain, you know,would have grandfather rights in the first place are those who are a tobacco sales oriented use now.And so that definition is any retailer actively engaged in the sale of tobacco products, cigarettes,etc, etc,pursuant to a tobacco permit. So if there's a business right now as of the passage of the ordinance that is not actively engaged in the sale of tobacco products, our offices opinion that they don't have grandfather rights. Bergus: Okay. Regardless of the 90 days or the year? Goers: Right. Bergus: Okay. Thanks. That's what I was getting at. Thank you. Goers: Okay. Sure. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024 Page 19 Moe: One more technical question for city attorney.Um,what is the- assume that we pass this as it's currently written one year,what are the steps for modifying that in the future? If the council had an appetite to revisit that, is it another three hearings, or is it a simple? Goers: It would be a trip to the Planning and Zoning Commission and then three readings. Moe: Okay. Bergus: And since I missed last meeting,what was P&Z's recommendation on this? Goers: Um,they recommended passage. I believe it was 5-1 or something there was one dissenting vote. Bergus: On the 90 days? Goers: Um,it was- Bergus: Do they reconsider with the one year? Goers: Oh, they have not opined on the- on the one year. When it was before them,it was 90 days because that's what council ultimately decided to send to them in a draft. Bergus: Okay. So they approved the 90 days 5-1,we think,correct? Goers: Yes. Bergus: It passed. Goers: It passed. There was one dissenting vote. Salih: And they did not talk about the one year anyway because we had the-we opened the conversation about the one year after it came from the planning here. Bergus: Sure. Salih: Yeah. Bergus: Sure. Alter: I understand that right. Teague: I have a-just one more clarification question. So if someone purchased a property or purchased a business today.And let's say this was active with the 500 foot rule.But will that new business owner be grandfathered in to allow that sale? Goers: Under this hypothetical, or they actively engaged in the tobacco sales now? Teague: No. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024 Page 20 Goers: Then there's no grandfather rights to protect.And so if they're within the 500 foot buffer,they would not be allowed to get a tobacco permit. Salih: What do you mean by active now?Do you mean like they have permit,but they are not selling tobacco for some reason right now, or you mean like they-they don't-they don't sell tobacco before or I don't know? Goers: My understanding of the hypothetical posed by the mayor was that they have a permit but are not actively engaged in the sale of tobacco right now. Salih: Okay. Alter: And I think the question is, if that business-that business were sold to an entity. Goers: Another entity. Alter: Who want to continue to want to also use it for tobacco sales. Goers: Want to begin tobacco sales that property? Alter: Yes. Goers: Correct? Alter: Is that what would that? Teague: Yeah, so- so,they wouldn't have-they wouldn't be able to- if a school is within 500 feet,they wouldn't be able to get a liquor- a tobacco license. Goers: Or if they're within 500 feet of another retailer. They are part of it. You're right. We would not recognize grandfather rights in their part. Teague: Okay. Salih: This is complicated.You know,if like, somebody-but because you said,like one year,if you-you will lose your-your permit,if you are not active selling for one year,right? Goers: That's one of the four ways you can lose your grandfather rights,yes. Salih: But if I was not-like I'm not selling tobacco right now,I have a permit, and I want to sell my business. I'm not selling tobacco for less than one year. I'm selling my business to someone,they are not going to get the grandfather? Goers: Well,right,because the-the whole nature of grandfather rights is protecting present uses. That is, you're presently engaging in this behavior that was legal at the time,uh,that you began doing it, but then there was a change in zoning laws that made it non-made it illegal-made it non conforming,illegal non conforming use.But in the hypothetical that I think we're discussing at present, if you've got,um,I'll say a location that is not actively engaged in the sale of tobacco This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024 Page 21 products,then they do not have grandfather rights because they're not currently doing so. They don't fall under the definition of a tobacco sales oriented use as proposed in this ordinance. Salih: But,uh,because I mean,like they did not selling it because they have, for example, construction or anything less than one year.Not because they don't sell it because. Goers: Well, I mean,I'm trying to think of,you know, for example,if there was,um, a permittee who three months ago closed down for-they were selling tobacco and they got a permit, and they were actively engaged, and they closed down for three or four months throughout the process of us working through this ordinance,but then,you know,begin again before,you know,you folks passed your ultimate bill,then I would say,yeah. If-if by the time this bill passes,they had active use,then they have grandfather rights and,you know,those rights will be protected, subject to these four exceptions that are outlined below. Is that responsive to your question? Salih: Yeah, it is.But even though if they close because there is a reason to close,not because they want to run-they don't want to do the business anymore,but they close because they want to fix the restore or anything. That's why they hold. They're selling currently,but their intention is to continue.But after that,they sell-they decide to sell this-this business to somebody else. Goers: Yeah,this is getting a little tricky. Um,I'm feeling like I'm going out on the limb a little farther than I feel comfortable on the fly. I would need to think about that one. I mean, I think your question ultimately is when, and you tell me if I'm wrong. When is the ultimate point of time that matters and so far as whether they have grandfather rights?Is that essentially your question? Salih: Yeah. Goers: Yeah, I'll need to give a little more thought to that. Salih: Okay. Dunn: Question. What constitutes actively selling? Goers: Um, selling. I don't know how to answer that question. Dunn: So- so if someone sold a pack of tobacco,you know, cigarettes or whatever,that's considered active sale. Goers: Yeah. Dunn: Did it had to be like doing it every day, or is it within a period of time? Bergus: A period of time as well. Goers: Well,yeah,I mean, if they sell one pack of cigarettes every month,then that wouldn't offend the, you know, ceased sales timeline here. I know that that would seem to be,you know, I don't know, pro forma or I don't know,what or tokenism,but I would probably say that they preserve their rights. Dunn: Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024 Page 22 Teague: Any other comments on this?And for clarity,this is the reconsideration of the going-returning back to 90 days. So that's what we're going to be voting on.Any- if no other comments, [Roll Call] Motion passes 4-2.And we are back to-. Goers: What is 5-2. Teague: Oh, 5-2. I can't count tonight. All right. 