Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-02-04 TranscriptionIowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at httl2s://citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. [00:00:21] All right. We are gonna go ahead and get started with the City of Iowa City's work session for February 2nd- February 4th, 2025. And the first item on our agenda is clarification of agenda items. [00:00:38] 1 just want to ask the city attorney about Item Number 2. Because it have aid to agency on this and I have also something else. I want to mention the same [inaudible 00:00:51] one theory. And also, I propose this is not supposed to be also in the work session. Can we move that somewhere else? [00:01:00] I'm sorry, uh, Mayor Pro Tem, I just want to make sure I followed you, uh, were raising the potential conflict issues in Item Number 2 in the work session, is that correct? (00:01:09] And also, like, because I have to recuse myself from aid to agency discussion. [00:01:15] Sure. [00:01:16] And it is on the IB, uh, it is on- [inaudible 00:01:21], like I think January, and I want to discuss some [inaudible 00:01:28), but not this one. [00:01:30] 1 think that sounds right. [00:01:33] What I'll do is I'll make sure- [00:01:34] If- if I followed- sorry [00:01:351 Yeah. What I'll do is I'll make sure that we, um, talk about all agenda items from I137, except for, um, except I137, and then, um, we'll continue the discussion without you. But thanks for making that known. Great. [00:01:55] 1 need to recuse myself from work session, Item 521 South Linn Street and formal, uh, item Agenda 10B, joint law enforcement. And then also wanted clarification on formal meeting Item 10A, the charter review commission, wondering if we treat this like a zoning matter, where if we hear nothing from the community, we can expedite the third reading, or we need to have three readings. Page 1 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at httl2s:.//citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. [00:02:20] In answering to your last question, uh, first, Councilor Moe, certainly you can expedite, the counsel can expedite, uh, and collapse to, uh, two readings, if that's the will of the council. In so far as whether this is a quasi judicial, uh, proceeding, it is not. It's political, so it's fine if constituents reach out to you and try to lobby you on, uh, matters. [00:02:42] Okay. Thanks. [00:02:47] All right. Any other items from the agenda, formal agenda? Hearing none, we're going to move on to Item Number 2, which is information packet discussion, January 23rd. (00:03:00] [inaudible 00:03:00] [00:03:10] January 23rd. Hearing none, we're going to move on to, uh, January 30th, and we're gonna discuss all of the information packets except hold comments on I137. [00:03:28] Uh, and also I134. [00:03:37] And also IP4. [00:03:41] One second. [00:03:42] I'm sorry, why are- [00:03:44] 1 have to recuse myself for I134, which is a later discussion item. So- [00:03:48] Oh, it is a- [00:03:48] Yes. It's- it's on the- it's on the work session agenda. Page 2 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at https://citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. [00:03:51] Gotcha- gotcha. Sorry about that. [00:03:53] Yeah. [00:03:54] There's too many tabs open on my computer. [00:03:55] No, there's a lot of interworking pieces here. So- [00:03:59] 1 better [inaudible 00:03:59]. 1 just want to talk also about, like, IB, 1 think it is IB-. [00:04:11] 1136. [00:04:13] 1136. [00:04:16] On the 30th? [00:04:17] Yes. On the 30th. [00:04:201 Housing information? [00:04:20] 1 just scroll down. Yeah, housing information. Yeah. Yes, I want to bring it up. Yes. Yeah, I just would like, you know, when- when we say, like, the housing choice voucher waiting list have 10,091. Is that, like the Washington and, you know, Johnson County? Or this is just like Johnson County? And how much is Iowa City resident out of that? [00:05:00] Tracy Hightshoe with the Neighborhood and Development Services. When we report the waiting list numbers, it's for our whole jurisdiction. So Johnson County, Washington County, and Iowa County. Now the majority of Johnson County. I can't tell you that split. We can run those numbers, but the far majority would be Johnson County. Page 3 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at.https:,/Icitychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. [00:05:17] And we don't know how many people live in Iowa City on that waiting list? [00:05:21] We would. I don't have that with me right now, but we can find that information. [00:05:251 Okay, I really appreciate this information, but, you know, will be great if we can have next time Iowa City because, you know, we are focusing on Iowa City here, like, on this meeting. If you can just have Iowa City numbers be added, will be amazing. [00:05:43] Actually, as long as you're there, um, a question that I have is, um, and again, I don't expect you to have it at hand. Um, but has the number of, uh, voucher recipients who are still waiting for housing, has that grown? Is there a comparison that can be made, um, with- before the state lifted that language that, um, said that landlords had to accept housing- [00:06:11) We've had a hold or we've had a freeze. [00:06:14] Okay, so the freeze, so that's actually trumping the other? Okay. (00:06:18] No. There is- because after the freeze, nobody's [inaudible 00:06:22]. So to- and this is the waiting list. But- but I think what you mean that we're still seeing a number of people are not finding housing easily. [00:06:31] Right. Because- [00:06:32] Yes, that's true [00:06:32] Landlords are not accepting the vouchers. [00:06:34] 1 think that's- [00:06:36] That's what I was trying to get at, but - Page 4 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at https:./,/citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. [00:06:37] Yes. [00:06:38] In your budget book, we- we- we changed some of our NDs gomes, whatever you want to call it, and one of those is how many landlords are participating in our program. So we'll be able to track that every year. [00:06:46] Awesome. That's awesome. Thank you. [00:06:49] Exactly. [00:06:50] One additional question. Do we know- when does the HUD point in time, um, count for homeless people experiencing or unsheltered get reported because that happens in January. I didn't know how long the report takes to get to us. [00:07:05] To cycle through the entire HUD reporting system takes several months before it's available? I think the last year's count was just made available a few months ago, but I'm sure we can get the local count, uh, that was just completed a week or so ago to you. Yeah. [00:07:28] For the- for our public housing, even though I know that we are kind of changing it, but do we still have the people on the waiting list for public housing? They still can receive public housing? [00:07:46] Tracy is coming back up. [00:07:49] Our public housing waiting list is closed as well. [00:07:52] Yeah, I know it's closed, but the waiting list. [00:07:54] Yeah. As people move, yes, we are- we're taking people off the waiting list. So the program's there, and we're still having a waiting list. We're just not accepting new applicants because the wait- we got - depending on what size of the bedroom goes down- back down to 2020. Page 5 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at https:.//citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. [00:08:07] Yeah, but do you know that- do you remember we now kind of like our public housing will be- the program that we received from, we're gonna turn them to- [00:08:17] The voucher conversion. [00:08:18] Yes, exactly. The vous conversion. That's what I was looking for. Thank you. If that's going to affect, like, the people who are in that waiting list for public housing? A number of the housing that available. [00:08:29] We don't know which conversion method we're gonna use yet. Our goal is to do- transfer those to a Section 8 platform. And those tenants, I think have to live in that unit, depending on which conversion method, but for most of them, the tenants would have to live there for additional year before they could take a voucher and live somewhere else. So we're gonna continue operating those as affordable housing. So if they want to stay in that unit with a voucher, they can. If they want to move and import their voucher, we're still going to provide affordable housing in our public housing units. So hopefully we- we increase the supply of affordable housing. [00:08:58] Yes. I understand that. But I mean, that will make, if the people choose to stay, like, after we give them the voucher, if they chose to stay in the same public housing, is that means we lost one of the public housing that the people are waiting on the waiting list for it? [00:09:16] But I guess it wouldn't change since that person's staying, whether they're staying as a public housing tenant or now with a Section 8 voucher. Because we get additional Section 8 vouchers. It's not like we're taking from our- [00:09:26] Oh, when we take that, we get another? [00:09:27] Yeah and you get a conversion. You get- so if we have 86 public housing units, we get 86 additional vouchers. [00:09:31] That means the same number will be safe. Yeah. [00:09:34] So we're not losing anything. Page 6 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at httl2s:///citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. [00:09:35] Yeah, we're not losing anything. Okay. That's what my question was. Thank you. [00:09:42] All right. [00:09:42] And now, I can excuse myself. [00:09:44] Okay, so I guess we'll start with, um, we will continue our discussion on IP30- January 30th, and this is going to be IP Number 7. If there is any comments there. [00:10:03] 1 would, uh, having been on HCDC, this is [LAUGHTER] in the weeds and difficult, but since this is the form that we have to talk about staff recommendations for awards, I would like to put forward that 4Cs receive the amount that they were funded at last year. Um, they are one of the agencies whose, um, recommended amount went down to 15,000. Um, I recognize fully that every agency has merit and should be funded. We just don't have enough funding. Um, that said, um, I do notice that, um, there are some agencies that, uh, through staff recommendation are receiving above the amount that they were asking for. Um, and so I think that there are ways that we can find $10,000 without harming other agencies and to help 4Cs. My reasoning for helping 4Cs out is that it is, um, providing much needed childcare to very, um, specific and targeted groups. Um, several of them are immigrant communities, where, um, the, um, students who become care givers are accredited, given the training to be skilled, um, and yet are also able to care for children in their communities in a culturally appropriate way. That is not duplicative, um, effort. NCJC does amazing work and has a larger reach, perhaps, but I think that 4Cs, uh, has some unique, um, offerings that, uh, that the community would suffer if they were not there. Additionally, I know that, um, executive director of Forbes has, um, provided, um, commentary to council, and that, um, she's owned it, but in the way that she has applied for the grant doesn't tell the whole story. um, this is a situation where the agency itself has done nothing wrong, has been doing good work. There's, um, and- and in fact, I know, had met with United Way, um, to talk about why they - their application might not look so hot on paper. And, um, United Way was able to give them some guidance about the ways in which, um, their