5-2.And we are back. So that has been reverted back to 90. And so at this point,we're going to have to-it's going to be a new first consideration. Goers: It'll be a new first consideration next month. I'm sorry,next meeting. Harmsen: So do we take further action at this point? Goers: Um,no. I would just defer until the next meeting. Dunn: So moved. Moe: Second. Teague: So moved by Dunn, seconded by Moe to defer,um,this item until November 4th. And we'll do a [Roll Call]Motion passes 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024 Page 23 10. Regular Formal Agenda 10.a Kratom Ban -Ordinance amending Title 6, entitled "Public Health and Safety",to create a new Chapter 11, entitled "Kratom", to prohibit its sale and distribution. Taegue:. We are on to item Number 10- 10.a is"Kratom Ban",ordinance amending Title 6,entitled Public Health and Safety to create a new Chapter I 1 entitled Kratom to prohibit it sell and distribution. This is the second consideration. Could I get a motion,please. Dunn: So moved. Salih: Second. Teague: Moved by Dunn, seconded by Salih. And if you are in City Hall and,you want to speak on this topic,please raise your hand. If you're online,please raise your virtual hand, and I'll call upon you. Okay. Welcome.And just to remind folks that this is an opportunity for you to speak to the council,the council will not be able to engage in discussion or debate. But the council may ask staff to respond to a concern or question posed by the public or to follow up with the speaker afterward. The council can ask questions during their deliberations. Welcome. Scheif Ryan: Hey, everybody.My name is Carolyn Scheif Ryan. I live in Iowa City on Spencer Drive. And I hope I never have to move.Again,it's good to be back. Uh, I oppose this ban, and,um, these are my reasons.Um,my understanding of the law is that in order for this to be,uh,legal,it needs to-the council needs to demonstrate that Kratom as a threat to public health.Um, I don't think the council has, and I don't think the council should try to do this. So far,um,it seems like all of the,uh, evidence has been mostly hearsay, anecdote references to inconclusive data and research that provides more questions than answers. So my first point is just the necessity to pass this ordinance in order to protect public health,it hasn't been demonstrated. I don't think that this will improve public health. Um,the second reason that I oppose this ban is because of what we've learned,um,from the war on drugs,which is that criminalizing the sale of a substance doesn't make it go away. It just pushes it to deeper and darker places. So banning the sale of Kratom in Iowa City doesn't mean people in Iowa City will lose access to it. It just means that we all lose, you all lose an opportunity to gain access to and engage with people who are using Kratom.And I just want to invite you for a moment and hopefully, for further discussion to think about what it would mean to have access to local stores and local people who buy and sell this substance. This is especially important And this is why I'm here,um,because,um,a real-real public health issue is the opioid epidemic. And,um,research including the research referenced by in the Mayo-in the ordinance itself,you referenced Mayo. Some of the research cited there is a study of thousands of people who use Kratom. And I think the number was 41%, say they use it in lieu of using opioids,which can actually kill you, and does kill people. In 2017, I lost three friends to the opioid epidemic. The State of Iowa lost about 300. And this last year,the State of Iowa lost 400- more than 400 people. So the opioid epidemic is the real issue. And it was alluded to at the last meeting and mentioned that there are barriers to the treatments that are recommended by the Mayo Clinic,etc for opioid addiction.Um, and people do use this substance. The research is there as a way,um,of reducing harm and fatalities. So in addition to having some personal experience with people who have died from the use of opioids,I also worked for a number of years,uh,in the homeless response system and worked with my clients on generating harm reduction related goals. Um,for some people,the use of Kratom helps them stay alive. So keep it above the table, engage vendors and users in creative ways. Don't ban the sale. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024 Page 24 Teague: Thank you.All right,we're going to go online. We're going to have Heidi come and speak followed by Mac. Please state your name and city you're from. You'll have up to three minutes. Welcome,Heidi. Sykora: Hi. My name is Heidi. I'm a Nurse Practitioner and Healthcare Executive who had to retire early due to disability. I actually earned my bachelors in 2011 but by 2015,my severe pain and inability to stand longer than a few minutes made me leave the workplace. So I was eventually diagnosed with several rare disorders that should have been diagnosed as a child but were not. Um,Chiari malformation,which basically means that my brain is outside my skull and puts a lot of pressure on my spinal cord.A tethered spinal cord also causes severe pain. Other type of mobility is a connective tissue disorder that causes pain and hereditary. Unfortunately,because of my brain condition, I'm very sensitive to pharmaceuticals.And I have not been able to find any pharmaceuticals that would help my pain. Thankfully,I was able to discover Kratom, and it has just been a real life saver for me. It reduces my pain without leading to the dizziness, confusion, and fatigue caused by oxycodone and has really given me my quality of life back that helps me enjoy my children and my grandchildren. So I am absolutely-I want to say a little bit about the hardship that it causes when something is banned. My permanent home is in Wisconsin,but I have a second home in Illinois and have to travel frequently to Illinois so that I can have a quality of life. So I hope that you will consider a kind of hardship that is created with ban. And just like the last speaker talked about,that it really is a harm reduction tool, and it's also used by so many people like me that really need it for chronic severe pain. Without it,unfortunately,people can turn to other illicit drugs or even prescribed drugs that have a much higher risk profile. So I thank you for your time and appreciate you hearing me tonight. Teague: Thank you.Heidi,please state what city you're from. Sykora: Um, I'm Grafton in Wisconsin,but I'm talking to you from Wauconda, Illinois. Teague: Thank you. Sykora: So I have to travel between the two states because of the ban in Wisconsin. Teague: Thank you. Welcome,Mac, and we'll-we'll have that followed by Susan. Haddow: Thank you,Mayor Teague and members of the council.My name is Mac Haddow. I'm the senior fellow on public policy with the American Kratom Association. We're based in Gainesville,Virginia,but we represent the more than 20 million Americans across the United States,including in Iowa City who are consumers of Kratom products. I wanted to address two important issues.First is,in the last meeting,there was a discussion about how someone had expropriated the identities of Iowa City residents, and we have called upon through letters to you and a filing a complaint with the police department to-to actually investigate this because we believe that it's a serious issue. Even if it's a well intentioned Kratom supporter that did that,it is inappropriate and wrong and the public policy discussion should not be influenced inappropriately by that kind of activity. We hope that you will accept our request for this investigation, and we will fully cooperate. Secondly,in reviewing the materials that is before the council, I can tell you with certainty that most of what you are relying upon is outdated. And I would refer you to the food and drug administration itself,which refused to testify in a federal court proceeding in 2024 under the orders of a federal judge on the question as to whether This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024 Page 25 Kratom was dangerous or not in the course of a trial involving a import alert violation. And the judge wanted to know the severity of the sentencing that he was about to impose on this individual who,by the way,was stone cool guilty of importing it inappropriately.But what the FDA said in an official communication to the court was that they,the FDA have not yet come to a determination as to whether Kratom is dangerous or not. That's an important point that even the FDA today cannot do that. We found out shortly after that court proceeding why. The FDA has conducted a safe study called a single ascending dose study,which looked at Kratom to determine whether or not humans could safely consume it. They expected that they would see serious adverse events at very small doses. They got to 12 grams,which is 12,000 milligrams of Kratom consumed in a five minute period, and all they observed was nausea both-in both the placebo group and in the-the Kratom users. And they,the FDA determined in its in writing and publicly available that Kratom appears to be well tolerated at all dose levels. The Mayo Clinic merely repeats what the outdated information that they are getting from the FDA, and they have not done one study.But Johns Hopkins University does,the University of Florida has. All of that at the behest of the National Institute on Drug Abuse,which has spent more than $100 million in studying Kratom.And their conclusion is Kratom should be available today to Americans because it is a harm reduction tool. We hope you will listen to those messages of credible institutions, credible researchers, and not fall victim to outdated information which even Secretary-Assistant Secretary to Health, said in rejecting the FDA's premise, it was based on embarrassment. Teague: Thank you-thank you. And Mac,will you just state what city you're from?I know that you're with Kratom. Haddow: Right. We're-we're based in Gainesville,Virginia.But as I mentioned, we represent consumers across the United States including in Iowa City. Teague: Yeah. Thank you. We're going to have Susan speak followed by Misty. Please, state your name and city you're from. Eppard: Yes. I'm Susan Eppard, and I'm from Muskegon, Michigan. Teague: Welcome. Eppard: Thank you.My-my 22-year-old son,Matthew died from using Kratom powder,which is the least potent form of Kratom available in the United States. Kratom caused him to have a seizure, go into cardiac arrest, and die. His toxicology showed he had no prescription drugs,no street drugs,no alcohol in his system, and that he had no underlying health conditions and was not epileptic. I am a member of the group,Kratom Danger Awareness created by a mom who lost her only child, and hundreds of our members have lost loved ones to Kratom deaths. There is a reddit Quitting Kratom that has over 40,000 people who have suffered from Kratom addiction.All Kratom is illegally imported into the United States by falsely labeling it as tea,fertilizer, incense, et cetera, and labeling it not for human consumption. The FDA continues to warn against using Kratom. Their website shows they haven't changed their minds about Kratom, and they're actively collecting information through the FDA adverse events reporting system.Anyone can go there and view all the Kratom poisonings, injuries and deaths that have been reported to them. I have spoke with the FDA, and they are actively collecting information on every Kratom product that is causing deaths. The American Kratom Association has over 40 Kratom vendors advertising on their website of so called GMP qualified, and several of them are involved in Kratom wrongful This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024 Page 26 death lawsuits. Kratom is dangerously similar to opioid and shouldn't be sold out of gas stations and smoke shops with unlimited supply to the consumer. I've been to hundreds of establishments that sell Kratom.And when I asked,what is the dose and the side effects?Mostly,they are not allowed to answer that question and tell me to search online. I also asked, is it possible to die from using it?And without exception,they all said,no.My son was playing cards with his girlfriend. And he went into a seizure and fell on the floor and went into cardiac arrest. And she called me, and it took me about a half hour to get there.And when I got there, sorry,my son didn't make it.And it took a while for them to get him ready and let me go in and see him.And when I went in,he was still laying on the kitchen floor. Still intubated.He was gray and cold and stiff. And I could tell he was no longer there. Teague: Thank-thank you, Susan. Eppard: Thank you. Teague: Thank you. We're going to call on Misty, followed by Bud. Please, state your name and city you're from. Brown: Hi. Can you guys hear me, okay'? Teague: Yes,welcome. Brown: Hi,Mayor Teague, and council members. My name is Misty Brown, and I'm a loud and proud Kratom advocate from Colorado. I would just like to say that today is my son-my third child's birthday. He is turning 20-years-old. And if I wouldn't have found Kratom over five years ago, I would not be alive today to witness him turning 20-years-old. He is also turning me into a grandma. I will be having a grand baby here in a couple of months. I myself was a victim to the over prescribing opioid epidemic. I was in chronic pain management for over 11 years. I got fired from my pain management doctor in April of 2019 because the government decided to get involved and tell the doctors how much and what they can prescribe to chronic pain patients. When I got fired,I picked