data actually also tells a story that, in fact, um, the application wasn't reflecting. So I just put that forward as something for consideration, and I fully recognize that taking one- taking money from an agency is very difficult. Um, at the same time, we want to increase our impact and- and allow these agencies to do more. Um, it takes more money, but in this instance, I really feel that, uh, 4Cs would- and the community would suffer because of the unique, um, offerings that they pose. [00:13:13] Page 7 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at https:./Icitychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. I would like to hear from the city manager, um, a little bit about the letter we received from DVIP regarding RVAP. I think it's another one that's- RVAP is now part of DVIP [inaudible 00:13:28] that's right terms. Can- can we walk through, um, there's just so many of these organizations that we are unable to fund, and that's one that I know we got a thoughtful communication about sort of complications that happened with, uh, joining two groups. [00:13:46] Sure. Let me- let me just take one step back before I go there and just, um, clarify what's in front of you today or what staff direction, um- [00:13:54] Is needed. [00:13:55] We're requesting at this time. Um, the budget allocations, the- the dollars for individual agencies, we'll come back to you for a formal vote, probably around May. Um, we wait until we have the, uh, allocations from Congress that- that flow through CDBG into this program before we lock down the specific dollar amounts, and particularly in this- this year. Um, your guess is as good as ours on where those CDBG allo- allocations will come this year. Um, we put the scoring recommendations, so this is a- a in process, um, type of situation here. We put them in here to help illustrate what we were really trying to get at, which is what you talked about your last meeting, which is the 50/50- approximate 50/50 funding split, uh, for the six direct agencies, and then the rest of the competitive pool. So, uh, the- the allocations are fair game, and we can talk about those today because they're- they're in here. But it's really the last paragraph of the memo itself that we're trying to get concurrence on, and that's the approximate 50/50 percentage split language with, uh, neither group that is the six direct agencies or the rest of the competitive field getting more than 60% in any given, uh, any given funded year. And that's what we really want to make sure that you're comfortable with. Now, with respect to the- the individual recommendations, so it's been, uh, it's been a bit of a scramble since your last meeting. Uh, so when you were talking about that consolidated plan and the 50/50 split, staff had already put out their recommendations for funding to aid agencies. And, uh, at that time, we weren't at that approximate 50/50 number. So we felt like we had to go back and revise those, um, recommendations downward to get- for those six agencies to get closer to that 50/50 split because HCDC was scheduled to meet before you could vote on this policy language or direct us on this policy language, if that makes sense. So we quickly kind of did that to try to get more in line with we thought where your direction was. And, uh, turns out that HCDC, uh, couldn't muster the quorum to have that meeting. So they're still kind of- these recommendations are kind of in a hold, uh, right now, and we'll come back to you, um, once we get those congressional allocations. [00:16:31] Um, speaking to the DVIP RVAP. So the initial staff recommendations that were posted in, um, December had the combined amount, uh, in there. Uh, you can see that is- that would be page 372 of your packet. And you can see where that staff recommendation line was 95,000. So then we were faced Page 8 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at https:.//citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. with the task of, okay, we got to get down to that 50/50 split or- or closer to, and we put out some revised, uh, recommendations on 129. That's page 373. And you can see the staff recommendation dropped from that 95,000 to 62,693. 1 don't believe it was our intention to, uh, fully remove the RV- RVAP portion. Uh, so we know that we- we probably need to revisit this and- and issue another, uh, round of, uh, staff recommendations that will come to you in that- in that May time frame, um, because I don't think that was our inte- in our intention to have that big of a shift. But we're talking about a fixed pot of money. We're talking about a pot of money that, uh, I think there's a good chance we're going to lose some federal funding support for, uh, over time in the next few years. So there's no doubt that, um, there are some tough decisions ahead, because each one- each one of these agencies can demonstrate the need. That's- that is very clear. And, uh, and- and just as you described, Counselor Alter, when you, uh, increase one, you're- you're kind of you know, pushing that, um, loss somewhere else. So it's a very difficult decision. Uh, we tried to be transparent with how we've scored. Uh, staff included some of the metrics that we look at in the packet as well. So you can see that. Of course, we welcome your guidance, but at the end of the day, we're going to have to present you with a final set of recommendations, and you have the full leeway to- to shift those around. So what I would say if you know that there's a particular number you want to hit for any particular agency. Let us know now. That's going to make the recommendations just that much easier. Uh, if not, um, we will do our best to, uh, present to you sound recommendations and fully expect that, uh, you're going to bring a different lens to that and may alter those come final vote time. [00:18:53] Good question. Um, HCDC will be able to look at the staff recommendations and also collaborate and make some adjustments should they choose. [00:19:05] Um, do you want to comment on that? [00:19:07] No. [00:19:07] 1 don't think our intention was to return to HCDC on the scoring, but I don't know why we couldn't if we have to wait. [00:19:13] Okay. I just wanted to- yes, please, answer. [00:19:16] Yes, we can bring it back to HCDC. The question is if we can get a quorum again. We've not gotten a quorum for the last two meetings, but yes, we can bring it back. The big question was, for us, um, when we- both DVIP and R- RVAP were legacy agencies. When they merged, does- does your 50-50 split cover that because they- they wouldn't be a direct funded agency? RAP wouldn't have been a direct funded Page 9 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at https:,//citychannel4.com/city-council.htmi) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. agency, but now with their allocation, it really hard to get that 50-50 split when you talk about what funding, uh, RAP had, and now that gets into- that merges with the DVIP. So that was a struggle. [00:19:50] Can I hop in real fast, or actually have a couple of things so you go ahead? [00:19:54] No, no, I was- I think that to the question of the 50-50 split not to exceed 60 that make sense. [00:19:59] Yes. [00:19:59] But then when we get into the nitty gritty of what do we do when- when in the future, we would have future nonprofits that might merge or take on responsibilities that one was a direct agency, and one was not. Do we penalize them for collaborating or in this situation, they were sort of forced into the relationship? It's- they're doing a great job, but, um, it wasn't exactly the plan to join. Um, and I feel like, I don't know, maybe we should just pause at that. The 50-50 to exceeds 60 to me makes sense. And then do we- how do we address the collaboration or joining of non -direct into a direct agency? Um, it's my feeling that we, um, we want to, uh, not discourage people to join one another. We don't think we want to have this hard cap that says, if you take on our responsibility of another valued nonprofit, you cut off your opportunity to earn city funding. That doesn't make sense to me. It's working in the wrong direction. [00:21:07] 1 would- I would say, for every good argument, there's- there's another side to it, which is that I completely agree. I don't think that we want to penalize or ward off collaboration because it's so difficult to do this work. Um, but by the same token, that also has the potential of essentially creating these much larger agencies. And then there is less and less for these smaller agencies. And, you know, I'm looking at the lease list, and it's, you know, I think anyone and all of one would agree that they're all doing incredibly important work for different parts of the community, right? So it's a balancing act. I completely agree with you, though, as far as the 50-50 with sort of a 60% kind of guard rail. Um, and actually, I want to say thank you to staff for that really quick action. I know it was this moment of here's what we think, and then it had to be done immediately. Um, so thank you for that as well as, um, also kind of pointing us to, um, the language in there for us to- to look at. Um, by my calling out in- in- in, um, advocating for four Cs, I just am putting it on the table for us to consider for future. I know that this does have to go to vote, um, but it is something that I'm advocating for that we go at least to the, you know, if staff needs to know, I guess counsel would want to know where I'm thinking, too, and it is to- to get it back to, um, its previous year's funding. And then finally, just because I'm going to stick my R in, and I have the microphone here. Um, I recognize that ACDC does important work and that, um, this normally the- the process is that it goes through HCDC to look at awards. However, they haven't made quorum in two sessions. This has been a problem. And I've- I'm a little reluctant to then have a commission that Page 10 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at https:/Icitychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. hasn't been able to make quorum twice. That that doesn't show a huge amount of engagement for something as important as this. It is in front of us now, and I would feel comfortable with us for better or worse walking through this together, um, I don't mean disrespect to HCDC but I do think that this is probably their primary role, and they haven't been able to make quorum. So the continued efforts, I'm wondering how much they would actually look through and- and have these hard discussions, my two senses. [00:23:451 Just on that last point, I think commissioners were they asked to provide their scores, and only a couple of them did so it wasn't just the lack of being at the meeting. [00:23:57] So we've switched the policy for next year that staff will just be scoring. But for this year, yes, they were asked to score. We got two. Do we get three? So just two. [00:24:06] Okay. [00:24:07] Yeah. [00:24:08] Out of nine? [00:24:10] Well, we only had eight. [00:24:11] Okay. [00:24:12] But yes, out of eight. [00:24:13] Thank you. So I tend to agree with, um, me that maybe for that part, I think we could continue to move forward given the commission's lack of engagement on this this year. [00:24:32] So I guess one of the things that I heard our city manager say if there is something that you feel strongly about in this moment, then that should be shared. Otherwise, we will have other opportunities to come, um, and address this. We'll be voting on this in May, and staff, uh, will be revising this, and, um, if there Page 11 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at https:,[/citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. is a way for you all to get it to us before May, that'd be great so that we can have more discussion on this. [00:25:01) Counselor Alter, you're talking, uh, about coming back and doing more of a comprehensive work session where we go through and do some of the work that hasn't been done by HCDC, uh, between now and May. I just want to make sure I understand what- what you're thinking and- and if we need to move forward on that. [00:25:16] Um, I mean, I don't think that this is having to create a wheel. We've got this here, but I think that we can take the time to react to it and to think through how- especially as we know- as we know more about what kind of funding we're actually looking at to see what makes the sense. Working within the guidelines that we just all said that, well, most of us have weighed in to say that 50-50 with a guard rail of 60%, 60, 40, makes sense, um, that is- that historically has been what HCDC does, but I don't think that we need to go through and score everything and, you know, do that kind of work, but I think using this as a guideline to say what the revised staff recommendations are to say, how are we feeling about this? [00:26:07] And then just deal with that in May, or were you thinking of something prior to May? [00:26:14] Um. [00:26:16] Or not sure. [00:26:17] Not sure. [00:26:18] Okay. I think that poses on when we'll get the next round of recommendations. [00:26:21] Okay. [00:26:21] That's what I was going to say, or intuiting that it's once we know better what kind of money we're actually working with? [00:26:29] Page 12 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at https:.//citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. I am- I'm asking only because I agree with you about the importance of this. I just want to make sure I'm understanding what. [00:26:35] How about- how about this? We'll- we'll revise our staff scoring, um, one last time, uh, put that in an IP with just a memo explaining for the- for the public's, uh, information that the actual vote will come later in May. And then you'll have plenty of time to sit and reflect on that, ask us questions, um, and then again, once we get the final numbers, we'll come back to you and you can take the final vote. That sound okay? We'll- we'll aim to get you something in February. It may not be the next week or two, um, but sometime mid to late February. Okay. [00:27:11] Thank you. Any other items on I137? Here are none, we're going to move on to I134. 1 think Counsel Mamo is going to recuse himself. [00:27:23] Or is preservation? Five is 21, right? [00:27:26] Oh. All right. Yes. [00:27:28] That's correct. [00:27:31] No. You were- you were- I134 is the memo. [00:27:38] Annual historic preservation report presentation? [00:27:411 One of you talking about IP. One of you talking about the agenda. You're both- you're both right. [00:27:46] Okay. [00:27:47] Two Gs. [00:27:48] Alright. So we're on, um, session. Page 13 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at https:llcitychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. [00:27:50] Session. [00:27:51] Yeah, we're still in the work session on information on January 30th. I- IP. (00:27:57] Yeah. [00:27:58] Okay. [00:28:00] It shows up as item 5. [00:28:01] It's a listed agenda item here. It's item 5 on here. [00:28:04] Item 5. Not like IV. [00:28:06] Correct. [00:28:07] Yeah. [00:28:07] So we're carving out IP4 so that we- or five and holding it off, as we were for Mayor Pro Tern with AD agencies. [00:28:17] On the work session agenda, it's later. [00:28:21] And for the two agency, I really- I think you guys did not understand me very good because I was saying only to the 2030, 1 cannot discuss that 2030 recommendation for the- but why not? I cannot discuss like two agency grant. I can't because I'm not applying for that so. [00:28:44] Yeah, I'm sorry. I may- I may have misunderstood what you're raising. I'm happy to talk with you about the conflict issues probably at another time. Page 14 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at httl2s:llcitychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. [00:28:51] No, no. Right now, I- I said, like, I should also be involved in discussing the recommendations grant because I don't have any conflict. [00:29:02] Uh, okay. You're right. I may have misunderstood. I thought that your, uh, nonprofit might have been applying, uh, if not, then- then I agree. [00:29:13] You know, just for the recommendation for 20 theory, because you guys are mixing the quit talking about 50-50. 1 don't have to talk about that 50-50, uh, and, you know, for the 2020 theory recommendations. I don't have to talk about that because I'm recusing myself. [00:29:29] Okay. [00:29:29] But for- for this recommendation by the staff for Ed to agency, I should be involved in that. [00:29:35] If- if your agency will not be applying for any of those funds, then I agree with you. I don't- nothing springs to mind. [00:29:42] This year recommendation. I'm talking about this year recommendation. [00:29:45] Yeah. [00:29:46] We are not. [00:29:47] If you're not applying, then I agree with you. [00:29:49] Yeah, I should, uh, discuss that. [00:29:52] All right. So we'll go back to our I137, and we'll just, um, return to just that part of the- part of it or anything else that you identify that you wanted to discuss where you don't have to recuse yourself? Page 15 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at https:,I/citychannel4.com/city-council.htmi) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. (00:30:07] Yes, I- I'm not going to talk about 20- 20 theory recommendation. I'm recusing myself from that. But I- I would like also to talk about this recommendation, the same way I was listening, the same way that, you know, we talk about four Cs. And as organization, I was just trying to see why we like two organization, the Dream City and Sea Folk, I guess are getting zero, even though they are, uh, you know, legacy organization until that time. Especially there are three of them are new, and I see like one of them get - the AS two did not get anything. And what the philosophy behind that? [00:30:53] Yeah, I can comment on that. Um, one, I- I- I just reiterate the point, we don't have enough funding to meet all the needs. There's going to be hard decisions. For both Dream City and Center for Worker Justice, you can see the- the, uh, scoring numbers on those applications, um, are quite lower than other applications that were submitted, and we are trying to, uh, base our scoring on- base our funding decisions on scoring that can be reviewed. So those are lower -scoring applications, and secondly, both of those agencies received, uh, significant RPA dollars that have not been spent down, and a lot of the reasons for the requests overlap. So, uh, for example, wage theft or, uh, for some of Dream City's work, it's the same reasons that we awarded ARPA funds for. And we project that those ARPA funds will still be with those agencies for the coming year. Uh, so when you're applying for the same thing we've already been awarded, there's a duplication of benefits concern that staff also noted. [00:31:58] You mean the request is the same request that is already being funded? [00:32:03] It's overlapping requests, yes. [00:32:05] But this- I think my understanding this is for fiscal year'20, yeah '26. [00:32:14] '26. [00:32:15] '26, '27, right? [00:32:18] Yes. [00:32:19] Which is Aba ended on the 26. Page 16 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at https:/Icitychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. [00:32:24] Uh, on- yes. So half of the year. [00:32:30] Fiscal year'26 starts in July of'25. [00:32:33] Yeah, which is going to be, like, half of the year. What about that half? We just- I just feel like, you know, only two organization that run by people of color and see people of color. The organization that been eliminated is just like you know, doesn't look right. And whether the counsel changed their mind or not, but I think this is not right. And I think also, like when it comes to I read, like some of the criteria that the staff used it is really we need to make it easy for the people, not like, make it harder. Like, if the people - if like the organizations doesn't have carting mechanism that they're supposed to have in place. We're supposed to give them the supporting tool to succeed. Not like, go after them to find out a mistake so we can get them out of this. I think the way that this being done is, I really just don't like it. [00:33:45] Yeah, we've given technical assistance to both of those organizations. We've provided technical assistance to a lot of the organizations on this list to help make them successful. [00:33:54] Yes, now, yeah. But we eliminate the fund, and we give them technical assistance. [00:34:00] 1 think the technical assistance has been provided for quite some time. And, you know, the only thing I can encourage counsel to do is if you want to dig deeper into this, look at the applications. Go through the applications yourself. Staff is doing the best we can to score those. We're trying to be objective in scoring those, and we're trying to maximize all of the dollars that we have. Are we perfect? No. Can you see things differently than we do? A hundred percent. That's why you're the ultimate decision maker in these cases. But what we've pledged to you as staff is to review these from a professional objective way and give you the best recommendations we can, knowing that there's scarce resources and not enough to meet all the demands in the community? That's the best we can do. That's what we put forward. And ultimately, you can- you all can change those with no heartburn on our end. [00:34:51] Sure. And I will talk to the council because I'm going to give you my Bach. You know, this is tough time for organization who like self immigrants, and cutting funds right now is really not okay. And I think everybody depending on the local now. And those organizations are doing great job. Maybe, yes. Dream City got a lot of money. But also, sometimes I think, like, a lot of money, but a lot of money to do certain bra, not like general operation fund. Maybe I really don't know. But I'm going to speak about the center for local justice because this General Operation fund for them is really huge to continue the work that they do, especially during this tough time with the immigration and everything. So I just believe that, Page 17 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at https:/Zcitychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. and also, think about it, those organizations, they become only one year in a legacy to become a legacy and they got funded even last time without receiving or anything, they also get scored by recommended by the staff zero. This is historic. This is not something like new. But let's not even go there. I guess seeing that this organization last time they got zero, but after that, the council decided to give them 15, they get 15 for two years. And now back to zero. During the next four years is really going to be difficult. And we need to look to those organization. We are changing the whole thing right now, and starting next year, most of the six organizations they are going to get their funding. Those people, they are not going to get funding. They will be competitive. They come and apply, maybe they get, maybe they don't get. But at least this year is kind of guaranteed for all of them, only for this year. Everybody got this year, except those two organization, which is zero, zero. I can see here, Megan, I