up doing cocaine. June 2019 was when I watched that documentary a Leap of Faith, and I walked straight into a smoke shop the next day to buy Kratom. That is what you guys are trying to ban. You're trying to ban the sale of it.And that right there could be somebody's lifeline, somebody's life jacket to keep their head above addiction waters so that they can work on their why's of addiction like I have. Kratom is not similar to opioids. If it was, I will be begging,borrowing, stealing, and doing immoral things to get more when I run out. I only dose one teaspoon once a day. I take one to four days off every week. So once again,Kratom is not similar to opioids. It is my harm reduction tool. It is my chronic pain management answer. I can't pray my pain away. I will forever be dependent on something.But as far as addiction potential for me,no. Pure unadulterated Kratom is not addictive. It is just as addictive as coffee. And nobody bats an eye that people brag about being addicted to coffee. Why? Why is that? Because it's socially acceptable. The mainstream media and our government puts a bad name on Kratom. And unfortunately,for some of you guys sitting up there,you fell for that.You fell for the mainstream media. So follow the science. Don't ban the style of Kratom. Let that be somebody's life line to save their life.Allow them to walk into a smoke shop and buy what will potentially save them so they can be alive for their kids and grand kids. Thank you for allowing me to speak. Teague: Thank you. Welcome,Bud,followed by Laura. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024 Page 27 Smith: Hello. Can you hear me? Teague: Yes. Welcome. Smith: Thank you. I don't use Zoom very often, so I apologize. My name is Bud, and I have been consuming Kratom for over seven years. Teague: Please state what city you're from? Smith: What city? Teague: Yes,please. Smith: Syracuse,New York. Teague: Great. Smith: So I- I started taking drugs when I was 13-years-old. I lived through a childhood that no child should have to live through.And I started stealing my father's pain pills when I was 13. And there were hundreds of extra pain pills in the house. So my father did not even know that I was stealing them. I spent 17 years doing any drug that you can think of.Heroin, crack,meth,Molly. If you name it,I've done it.And I have lost a lot of friends to opioids, a lot of young 20-year-old friends to opioids. I never thought that I would be the kind of person who could buy a house,keep a job. And I have four children. And those four children have a father in their life, a good father who takes care of them, and they have that father because of Kratom.Because without Kratom, I would be abusing some sort of substances.Now,it's not just illegal drugs that issues with,it's also prescription drugs. When I found Kratom, I was going through withdrawals from Xanax that was prescribed to me. The amount of Xanax that was prescribed to me was eight milligrams per day. And I don't know if you know how much Xanax that is. That is about four times the amount that an adult should be prescribed. So I was being overprescribed Xanax. I don't blame it on the doctor. I said to the doctor that the Xanax wasn't helping, so he gave me more. The withdrawals that I went through on Xanax were worse than any illegal- any illegal drugs that I had gone through withdrawals on.And someone suggested that I try Kratom.And I tried Kratom. And seven years later, I use Kratom responsibly. I don't overdo it. And my mental health is better than it has ever been in my life. And I will tell every single person that Kratom saved me. And I have talked to personally,thousands of people who have said the same thing that I'm saying that Kratom saved them. And the difference between Kratom and a drug because Kratom is not classified as drug. Teague: Thank you, Bud. Smith: It's not. Taegue: Thank you. Welcome, Lora.Followed by Jennifer. Lora,please state your name and city you're from. You're on mute. Romney: Okay. Can you hear me now? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024 Page 28 Teague: Yes,welcome. Romney: Okay. Thank you. So my name is Lora Romney, and I'm from Layton,Utah. And I am a chronic pain patient and a seven year Kratom consumer. I was actually on daily oxycodone for a few years and was able to transition off of oxycodone and only take Kratom to control my daily pain. And I'm here to please oppose that,you know,the-the possible ban of taking this out of your retail establishments.As you've heard tonight,you know, it's used to control pain,to reduce anxiety, and to obviously to stay off addictive drugs and things like heroin and other opioids.But I want to say,most importantly is,these are symptoms that you just can't wish away. More than anything,I would love to be able to say that I took nothing. That would be-I would give my left kidney for that.But it's something I know that I'm going to need to rely on. I have an incurable disease called trigeminal neuralgia. And,you know,people that struggle with severe anxiety, and then again, addiction,they cannot just merely wish it away. They have to find something to help them. And the problem is,we are in the middle of an opioid epidemic. And right now it's near impossible to get a pain medication prescription or a benzo-benzodiazepine prescription for anxiety. And so people are becoming suicidal. I follow a patient pain group where the administrator, she gets numerous letters a week of people literally ready to commit suicide because they don't have pain control.And a lot of are turning to the black market,which those pills are laced with fentanyl and other very dangerous substances. Another issue is mental health. My own daughter, she has severe ADHD, and she has been unable to fill her prescription this past month due to medication shortages. So it's for people like that that are really relying on this as a lifeline. And,you know,I live in the State of Utah,which has passed the Kratom Consumer Protection Act. In fact,there are 13 other states who have passed it. And so there is a correct way to do this. Instead of banning it,you need to have it regulated. The solution is not,you know-not to take it away,but to make sure it's not given to or not allowed to be sold to minors. It's properly tested and labeled.And so,you know,I highly suggest you work with the American Kratom Association to try to get the Kratom Consumer Protection Act passed in Iowa so that,you know, the patients like myself and others that we've heard of tonight have access. And in closing,I received a text city. I'm actually in Tennessee tonight,but I received a text from my friend or my coworker,who was a former commander of investigation for the state police in Utah. He's also a Kratom consumer for his pain. And he said to me,it was funny I was landing, and I saw his text. And he said,you know, I rolled my ankle, and he said I'm in so much pain. Teague: Thank you. Romney: Thank you. Teague: Yes. Romney: Appreciate it. Teague: Welcome, Jennifer, followed by Kevin. Gillis: Yes. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak tonight.My name is Jennifer Gillis, and I reside in Memphis,Tennessee. I'm here this evening as an advocate for those in Iowa who may not be able to make it this evening to have their voices heard. But I just want to ask you to reconsider the ban on Kratom and instead focus on regulation. In 2005,I was diagnosed with transverse myelitis. The rare condition that lets me to live the ruts of my life,not only with physical limitations,but also chronic pain. Over the next decade, I tried all kinds of different pain This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024 Page 29 management techniques along with numerous prescription and over the counter medications that tend to just manage my pain to live.But nothing really alleviated my suffering. My life was confined by pain, leaving me unable to be the mom that I wanted to be,the wife, or even just the person I wanted to be. In May of 2019, I found Kratom.And for the past five years, I've used it responsibly, and it's given me a second chance at life.My physical limitations are still present, but the constant pain that used to control my life is no longer my reality. I can get out of bed,run errands, attend school functions, and live somewhat of a normal life. I understand Kratom has a lot of controversy around it,but I agree safety is important. And so instead of an outright ban, I encourage you to look into regulation.An outright ban with adults of the freedom to make informed educated decisions about our health.Kratom has been a lifeline for people like me, offering relief for other treatments that fail. Please don't take this lifeline. Regulate it,ensure safety,but don't ban it. Thank you so much for your time tonight. Teague: Thank you. We have two more speakers. I'm going to ask-actually ask Michael to come before we hear from Kevin. Welcome,Michael. Please state your name and city you're from. We can't hear you. You're on mute. Fererra: Hello. My name is Michael Fererra. I'm from Iowa. I'm speaking on behalf of the people in Iowa City that consume Kratom. I've been a consumer of Kratom for the past six years. Teague: So Michael,we can't hear you. So the reason I called up Michael is because I saw that he kept going in and out. So he may have a bad connection. Welcome,Kevin. Please state your name and city you're from. Mumm: My name is Kevin Mumm. I'm from Waite Park, a ban on Kratom is ridiculous. The leading Kratom experts in the United States recommend access,the citizens of Iowa City including but not limited to nurses,construction workers, athletes,use it to relieve their pain and live a fully functional life without using opioids.Banning Kratom will leave their citizens seeking alternatives like opioids, opening the risk of dependency and death. If you haven't forgotten,we're in the midst of an opioid crisis that is killing hundreds of thousands every year. A research study by Jack Henningfield in PubMed says overdose deaths are greater than 1,000 times for opioids than for Kratom. If an opioid user would switch to Kratom,nearly all those lives would be saved. We know that death by Kratom isn't accurate. We know that Fentanyl and novel psychoactive drugs are-are not routinely being tested for and have been found to be the true cause of death after further testing. The World Health Organization studied Kratom and found that less than 1% of cases of Kratom reported events to the United States poison-poison data system were medically serious. The World Health Organization also found that Kratom was not the primary cause in the vast majority of Kratom associated deaths,but rather was an incidental finding. Thank you. Teague: Thank you.Michael,hasn't come back.But Michael, if you do return within the next few seconds, I will allow you to continue your comments. I'm going to close the public comment period.Now council discussion. Harmsen: Well, I know some of you have kind of heard my position on this before, for the benefit of my fellow council members who weren't able to be here for the last meeting, I do support this ban for a couple of reasons. One is certainly because of the FDA warning, saying that this is a substance of concern. And,you know,to me,that's-that is one piece of the puzzle that I think is important. One is because just sort of thinking about it logically,when we have so many claims about this This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024 Page 30 particular substance,Kratom.And claims are that it can help deal with various testimony we've heard over several weeks, alcoholism, opioid addiction, anxiety,depression. If those claims are true,then that indicates to me that this is a substance that has some sort of significant and- and profound effect on the human body. Otherwise, it wouldn't have any impact. This would just be who are you talking about a placebo effect. But there is, again, sort of that lack of understanding and full research that this is a safe product, and we do have,you know, so it's kind of like-to me, it's like kind of wanting to have it both ways. It's significant and it helps people,but we don't really know why and how, and we can't really say for sure. And then to make the-the claim that it has these impacts,but doesn't have some side effects,just seems really- seems on its face not super. I don't find that to be super credible, super believable. And then adding in the fact that I don't know, I haven't heard anything about any actual doctors or people who do,you know, actual medical, drug rehab, sorts of things that are prescribing this as a substance. So that raises questions in my mind as well. More specifically, one of the things, and one of the other reasons too,I support a ban on the sale of this in our city is because of something that came up kind of during our discussion of tobacco-the tobacco ordinance when we heard from the state,or sorry, the county public health, and that is the prevalence of the advertising and the impact the advertising has especially on young people, as they walk into-walk past tobacco shops,walk into and past convenience stores and things like that where these are,you know, advertised in great big lights. Uh,the reason you have advertising is order to convince people to buy whatever the product is. And so I do see from like, a public health standpoint and a public health thinking about the impact of not just the substance,but the marketing of the substance being so prevalent in our community at all these places that sell tobacco and other places. Those-those are actually pretty grave concerns for me. And so-so,you know,those are important to me. And then,you know, some of the stuff that was raised by some of our colleagues at the last meeting,including the identity theft that had happened in the flood of emails that had come our way by people claiming to be in favor of Kratom and not indeed being those people. And Councilor Moe,was sharing with us