don't know you looking at it. Yes, that's why I want at least. Since this is the last thing we're going to be doing. And after that, we're going to have the 50/50, whatever you guys decide. Then I recommend those two organization also get the minimum amount that they receive by, you know, legacy organization. They work hard. I remember when they put the application to become a legacy agency, they have to go through HCDC, and after that become legacy because at that time, it's say minimum you get is $15,000. That's why I think we have to figure it out and give this, this is the last one and only one year is not like every time was 15 this year and 15 next year. This is the last time they will get funds through this. So we should give them $15,000 minimum. I guess the same minimum amount everybody got. And Even if we have to add some money, I'm not recommending taking from organizations. You know, the last thing I want to see after we allocate something from organization who are happy to see that, taking something from them. But we need to figure it out and guess fund this year because those people they've been depending on this for general oblation. It is in the bet yet for this year and next year. And southern like king like this, I don't think it's okay. But now, at least you have it for one year, and we're not going to give you again. You're going to go and do that. That's what I recommend. [00:38:47] Thanks for making your comments, and I guess I was not prepared to even when Counselor Alter went into what she talked about with her thoughts on four Cs, um, I guess where I ended with that conversation was, you know, staff is going to come back with a recommendation. I think, um, you know, any individual counselor can make comments now. If- if- if a counselor is asking me, do I support you know, um, increasing any funds for any one agency. I would tell you that I'm not prepared to make that decision right now because I have not gone through all of the applications to that great detail, to make a recommendation. Many of us have been on- on boards or committees that review applications for funding, and it is quite involved. And so personally, I just don't feel like in this moment, I can you know, make recommendations, but I think, you know, the- the purpose was for individuals to state any of their thoughts. And certainly, our colleagues hear them. Please can be made to the colleagues as well, but also staff hears it also. So that's just me I'm not in a position to make a recommendation at this time. [00:40:14] You mean, we're going to talk about it later? [00:40:17] Page 18 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at httl2s:,[/citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. Yes. [00:40:18] They're going to come out with more recommendations, and we'll be able to, as a counsel, talk about them about these numbers. [00:40:261 1 here that is for maybe the recommendation you sat for four C's, but I'm saying also a recommendation. [00:40:33] Yeah, right. I'm saying this is what I'm advocating for and you're advocating for that. [00:40:37] Yes. [00:40:37] Right. Yeah. But nobody's saying yes or no. It's just so that people know that this is what you want, what I want, so that then staff can come out with numbers that are when they have a better sense of the money, and then we all get to talk about it and actually do some of that. [00:40:56] Making the decisions. [00:40:58] Make decisions. [00:40:59] Yeah. That could be fine. [00:41:021 1 have a question about just the reporting. Um, in our packet, we have the fiscal year '24 performance and metrics. I understand we're still in '25 right now. Are there any, like, mid way reports or any way we can get metrics? I mean, my primary concern just to speak to your request, Mayor Pro Tern is in the FY24, CWJ really, really fell short of what they anticipated they would be able to do with those dollars, like, by a lot and much more than any of the other organizations in here. And I don't know what that mismatch is about, but that's something where if that's improving, I'd be interested in, you know, having this conversation deeper entertaining what you're saying. But I don't know if we have any way to know that part way through. [00:41:55] 1 can speak to that a little bit, Sam Turn Boulder Grant specialist. We're currently receiving the second quarter reports from the agencies in the EC impact portal, and I'm compiling that data. Um, they're not Page 19 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at https:.//citychannel4.com/city-council.htmi) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. all turned in yet. I think they're due, like, mid February end of February, but once I get those in, I can put together a similar table and provide that. [00:42:18] So if that can be impacted? [00:42:19] What data are we looking for? [00:42:221 So I'm just looking at what's in the packet as far as what organizations have identified, and I'm sorry, don't have a page number in this app for what this PDF is. It's the orange- it's the orange one. Thank you. So as I understand, agencies identified goals for themselves of for fiscal year'24, and then we have sort of the column for goals and the column for accomplishments. And so CWJ said they hoped to serve 730 Iowa City individuals, but only served 134. They said that they wanted to serve 80 individuals to receive stable housing, but only serve 30. They wanted to have 160 volunteer hours invested in programming, but only had 13 hours and wanted to serve 75 individuals in the financial literacy education program, but only served 13. And I think part of what we're talking about with the, you know, all these conversations is impact. And I just would have a- I just want to know what's happening there. [00:43:34] Yeah, I don't know. Something happened, but that's not right. I don't know. So yeah, they should have that report. But I agree. But still, you know, we should know. Like, when somebody something like this happened as a city, Oh, you did not do what you do, and that we cut in fund. No. We know that these people are providing essential service to a lot of people in the community. Okay. What happened? How can we help you? You know, this is really big change from the first one and the second one. You said this goal and you have this goal. I think that conversation should have that be happened. And so the people can figure it out. But no, you felt you have this and zero fund. That what I'm talking about. [00:44:25] 1 hear that. Thank you. [00:44:30] Any more conversation on this item? Hearing none. Okay. So are you recusing yourself? [00:44:45] I'm recusing myself from work session item number 5, which is inclusive of IP. January 3rd. Got item 10b. [00:44:54] Well done. Page 20 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at https:/Icitcitychannel4.com/city-council.htmi) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. [00:44:56] So I understood that we'd probably not talk about this during IP time and talk about it on agenda. [00:45:02] Got it. [00:45:04] We're not there yet. [00:45:06] We're not there yet. We still got to hear from this. [00:45:07] So we're going to hold off on I134. If anyone that is, uh, paying attention, um, with our January 30th date. And we're going to move on to item number 3, which is the University of Iowa government USG updates. Welcome. [00:45:33] Hello. Um, so happy primary day. I know we have special elections going on right now. The student body is really, um, getting involved in it. We've had a couple of student orgs, try to set up meetings with the, uh, candidates. And our Civic Engagement organization, Hook the Vote is also be making a post or has already made a post the Candidate guide. And also, just a little announcement, I am now the operations director of Hook the Vote. So you might be getting some emails from me in a different capacity now. I'm speaking of elections. Senate is back in full swing, and it is almost, uh, election season with USG. So that's going to be a really busy time for us. I luckily do not have to re run for my position. I'm pretty sure you guys all know that. Um, and our governmental relations committee is about to go and present a lot of resolutions that we have based on all the research they've been doing on our advocacy points. So we're going to pass this resolutions soon, and then we'll do our Caucus day where all of the senators can go and present our stuff to, you know, in Des Moines. Um, the graduate student government is holding a coat drive right now in conjunction with basic needs at Iowa, since it's so cold. So USG has recently purchased a bunch of coats to donate to that. It's not our initiative, but we are very excited about it. And after work session tonight, I will be going down to our usual senate session to do an open access for our senators to prep them for town hall next week. So I'm just going to be going over kind of things that City Council has done, that has been exciting recently. Definitely going to be a lot of talk about, uh, housing as always about transit. And then this year, I'm going to be giving them kind of briefs on all of you guys. So I know that you guys all do a lot of really good advocacy within the community, so I'd really like our students to engage with you about that, so be prepared. [00:47:17] Great. [00:47:19] Page 21 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at https:.//citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. Awesome, and I have a bit of a different announcement tonight. Um, I want to read something I wrote. Hello, counselors. It is with deep regret that I inform you I'm no longer the city liaison for USG. And Ava will be stepping into my role. I was terminated for my position last week on Monday, and I come to you today to preserve these ties that I have maintained with every single one of my city counselors and notify everyone respectfully. I was terminated from USG from the following reasons. One, because I did not finish the renters guide on the timeline of the administration. And two, because I failed to indicate my absence from a cabinet meeting that took place over winter break while I was working at my other job. For these reasons, the Eckert administration has chosen to relieve me from my role. I personally disagree with all the reasons regarding my termination, and I am saddened that I must leave this job prematurely. USG leaders violated the terms of conduct meetings for executive members twice in order to expedite my removal from the organization. And I have served in this position for the last 18 months and cannot help but feel that this position was swept out from under me. Hope that this new chapter opens doors for me and helps me redirect my attention toward my long term goals. You're not getting rid of me just yet. I'm still going to be involved in the comp plan Steering Committee and take my passions to that arena. This has been one of the most life changing experiences I've ever been blessed with. Thank you, counselors for the opportunity of a lifetime, and it's been an honor to serve as USG City liaison. Thank you. [00:48:41] And we want to say thanks to you and all that you've done, and I know we'll see you around. [00:48:451 Sure. Thank you. [00:48:46] Thank you. We're going to move on to item number 5. Item number 4, which is the annual Historic Preservation annual report presentation. Welcome. [00:49:04] Hi. Okay. [00:49:18] Thank you, counsel, for letting me speak to you. I'm Jessica Bristo I'm the staff member for the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission. And I'm here today to present you with a certified local government annual report or at least its highlights. The report will be reviewed by the Commission at their February 13th meeting. And then following the meeting, we will provide a copy of the report for you. And then we will submit the report to the state at the end of the month with the mayor's signature. Uh, just a little background, I think you've been through this before, but Iowa City is a certified local government. It is a program that was, uh, the result of the 1966 Historic Preservation Act and its Amendments. Uh, the Borough program began in 1980, and Iowa City joined it by 1983. The program encourages historic preservation at the local level, encourages the local government use of the Secretary of the Interior standards, uh, for historic preservation, and they provide technicical assistance through the State Page 22 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at https:./,Zcitychannel4.com/city-council.htmi) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. Historic Preservation Office and also provides funding opportunities for preservation activities. Uh, part of our responsibility is to do the annual report. Uh, the National Register of Historic Places is the most well-known part of the federal branch of historic preservation. It is different from but corresponds with our local landmark and district program. Uh, in Iowa City, we have eight historic districts, that's about 689 properties, and all of those are also listed in the National Register of Historic Places. We also have five conservation districts. That's just a local program. There's no National register, um, component of that. We also have 89 properties that are some type of landmark, 68 of those are individual local landmarks, and 65 are National Register landmarks, some of them are both. Um, the annual report will ask us questions about both the Commission's work in the National Register component and the Commission's work in the local component. Uh, some of the questions are basic questions. Um, the Commission has 12 seats. Ten of them are currently occupied two are, um, have been vacant for a long time because they are small districts. Um, the Commission had 12 meetings this year, and the budget is part of the Neighborhood and Development Services budget, but we have a mailing that we send out, and then there's also training and stuff. And then, of course, we have the Historic Preservation Fund. This current fiscal year, the budget for that is 42,000. And this slide is one of my favorites because it shows our historic districts, our conservation districts, and then the red dots are the local landmarks spread out amongst them. So one of the questions about the National Register is whether or not the Commission, uh, undertook any registration or nomination projects. Now, the Commission did not undertake any this year. However, as, uh, as a CLG and our, uh, role in that, we did review the National Register nomination for the Iowa City Recreation Center. That was just undertaken by some members of the public instead of the Commission. So for the local component, um, they have Question 6, which basically is, were any, uh, properties locally designated. And of course, this year, uh, we did, uh, locally designate the Slezak, uh, Skarda Hall Building. Um, the only other question they have about our local program then is, uh, who on Stafford Commission meets a Secretary of the Interior's qualifications, um, and what's their expertise as staff? I am, um, qualified in architectural history and historic architecture. We currently have one commissioner, Margaret Beck, who is also qualified in prehistoric archaeology. Question 8 and its subparts are about community engagement mostly. Um, the first one is about the Commission's work plan. And each year, the Commission has a work plan. It's something that's required by the state as well. Um, in this year and last year, the Commission tried to break it down into something that is workable. And so they have three focus items. Uh, the first one is Oak Grove Park. This park is south of the railroad tracks and just west of Dodge Street. And it is a location where Mexican laborers between 1916-1936 lived in Abario in that location. When this park is overhauled, eventually, um, the commission has, um, voiced an opinion that they would like to be involved in making sure that the naming of that park reflects this, um, Mexican heritage in Iowa City. And the parks director knows about that. So this is just something that is one of their main focuses, but it's something that, uh, is also kind of ongoing. They also have a priority of a landmark district subcommittee. They did form that last year and did work, but it was mostly on the local landmark designation. And so they will continue that subcommittee in the future, trying to be proactive about, uh, individual landmarks or any potential future districts. And finally, the last priority is engaging with, uh, local community groups and council much as they did last year for the landmarking. Um, they feel that's very important to get out and make sure that those connections are always renewed and know what the community is interested in. We do have ongoing work as part of the work plan. Um, we always have our Historic Preservation Awards. Uh, Page 23 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at https:,//citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. this year, it will be Thursday, February 27th, at the public library at 5:30 PM. Everyone here is invited, for sure. Um, we also have our Historic Preservation Fund, and, um, we've been interested in, um, the Summit Street Monument as well. Uh, Question 8.2 asks about our assistance that we've provided to the community on preservation projects. Um, staff can provide technical and design assistance. Uh, this year, we had the most inquiries we've ever had with 312, um, that was far above our highest year that we've had in, um, the past. And those inquiries resulted in 119 applications. Uh, we work with property owners, uh, designers, and stuff for project approvals. The project that you see here is the, uh, second student -build house for the lot that used to be 724 Ronolds but is now split into 724 and 726 Ronolds. Um, the housing fellowship is the owner of, uh, both houses on that property. We also, uh, provided assistance through our Historic Preservation Fund. This is a very popular program. The slides here just happened to show one property that received mu- multiple grants. Um, basically, the fund provides a $5,000 matching grant or no -interest loan to a property owner for, uh, exterior rehab project. To date, we have funded 63 projects on 49 properties. Uh, that's $222,000 worth of grants and loans provided on about $560,000 worth of projects. Um, we've had some issues and challenges. We are still navigating through, uh, a rash of work without permits and how we, um, go through that. Uh, we have the two long-term open, um, commission, um, seats and hearing about difficulties with commissions meeting quorums. We've had our time where we've had troubles meeting quorums as well. Um, we've tried mailing to the residents in those districts and all sorts of things, but it's just hard when a district is small to get a rep from that area. Um, another difficulty would- so the Summit Street monument, we, uh, had received a grant in the past to study the monument. And, uh, it was determined by the expert that we need to relocate it indoors in order to preserve it. And then the best case would then to, um, put a replica in its place. And we did have funding on the budget for this current fiscal year, uh, for that. However, it's a complicated project, and there's not- it's not possible that we could finish it within this year. And funding's not continued into the next fiscal year. One really good thing is, uh, I think we all remember when the house at 10:11 Woodlawn caught fire a few years ago in the fall. It has been, um, empty, and, um, we've had some complaints about different things, and it was sold to a couple who is fully invested in rehabbing it and is very excited about that. So, uh, we should be seeing that property come back to life, uh, over the coming year. Um, and then partnerships that are formed or continued. Um, one of the things we did back in 2020, like, right before the COVID shutdown, we did a presentation on, um, the two properties that were involved in, um, our civil rights grant that we had. And they were about, uh, Black student housing here in town. This presentation was at the public library. We did not record it for some reason, and we've had a lot of interest over time about that presentation. And so the beginning of last year, we did go back and, um, record that so that Stephanie can use that and send it out and provide it to people who are interested in it. We've also been working regularly with the Parks and Rec director. The Commission had been interested in the City Park pool stuff, uh, as well as the Oak Grove Park that I've mentioned. And, um, they also- the Commission provided some comments on the naming of West Side Park when she suggested that. And I believe that's all I have. Thank you. [01:00:32] Thanks, any questions from counsel? [01:00:35] Page 24 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at https:.//citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. Jessica, do you know why there was such a huge uptick in, um, inquiries this year? [01:00:40] No, I don't really. There was during COVID because everybody was sitting around wondering what they could do with their house. And so they were all calling about that. And then there was still some interest, but kind of a lack of contractors. And so I'm kind of wondering if maybe there have been a few more contractors who've come in, and so people are actually starting to act on that, possibly. I'm not sure. [01:01:05] Thank you. A couple of questions. [01:01:07] Yeah. [01:01:07] Um, I was just curious. Um, if you see people using the Historic Preservation Fund and the Climate Action Fund together from the city, is that something that- that has happened often or yet? [01:01:19] 1 don't know very often what the climate action is funding, but there have been a few times when, uh, their staff have reached out to me about some projects. And I, um, we've offered to do some sharing. I - I'm not sure because I don't know what they have ended up doing. Um, you know, like, we talked about something with Trinity Church, and we, um, yeah, I think the Catholic worker House on Johnson Street, I think both of- both of us have been involved in talking to those groups about things, but I don't know if anything has actually- [01:02:00] Sure. [01:02:001 -come to fruition. [01:02:02] The next question is, um, with the historic preservation is a function of the National Park Service with that hiring freeze? Are you anticipating any problems processing? Uh, any applications or any processes? Is there any things that you guys have seen already happening? [01:02:20] No, I haven't and I haven't heard anything from the state yet either. [01:02:24] Page 25 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at httl2s:l/citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. Not yet. Okay. And then what is the most common request you get from people? Like, when people reach out? What is the thing that they most often need or want? [01:02:34] I- it's such a wide range. I mean, I- I- I might hear from a realtor who has a new owner that has questions. And, you know, that's common. You know, can they do this or that or whatever, or is a property in a district, [LAUGHTER] or do I need review for offense? You know, things that we don't need? Um, but regularly, it's- it's