the recent obituary of an Iowa City resident who passed away back on August 30th.Um, and in this thing from her family, and again,understanding that I don't have the medical examiner's report on this,but whatever,uh,happened to take this poor 45-year-old woman's life early and leaving behind two children by the way, a 17-year-old and a 10-year-old. Here's what the family published in the paper. In lieu of flowers, consider donating some time to write your state or federal congressional representative to raise awareness of Kratom,the legal yet unregulated drug,which took Liz's life and made two orphans, and then some instructions on how to contact a federal representative.Now,again,all of these are pieces,which to me add up to the conclusion that it is in the public health interest of our city to vote to ban the sale of this.Now, should there be some state regulation or further stuff that indicates that,yes,indeed,this should be something we should be selling,that's fine.But we as a city, don't have the ability to do that kind of work.But if the state or a federal agency like the FDA were to do that,then I would absolutely reconsider. Moe: Thank you,Councilor Harmsen.And I agree that our state legislators need to take this seriously and need to be regulating this in the way that they have the tools to regulate this. And that's making sure that what is seen in stores is actually what's advertised to make sure it's not adulterated to make sure it's not some of the synthetic symptoms components that are very-very-very much stronger than traditional Kratom and to make sure that they're not sold to children. And that's something our state legislature needs to do. We had people call in from different states today who I believe them when they say it helped.But they also,many of them live in states that have regulation,regulation that restricts age,regulation that ensures that the product is actually what This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024 Page 31 it's advertised to be.Um, and so I'll be supporting this.And if our state does its job and starts regulating, I'm happy to think differently. Bergus: Um, I didn't have the benefit of being here last meeting,but I just- I'll just cut to the chase. This feels like really dramatic overreach to me. And I think what bothers me is the lack of evidence that you were just speaking to,Councilor Harmsen. And to me,the conclusion from that is not prohibited. The lack of evidence to me says we are not the best people to be regulating. We are not the best people to be deciding. And I think what was dispositive for me is,you know,looking at the tobacco,um, ordinance changes that we appear to be on the way to,well,I guess I don't know if we're actually going to adopt them,but that's my-my sense is that this is something that council is interested in doing once we get to our first reading. Um,that the-the Kratom ban is really something else in so far as we don't have a staff recommendation. And we have,uh, unknown fiscal impact. It was indicated in the memo that the fiscal impact would be none from, you know,passing the ordinance banning it,but there would have to be some kind of enforcement mechanism even if it's just the city attorney issuing municipal citations or the police,you know, charging misdemeanors,which are the two potential punishments for a violation. So even if we have,you know,it's just complaint based or something like that, if we don't have a really active robust enforcement mechanism,there will be a cost to our staff. Um,you know,I just-yeah. It just feels like if it were very-very clearly,very dangerous, and this was our only tool in the toolbox, I think I would support it,but I agree that,you know,from a harm reduction standpoint and a state legislature makes the most sense to-to be enacting that,like,we are just not experts on this, and I don't think the science is clear. So I'm not going to be supporting the ban. Alter: And I'm just going to follow up. I was against the ban in our last meeting, and Councilor Bergus said it much more eloquently than me this time around to summarize where my objections have been,but we don't know its impact. I do believe heartily in the fact that not everyone has access to the doctors and the-the access to more established means of getting off of drugs or of pain management. And I just think it's a lot of overreach. I really do. We don't know at the FDA,well, we might tout them,um, and I mean this with respect they are toothless. They have had so much money taken away. So I'm not thinking that they're cutting edge and that actually Kratom is on their radar as much.Anyway, I just I'm not supporting this. I'm-I'm going to be consistent. I don't believe that the city should be,um,regulating what individuals do to this extent. Dunn: I think this is something that I definitely struggle with. As council is probably aware, a lot of this does stem from conversations that I started during the broader discussion around the tobacco ordinance and- and work on that.Um, I'm put in a position where it's difficult for me to get to where-get to a comfortable spot. This-this is one of those votes that it doesn't feel like we have a good place to land,at least for me,because I can recognize all the things that Councilor Harmsen says, as I think,fundamentally good interpretations of the way the land lays.Um, and at the same time,acknowledge that there is an abundance of people who the product,you know,they seem to think that it helps them. That's not necessarily the most important thing in terms of our decision making process. We have to think about the broader health of the community. Um,understanding various,uh,predatory marketing tactics that,you know, companies that produce the product, utilize-the companies that sell the product,utilize. Those are all of concerns as well as,you know,purity of the product, and I completely understand, and I think that it's a valid important argument that needs to be made towards the broader safety of our community.Um,where I think I began in this broader conversation was a position of this is a substance that has some real,uh, real concern. And I think that everyone here can probably acknowledge that it is concerning. It's not absolute bad,it's not absolute good,but it is concerning. The regulatory agencies say so as This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024 Page 32 well. And for,you know,however you want to take that. Um,in light of that,I definitely believe that,you know, at first,um,I agreed with the sentiment that the city is incapable of creating a satisfactory regulatory regime. And I still do believe broadly that that is the case. We cannot create a regulatory regime that mandates purity, safety or in any other way really determines for, you know, a matter of medical fact,um,or scientific fact for that matter, safe usage standards and requirements, and regulations for this substance.Um,at that time,you know,believe that,okay,if we can't do that, if we can't go all the way and create the regulation that could be acceptable,the alternative is a ban. I don't necessarily know that I believe that to be the case anymore,um, through my conversations with members of the community,um, as well as,you know,Councilor Alter. Um, I think what at least I would support at this moment,um,is more conformity with our tobacco regulations. So like a parallel system of regulations and permitting a verifiable age regulation for sale.And then,you know, should we get some more solid data,we can continue to act in the future, or the federal government or state government will act and supersede us. Um,I think that a large focus of this broader conversation surrounding tobacco and Kratom has been highly focused on minimizing the impacts to young people,um, and I think that,um,to my goals and perspectives of the situation conformity with the tobacco regulations or uniformity with the tobacco regulations would achieve that.Um,yeah. I'm interested in hearing if other people would be interested in that or-or what thoughts people have because that would have to be a motion, that would also have to be a lot of other actions. Um, and,you know, council's, er,proclivities will affect the decision that I ultimately make. Moe: I think that we had discarded,you can correct me if I'm wrong,regulating them like cigarettes for a couple of reasons. Primarily amongst them is the state provides us money to do compliance checks for tobacco. And the state also makes sure that cigarettes are as they're labeled. And the state has all these kind of rules about age and then marketing.And in that arena,the state has set up a system that I think we all-we all accept.But,you know,without really knowing what's being sold or having a system to pay for compliance, I agree with you. I-I can see a future where we regulate it like cigarettes,like regulate it like-like-like-like-alcohol. Like our neighbors regulate marijuana. Like,I can imagine that being the right way in the future.But because we don't have a state that's a participant right now in this conversation, I'm erring on safety, and that we-we need them to act. And maybe it will,if we can get the industry to sort of say,oh,wow, bans aren't good. We need to work on the state legislature to regulate. Teague: I think the regulation is of concern when we're talking about the ban,um,you know,how will it be enforced?And then,yes,there will be some cost, some staff time associated with this. I'm not too worried about that part of it,but if we did have the other regulations that you kind of just alluded to,um,I still feel there will be some probably even more involvement from the city on this. It is not an easy decision,but I have to say that since this has been a controversial thing, which I did not know a lot about, and it is really sweeping the nation,there are children, and there are people,you know,consuming this, and there are bad actors out there, and I know we can't control all of that. We don't know what in any of the products in any of the stores. And so I do feel that it's a public safety-public health safety issue.And for that reason, I'm going to be voting for the ban. While I also hope that there will be more definitive things coming from either our state legislator- state legislature on this particular item but for me, I will be supporting the ban. Salih: Um,you know,I heard a lot of positive. To begin with, I really wasn't know about this at all. The first time I learned about it was here at the council meeting.And I have to go and read a lot about it.And I saw a lot of negative things about,like,reports there. And also, Shawn mentioned that the have a warning about it.And we just heard also a woman from Michigan. She was talking This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024 Page 33 about how her son died,passed away. And to me,I cannot say it's bad, or it's good or because I don't have that expert.But if there is 1%, it could be but things for the people of the city,I will not go with it. That's why because of some people say yes, some people say,no, I'd rather go with ban it.And if it turned back to be good and as,you know, council,you know, Josh Moe said and Harmsen if the regulations by the state,they decided to talk about this and do it,we can come back all the time. So I will be supporting,yes for the ban. Bergus: I appreciate that there are four of my colleagues who've indicated they want to support the ban. I do just want to zoom out for a minute and just say that it's very concerning to me that we would step into a regulatory space because of something that could cause harm in a small percentage of cases. There are so many things that fit into that category. If that's how we're going to define when we step into something,that that's very troubling to me. I appreciate the arguments of my colleagues, and I hope that we will not apply that standard as deciding the issue for prohibiting the sale of other kinds of things,because there are so many things that can be misused and cause harm that I just don't think we have the expertise or the appropriate purview to prohibit in our community. Harmsen: I think to clarify just a couple of points on that to make sure that I'm being understood. Um, with some of these other things that I think you're probably alluding to a couple of different situation,there's a different situation with Kratom here. One of them is the FDA warning that it's a substance of concern,right?I think that's the phrase or something equivalent to that. So that's something we don't have on any substance out there, and it's not just like there's a lack of research and we don't know if it's safe or not. It's-it's a little bit different and it's little bit more than that. And we actually have some reasons to believe it may not be safe and reasons that are coming from the FDA. Some other substances like tobacco, for example, or alcohol,both of which we've talked about tonight,actually do have a regulatory structure that you know, so there is, even though you could certainly make the argument about the,you know,relative risks of these different substances yet that has been taken sort of out of our hands. So to me, looking at this as just from our city,when I look at this,it's like,okay, so we have this substance. And really, I think you hit the crux,the nail on the head,even though I think we're coming on down on different sides. Do we allow-since the question is before us,do we allow the sale of something we-there might be instance of concern,but we aren't for sure, or do we wait to-do we wait for that question to be cleared up to allow it,or do we wait for that question to be cleared up to ban it?Which is really kind of the issue that we have before us,at least the way I see it.And so I think if I'm hopefully not putting too many words in your mouth, I think probably we're just coming down on the opposite sides of the same coin there. Bergus: Yeah. Harmsen: And that's why. It's not just sort of a random thing. To me,the