just people reaching out about the work that they want to do or whether or not we have information about the history of a property. Um, you know, it's it's wide- ranging. I just tend to keep notes and write down every single one of them. So I know how many there have been. [01:03:18] Thank you much. [01:03:19] Thank you. [01:03:20] We're gonna move on to item number 5, 21 South Linn Street discussion. Councilor Moe is recusing himself. [01:03:28] Yes. Mayor, I don't think I can get through my presentation and the time that we have left, um. [01:03:32] Sure. Which I am fully aware you won't be able to. [01:03:36] So I might suggest- of course, I can do half of it, and we can break and do that, but I might suggest he jumped to the budget and close out that item, and that we'll have to carry 21 South Lynn until after your next formal meeting here. [01:03:51] We'll come back to it. Okay. All right. People are okay with that? [01:03:56] I'm thinking the same thing over here, actually, so yeah. [01:03:58] All right. We're going to go to item number 6. We'll return to item number 5 later. Um, item number 6 is, uh, fiscal year 2026 budget discussion. Page 26 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at httl2s://citychannel4.com/city-council.htmi) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. [01:04:12] Yeah. Um, I think one of the things, and- and we kind of talked about this a little bit of our last meeting, but we're looking at the affordable housing funds, um, and we've gotten some feedback from the public, which is great, but, uh, as well. So I think one of the things on there was there was a portion there that was a $200,000 amount, um, that, um, that I would be interested in directing staff towards moving that - replacing that, restoring that. [01:04:39] 1 was gonna say the same thing. Yeah, because I- I think this is not a while ago since we have one million in the budget, uh, I think it was back 2018 when we started to $1,000,000. And before that, it was- it was the same thing, right, you know, less than that. So if we are really going to talk about affordable housing and be bold, it really going to be very bad looking when we reduce affordable housing. So maybe we can find a cut somewhere else. [01:05:13] Curious to- my understanding from our previous budget discussion is that one funding stream that was a shift or at least a suggested shift was to use TIF funds as opposed to allocated general funds to support LiTech projects rather than let that money sit in a sort of unused savings account, which is currently being unused. Would we propose continuing to add money to the LiTech Piggy Bank and use TIF? Is that why? [01:05:39] 1 would- honestly, I would say let's, for the moment, say, put the 200,000 back into the fund, and then we have discussion about sort of how this can be best done. I still think that TIF is a- is a lever that we need to start being serious about using, and I think that we can use it to get effect. But I think that for the moment, let's just say, yes, we'll direct staff for 200,000 to go back into housing, and then we come back and have a conversation about how best we use that money, and then also how we can leverage other- other means to increase our, um, potential for more affordable housing money. [01:06:21] 1 guess I'm curious if we want to continue to put- maybe I'm using the wrong terms, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but, um rather than put- and I'm fine, spending 200,000 more dollars for affordable housing, it's been articulated by all of us as a highest priority. I just don't know. I would like to hear from professional staff whether putting $200,000 into the LiTech Piggy bank is the right way for us to invest $200,000. [01:06:44] And I think that's the conversation. [01:06:46] Right. Yeah. Page 27 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at.https:./.Icitychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. [01:06:47] [OVERLAPPING] And that's- that's the piece that I- maybe the very specific pieces, like where- what's the right way to get the most housing and provide the most flexibility for them to jump at opportunities? So I kind of want there- I'm curious what you think. [01:07:03] Yeah, I would, uh, I would appreciate an opportunity to, uh, have a discussion with you at a future work session on how best to use that 200, 1 don't know that the LiTech set aside is the best way to deploy that. Now that said, I want to acknowledge that the trust fund has used a portion of that for admin expenses. So we have to acknowledge that. About, uh, 10,000 of the one- of the 200 is used for- for admin expenses. So we'll need to talk through that and what impacts that has on the- on the trust fund organization. But if you put the 200 back in, what I would suggest is that, uh, at a future work session before the start of the fiscal year, um, we would bring that distribution model back to you with some thoughts on how we might deploy that a little bit differently. Really just focused on that 200 piece. What you saw during the budget with the rest of the distribution would probably stay the same. Um, but 1- I, think staff has some ideas and would like to, um, talk about maybe how we can use that 200 a little bit differently. (01:08:01] Yeah. [01:08:03] And I- I guess that brings me back to what you were saying, Josh, of, like what- like what is the funding source for it? Because I think the budget proposal was about reducing the general fund allocation by 200,000. So I think if we want to say, let's stick with a million from the general fund on affordable housing, I'm fine with that as well. We just know that that has to come from somewhere. So I again, will be advocating for shifting the unused patrol salaries from the open positions from the police department, and that would be a great use for a portion of that. [01:08:41] 1 think I would be more, uh, I- I would be advocating something different. I'd be advocating, since we're already looking at a deficit budget again of 2.6 rather than trying to go fishing through the rest of the budget, just increasing that to a 2.8. 1 think right now with what we're in, we can still fill that for the city. We have some tough choices ahead of us. But I think for that 200,000, the 2.6-2.8, 1 think that's- that's the simplest and moves us forward the best. [01:09:09] Is that a conversation that we need to have now, or is that something that we can talk? [01:09:151 We can- [OVERLAPPING] Page 28 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at https://citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. [01:09:15] Mayor Pro Tern has actually also offered up, uh, an additional suggestion that I tend to be behind in terms of looking at a portion of the Black Lives Matter money. [01:09:24] That would be- that would be something [OVERLAPPING] to talk about as well. [01:09:28] You know, perhaps that can also- this can- in advance of voting for a budget, that we can have that conversation, but at 5:30. [01:09:37] But- but I'm not all suggesting to take from the Black Lives Matter to vote back to the affordable housing fund. It is affordable housing too, for the Black Lives Matter [OVERLAPPING]. We are in the same page, right? [01:09:50] Yes. [01:09:51] Thank you. [01:09:55] What I don't want to see- I guess I should be more- is- I don't want to, like, go back and pull 200,000 from one of the other, you know, uh, agencies that we're trying to help through that. You see what I'm saying? I don't want to see that kind of a [OVERLAPPING]. [01:10:09] For me, I'm not talking about changing the process. I'm talking about just put the 200 back to the affordable housing, do the same process, I don't care. But, you know, yeah, we need that back. [01:10:19] Okay. We're on the same page then, I think, too. I wanted to, maybe just clarify one question for our city manager. As I heard you say you'll bring something- some recommendations of how that 200,000 or maybe more specifically the LiTech can be utilized. Is that still with the housing trust fund of Johnson County involved in that conversation or it may not include that? [01:10:43] It could be. We don't have a proposal for you, um, right now. What I was acknowledging was that a portion of the 200 that we have set aside for LiTech in recent years, has been used for administrative, uh, uh, support for the trust fund. So that's something that staff will- will think through, and- and want Page 29 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at https://citychannel4.com/city-council.htmi) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. to make sure that we're not going to impact the operations of the trust fund by shifting those dollars. So if we do want to shift them somewhere else, I think we got to look to - to figure out how to make the - the trust fund admin whole. And we can- we can think through that at the staff level and present to you. So I think the simplest and the most kind of conservative thing to do right now is just- just put the 200 back in. It's reflected as an expense in the general fund. It will push the deficit up to 2.8. But throughout the year, you know, I've told you my goal is to- to try to, through operations, bring that deficit down as much as we can. Some of that will naturally come down with, uh, unused, uh, salary, if we have open positions across the organization. But we'll continue to do that. And just as you see in your IPs, uh, this time around, you'll get quarterly financial reports, and we can have, uh, more intentional discussions about how we're doing throughout the fiscal year so that you can track where that deficit is and- and determine if- if the council feels like you need to get involved in mid year cuts or discussions on those types of things. [01:12:18] Okay. Sound like people are on board with that. Any other items for the Fiscal 2026 budget discussion? Hearing [OVERLAPPING]. [01:12:32] Just real quickly, what- remind us of what the upcoming calendar and process is left, if that's okay. Could you speak to [OVERLAPPING]. [01:12:38] Can you help with that, Nicole, please? Thank you. [01:12:44] So at our- well, we have to get the levy sent to the county by March Sth, so you'd have one more meeting to change the levy rate. And then March 11th, we would be setting- that's the property tax hearing again. So we'd be setting the budget hearing April 4th, so we have to have the budget pretty well set in March and able -and able to get all of the notices that we need to set the hearing to then publish the hearing. So. [01:13:16] Just for the public's benefit as well. So thank you. [01:13:20] And then does that- does March 11th work better for us having that conversation or [OVERLAPPING]. [01:13:27] No, I think the conversation, as long as the expenditure authority's in the budget, which is what you've directed here tonight, we can have that discussion at any time. Probably makes sense to do so before the start of the fiscal year, but it doesn't need to happen by March. Page 30 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at https://citychannel4.com/city-council.htmi) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. [01:13:43] Okay. [01:13:47] 1 said that make sense. Sorry. Yes. (01:13:51] Hearing no other discussion on the budget, we're going to move on to item Number 7, which is council updates on assigned boards, commissions, and committees. [01:14:031 All of us, except for the mayor, participates in MPOJC. So at that last meeting, uh, we had an update on Trip Connect, which is a really wonderful new service. It's helping people get to work for those times when public transportation is not available. Um, and it seems like it's working really well. So, um, I'm really excited about that. [01:14:26] Better Together- Better together 2030 actually granted them an award for their efforts the very next day. [01:14:31] Nice. [01:14:31] Or two days later. [01:14:33] We also discussed the CRANDIC rail line, which is not currently being pursued because CRANDIC is not interested in using the rail lines at this time. And then it was also discussed that Cambus wants to renegotiate the equation of distribution of funds. [01:14:54] Just put it up [LAUGHTER] straightforward. Okay. I love it. Any other comments from council? [01:15:06] No. [01:15:08] Better Together 2030 did their annual award ceremony, and, um, it was incredibly timely. Um, so much good work being done in the area. And, um, there were a lot of times people went off script, but all for the right reasons to really talk about the strength that the community has and groups have by doing work together, and accomplishing things in the face of a lot of chaos and a lot of heartache. And, um, it Page 31 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at https:,Ilcitychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. was truly wonderful. And, um, Jeff was one of the presenters as well, for work- that Iowa City and the Builders Association, correct? [01:15:48] Home Builders Association and the Climate Action collaboration? [01:15:51] Yes. So, um, it was just- it was fantastic. [01:15:541 And you're on the board. [01:15:55] And I'm on the board, which is why I just opened my mouth. Yes. [01:15:581 Which is why you can speak on this agenda. [01:16:00] Exactly. Thank you for making sure it wasn't me just going off script. [01:16:04] Correct. Yes. All right. Anything else? [01:16:08] Comprehensive plan committee did meet also for their initial meeting, uh, two weeks ago, Wednesday. So right after our last city council meeting and kicked that off. So I'll be looking forward to lots of community engagement, and it was a roomful of people from very different parts of the city, and different perspectives. I'm really excited to see what comes from that process that will take quite a long time. [01:16:36] If hearing nothing else, we're going to take a recess, and we will [OVERLAPPING]. (01:16:40] Recess? [01:16:41] Yes, we'll come back after our formal meeting. So. All right, we are returning to our work session for, uh, February 4, 2025. And we are going to start with item- well, our last agenda item is going to be Number 5, 21 South Linn Street discussion. And we have our, uh, city manager here to lead us in that discussion. Page 32 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at https:.//citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. And I also want to acknowledge that Councilor Josh Mo is recusing himself from this item. All right, welcome. [01:17:10] Okay. Thank you, Mayor and Council. I am, uh, really excited to be, uh, moving this project into, uh, uh, the next phase. And, uh, today, we're going to, uh, present to you, uh, a summary of the three proposals for the 21, uh, South Linn Street property. But I want to start by hopefully saying something I'll say a couple of times during this presentation if I don't forget, and that's just how grateful I am to all the teams that submitted. And to even those that were working on it, but- but didn't get across the finish line and didn't submit. There is a ton of work that goes on behind the scenes to be able to, uh, submit the- the quality of proposals that- that we got through this process. And it's not only time and effort, it's - it's financial resources as well. So, um, I'm really grateful, and I think that speaks a lot about our community that- that we had multiple teams that kind of raised their hand and said, you know, I want to be a part of this next chapter in downtown Iowa City. That's- that's really exciting. So what we're going to be doing today, we're going to just give you a quick background on how we got to where we are today. I'm going to talk a little bit about the RFP document just to reorient ourselves with, what we specifically asked for. We're going to go through a very high level summary of the three responses and then, uh, open it up for your discussion and- and kind of deliberation on the next steps here. So I think everybody's familiar with the site, but for those watching, uh, we are talking 21 South Linn Street, um, as pictured here on the screen. And several years ago, US Bank, which previously owned this, you may recall, there was a drive through bank on this facility when it was a surface parking lot. Um, they sold it to a out of state student housing development team that, uh, worked on a high rise student centric housing tower. Uh, that project made it all the way to building permit. That was ready to be, uh, built, but post COVID, things changed for that company, and they no longer were pursuing that- that project. That was kind of late 2022, and I think that project started to, uh, slip away from that team. Um, once it was known that, uh, they were not going to pursue their project, staff started to field some inquiries from potential buyers. And it was pretty clear to us that that, uh, was likely to, um, uh, transfer to another student housing, uh, developer, that had similar intentions to build a high rise tower. And, uh, in addition, we were getting a lot of inquiries about incorporating some of the properties immediately to the west of the site. Uh, you can see those on the top there, but, uh, some of these properties up here, we were getting inquiries about, what if we acquired these and demolished these? And that's when staff started to really pause and think, what do we want? Is this a moment in time where maybe the city needs to step in and- and help, uh, guide the development in a way that's going to be better, um, for the long term health of downtown, both from the use standpoint, but also from just the- the economic standpoint as well. And as we- we reflected, over the last 15-20 years, the city's invested quite a bit in the downtown. And not just infrastructure which we have, and the public spaces which we're really proud of, but we've been really intentionally trying to diversify the uses downtown. That means, uh, introducing new housing types, that means, uh, increasing hotel rooms, uh, really trying to shift, uh, to a stronger balance of, uh, commercial uses, and not just kind of the late night bar uses, and really provide a- a downtown in which everybody feels like, um, they're welcome, invited, and have a place. And we thought about that with this property, and ultimately, with the council's support, um, and approval, uh, we decided to go out and purchase this property, which we did in August of 2023 with the intention to Page 33 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at httl2s:/Icitychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. guide the project, um, to a- to a stronger, uh, use than what we felt the market was going to, uh, produce on its own. And really what we thought about and what we initially talked about, uh, right after the time of purchase is, let's reflect back on- on a couple other recent examples in which the city did own property, and we did pursue public private partnerships for the betterment of downtown. And the most recent example, of course, is right behind you at the Chauncey. But you can also look at the HotelVetro and Bread Garden property, uh, both cases in which the city owned the property and helped steer, uh, private development in a way that brought something new to downtown and also felt very accessible, uh, to everybody, despite it not being a- a publicly owned property anymore. So that's certainly what we had in mind, and after kind of familiarizing ourselves with those projects, again, uh, we set out, uh, on a, um, public engagement and, uh, kind of planning effort that took place from February to June, really talking to the public and trying to understand what the public really wanted to see in this particular location. We presented those results to you and had good feedback from you. And then we started working on the actual RFP document. And, uh, towards the end of summer, in 2024, we presented, uh, the RFP document, the request for proposal document to you. We made some tweaks based on your feedback, and, uh, was able to issue that in early September. During this time, you may recall, we also revisited the TIF policy anticipating that, uh, TIF may be requested, uh, through this process as well, and the council worked through, uh, those changes as well. So the RFP, as I mentioned, was released in, uh, September, uh, of 2024, and we provided 60 days for a response. So those were due, uh, back in early November. And for the last couple of months, staff has been reviewing, uh, those internally, which brings us here tonight. Any- any questions on the history and project background? Okay, we'll jump into the RFP document itself. Uh, this is pretty wordy, but on the- in the blue side, that's taken straight from the RFP. Um, we were very clear in the RFP, the purpose is to- to facilitate private redevelopment and, uh, very clear that we had the long term interests of downtown in mind. And we think we got to continue to kind of center what- are we making decisions that are best for the - the long term health of the community? [01:24:02] We talked about the need to generate annual property tax income, and we just kind of forecasting tough budget times and knowing, uh, that some of these redevelopment opportunities can really provide a solid foundation that supports our services and our external partnerships, uh, with others in the community. And, uh, the- the- the third piece of that talks about the- the contextual development, um, just kind of working in concert with everything else, uh, around it. So specifically, we called out your strategic plan. We called out the vision for Downtown and our downtown master plan, uh, and we talked, um, about really what we were looking for in the site without being very specific. Trying to give those teams an opportunity to interpret that themselves and present their best and most creative ideas. We did talk about active and engaging first floor use, really making sure at the street level that this property was very active. That was one of our major concerns with the student -centric housing high rise would be that, if you didn't live in that high rise, you weren't really going to be engaging on that building on that prominent corner at all, right? There wasn't going to be retail incorporated. There wasn't really going to be any commercial uses incorporated. It would be mostly, uh, amenities for, uh, the residents there. And we really wanted to look at this corner and say, it really should have a- a very active, um, streetscape there. We talked about a mix of housing types and, uh, different affordability levels for the Page 34 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at httl2s://citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. residential uses. Council really stressed high construction standards and leadership in climate action as well as the contextual architecture. We also, uh, talked about the importance of the submittal teams experience and capabilities, and making sure that the project was going to be, uh, economically viable and- and a good long-term fiscal benefit to the city. So just a reminder of kind of what to expect at this. This is a slide that you've seen a couple of times in our earlier, uh, presentations. As you work through this process, the details will get more refined. You'll see with all of the proposals, there's different levels of specificity. But