some of the stuff like the FDA concerns are relevant. Some of these other concerns that have been brought up. And then,of course,the marketing to kids. That's one thing that to me would be a benefit is immediately.At least in Iowa City,they could no longer market and sell. To me,that's a value that I see,but I can see that,you know,that might still feel like overreach, and I respect that opinion. Salih: And also, I think,like we cannot be talking about tobacco and,like,kids far away from the school and all the things that we've been talking about for the tobacco. And I- I-correct me if I'm wrong, but I hear that even for the Kratom,there is no even age restriction.And this is to me- and I hear that from the people who are using it and say, like,it helped me,like,relieve my pain. It helped This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024 Page 34 me doing that. Just think about it,like children go and just buy that and start using it. I think they would- even if they not having a pain or anything,they just want to try it and after that,they become addicted to it. This is really just,you know,that's really scary. That's why I'm-I'm against this. Alter: I know that we have regulations in place through the Feds and state about alcohol and tobacco, and we have talked about it in terms of how we can mitigate the exposure to children and teens about this.And yet,both of those substances are proven to kill and to be detrimental. There is no good outcome for either one of these things,right?Recreation at best. And both substances absolutely are corollary. Maybe not with, I mean,there's certainly overdoses. There's cancer,but also with all assaults,burglaries,poor judgment. So-and I'm not railing at any. It's the conversation. I want everyone to understand that that I'm not railing against my fellow councilors.But I'm just very frustrated because at the same time, and I've heard it a couple of times,we don't know anything really about it. This is the first time that we're hearing about it. So let's make a call about it.And we have had. Yes,it is qualitative evidence,not quantitative. Although I've been looking at indications of overdoses. They're very small. They're usually in conjunction with people who have opioid substance abuse history, and that those are also part of what's in their bodies. So I guess I'm just frustrated with the sort of notion of saying,well,we're being really good about how we're going to understand tobacco, and we've also done it in the past with alcohol to mitigate harm. Here,this is a substance of concern. It is not proven perhaps to like-that there's this grounds well, of Kratom addiction that's even floating through our own. Like this came to us because it was sort of part of a larger umbrella discussion. It didn't come because, Oh my God. The police are coming to us telling us Kratom is running rampant. It was a suggestion that sounded like a good idea in the moment and we don't know that much about it. We are not a medical body. We are a policy entity, and I think it's overreach, and I think the idea that we don't know about it makes it good enough for us to say,until we know more,no. I just I have a huge problem with that. So thank you for indulging me,my frustration.But-and I- and I respect each and every one of you.But I just I can't go there. I just can't. And- and I'm frustrated that this even came up. Salih: Yeah. Teague: Any other comments by councilors? [Roll Call] Motion passes 4-3. Can I get a motion to accept correspondence? Salih: Moved. Alter: Seconded. Teague: Moved by Salih, seconded by Alter.All in favor, say aye. Group: Aye. Teague: Any opposed?Motion passes 7-0? Grace: Mayor, I don't think we got a motion for correspondence under 9.b. Teague: Okay. Great. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024 Page 35 Grace: Get one for that. Dunn: Move to accept correspondence for 9.b. Salih: I second. Teague: All right. Um, so I didn't-who- could I get a motion to accept correspondence? Who moved it? Dunn: That's me. Teague: All right. Dunn. Seconded by? Alter: Salih. Teague: Salih.All in favor, say aye. Group: Aye. Teague: Any oppose? Motion passes 7-0. All right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024 Page 36 12. City Council Information Teague: We are on to item Number 12,which is City Council Information. Alter: I just want to note one really quick thing. It's just I think it's a nice connection for our ongoing work is that actually,I applied for and was appointed onto the empowerment and early childhood Iowa Area Board. So Dunn: congratulations. Alter: Yeah. So it's exciting, and I get onboarded on Thursday. So I just I like the notion of us being able to sort of continue,uh,a way to know more about what's going on in terms of early childcare. Moe: I just want to say thank you to the police department. I did a ride along, and it was a really wonderful opportunity to see our police department collaborate with Johnson County Ambulance, as well as helping someone get to Guide Link,which is working and helping people and keeping people out of jail and getting the help they need. So it was an inspiring evening. So thanks to the department for their good work. Salih: Oh,you did. I've been trying to do that for the past seven years,past five years. Moe: It's fun. Salih: Yeah, I will do it. Harmsen: I mentioned this during the work session,but since it is possibly a different audience online, anyway. The Iowa City Book Festival is underway, and we'll be continuing through the weekend in several locations,mostly around downtown Iowa City, including the Iowa City Public Library, Merge, Prairie Lights, and other venues. I highly encourage people to check out the website,just do a Google search on Iowa City Book Festival. There a lot of authors who will be in town talking about their books and having discussions and members of the public. It's free to come in and see that. There will also be some panel discussions.And since we are UNESCO city of literature, and we have a lot of people who really vibe on that the whole idea of literature and books. This is a wonderful event, and encourage anyone to check out some of it over the next several days. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024 Page 37 13. Report on Items from City Staff Teague: All right. We're going to move on to item Number 13. Reports on items from city staff, city manager's office? Fruin: Nothing tonight,Mayor. Thank you. Teague: City Attorney's Office? Goers: Me neither. Thank you. Teague: All right. City Clerk? Grace: Just another reminder for the police-Community Police Review Boards Community Forum tomorrow night at the Iowa City Room A at 5:30. 14. Adjourn Teague: Great. Awesome. We're on to item Number 14. Can I get a motion to adjourn,please? Bergus: So moved. Salih: Second. Teague: Moved by Bergus, seconded by Salih. All in favor, say aye.[Voice Vote] Any opposed'? We are adjourned. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of October 15, 2024