all of the respondents had said, of course, we're flexible still, right? If the city- if a different priority emerges or a- another opportunity comes, everybody is somewhat flexible, uh, in this. So just- just know now you may not have all the answers. What's before you are not fully designed buildings. They're concepts, and there's ability for us to work with the teams to respond to changing market conditions, uh, different interests that may emerge that maybe weren't there several months ago. And all of the teams are open to those, uh, types of discussions. I think we'll jump into the proposals. If you're ready for that? [01:27:03] Yes. [01:27:03] Okay. We're going to start with the, uh, grand rail, and we're just going to do this in- in alphabetical order, just like it was presented in the memo that you have in your packet. Um, the grand rail proposal, as we've kind of said shorthand, also includes a number of other partners, uh, includes Urbanacres, OPN, and Axiom consultants as well. And we're going to just kind of walk you through each of- each of these proposals at a high level. If you've got questions, feel free to jump in and ask for- for clarifications. They have proposed a mid rise, uh, building, a six story building with steel frame construction and the goal of achieving lead silver. On the ground floor, they've anticipated 6,300 square feet of entertainment use. They do have letters of interest in their proposal from both, uh, the Englert Theater and the Stories project. They have three floors of commercial office space on the upper floors. There's letters of interest from OPN and ACT, and they've certainly expressed a willingness to accommodate the- the city office need, should we decide to pursue that on this site. The two upper floors to round out the six, uh, total stories includes 20 residential units of that, so 16 proposed at market rate, and four proposed to be affordable. There is a letter of interest from the housing fellowship in here in regards to the affordable, uh, properties. There's also a letter of interest expressed from the University of Iowa International Writing Program, uh, who has an interest in acquiring some or utilizing some of the units for- potentially for short term rentals to accommodate, uh, their program. There's also a rooftop amenity proposed that would serve the residential community. Staff has done some work to estimate what the- the total valuation for the property would be. We estimate this one to be valued in around 21.5 million. The proposal indicates a- offer of three million to purchase the lot from the city. And at this time, they're not requesting any GAP financing, typically tax increment financing, however, they have, uh, made it clear that should tenants need that in order for it to be viable, uh, then we may have to work TIF into the project, ah, either with those tenants directly or with the team, ah, so you can think of whether it's the Angler Stories or other uses that may not be able to pay that market rate, we- that TIF may be needed to accommodate those types of uses. We'll just walk you through some of the images. I Page 35 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at https:.//citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. am not an architect, and I can't even pretend to be one. I am not going to describe the architecture to you. Um, one of your next steps that I suggest is for the teams that you want to move forward that you invite them to present, and certainly the architect teams can talk in detail about the architecture, uh, and how it fits in with the surrounding properties and the overall downtown district. I'll circle through these. A couple minutes to look at that. Get the Washing- both the Washington Street and Linn Street elevations here. And then we'll move into the- the- the floor plans. So over here, you'll see the, uh, one level of underground parking to support the residential uses. And then this middle one would be your pedestrian level or what we call on the ground floor. And then you can see the entertainment space here that, uh, wraps on this corner, goes down Linn Street and is serving a portion of Washington Street. The darker gray is going to be more of the, um, the corridor to service the- the residential and commercial users, uh, in that property. The second and- and third floor are presented over here. Again, this would be- this was presented as office space. And I- I probably will- will say this a few times again, I mean, it with everybody that they've all said that this is certainly flexible, right? If there's not gonna to be office demand, uh, for- for multiple floors, and then they can convert that to residential. They can also expand and, ah, accommodate more if needed to. Ah, you see the fourth floor, kind of what a subdivided commercial space would look like with a little bit of an outdoor terrace where the building steps back. And then on the fifth and sixth floor, you have the same floor plan with the apartment layouts there. And then the rooftop amenity space is depicted on the- the far right there. Once we walk through all three of them, uh, in the memo, there was a summary table. We'll kind of end on that summary table, and we can- we can compare and contrast, if you want. [01:32:18] This one is- this one is showing one and two bedrooms. What is the- are there three and four bedrooms in their model? [01:32:27] No, not as presented, but I'm- I'm certain they would be flexible if that- if that was a- a priority. [01:32:33] And do- and did they identify if the affordable units were going to be of, uh, one or two bedrooms? [01:32:42] 1 would have to get into the- that proposal, Mayor. I can look when we're done with. [01:32:46] Yes. [01:32:47] 1 do believe that the affordable ones are noted on the pro forma, and I can- I could look and see what those were designated. [01:32:541 Page 36 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at httl2s:/./citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. I'll look back at it, but think. [01:32:55) Those are all certainly conversations they would be flexible. I think they would, you know, I mentioned the housing fellowship was noted, whether it was the housing fellowship or another non-profit partner that they would work with, I think, they would probably have more intentional discussions with them to see what they felt was needed in this particular location. Okay. Moving to the Iceberg Development, uh, proposal. The Iceberg, uh, team includes, um, the Hodge Construction Group, Slingshot Architecture, McClure Engineering, and a couple of, uh, other partners as depicted on the screen there. It is shown as a 13-storey building with concrete steel frame construction. The building composition. So on the ground floor, they have showed 2,000 square feet of micro -retail. You'll see that in the floor plans, and about 3,800 square feet of restaurant, retail or entertainment space. They do have a letter of interest in their proposal from the Englert as well. They have five upper floors of commercial office space, and we'll see how that's kind of divided out within the building. There is a letter of interest from ACT, and they've indicated a willingness to accommodate city, ah, uses as well. That team has indicated that if all five floors aren't needed, they could shrink the height of the building or they could expand the number of floors dedicated to residential units as well. Kind of, uh, the- the key component to this building are seven floors of residential that would, uh, include 76 affordable senior units, uh, and they would anticipate utilizing the low income housing tax credit program to support those residential units. Again, as- as kind of thought right now, those would be dedicated to, ah, the senior population. Their intent is that the tenants income would average 40-80% of the AMI, and at least half the units would be at the 60% area median income, that's the AMI area median income. With the LITHC program, you get a minimum of 30 years of affordability. And depending on the, uh, ownership structure, it certainly we have seen those extend beyond the- the 30 years in some cases. I talked about this in the memo. There are two different LITHC opportunities. There's a 4% and a 9%. The 4% is what the pro forma is based on in this proposal, if you looked at that. That's an administrative award, meaning it's kind of first come first serve. If you meet the criteria, uh, there's currently about a year- at least a year backlog on those awards here in Iowa. There's also a 9% LITHC program, which is a more lucrative tax credit. That's done on a competitive process. That's the LITHC that we're most familiar with here in Iowa City. However, those are due- those applications are due to the state in February. So it's unlikely that Iceberg would make that deadline for this project. So I talk about that a little bit in the memo that when you- when you have a LITHC project, there's certainly lots of advantages in terms of leveraging, uh, outside dollars, but it does oftentimes require quite a bit of patients and sometimes multiple years of applications to be selected if- if you are fortunate enough to be selected. [01:36:37] Along the same line. Because there are other funding sources that could be sought after, LITHC, as you mentioned, typically requires 30 years. If for some reason, the city did grant the, you know, $2 million lot purchase as well as a TIF for 7 million and 10 million somewhere in there, can we require a longer affordability period, if that is a part of our contingency? [01:37:06] Page 37 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at https://citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. Yes, you can. I mean, we own the property. We can require anything we want to. Now the question becomes, is it feasible, right? Does it- does that make the project, uh, in some way unattainable? Those would be discussions that we would have to have with the team. And that's going to really apply to all of the- the proposals, and whether we're talking affordable housing, whether we're talking about tenants who may need, ah, rental subsidies or build -out assistance, whether we talk about climate action components of the building. All of those things, uh, we can absolutely push on, and we can ask for more, but at some point, you know, the numbers start to start to fall apart. So as we get through this process, one of the things that we'll look for the council are, you know, what priorities are rising to the top? What opportunities are you seeing in these proposals that are most exciting? And we will absolutely work hard to ensure whatever those are. If it's permanent affordability, we would work to do that with all of the proposals. [01:38:06] And Iceberg is like they are only focusing on senior units or they are open to all? [01:38:16] Correct. I think- I think they could potentially be open. They have specifically proposed senior units, and we did not engage them on family units. But again, I think, the team would be open to that. It's probably more of a reflection on how they saw the market in Downtown and thought that the- the senior housing would be, um, of higher demand, but I'm sure they're open to that discussion. Staff has estimated the total valuation at 24 million. That may seem a little low based on the- the scale of the property, um, but LITHC projects are taxed a little bit differently, so it brings down the overall valuation during the compliance period. Also puts it on the commercial side, which is- which is good for us, so the- the taxable v- valuation is a little bit high, but the overall valuation may seem a little bit low, but that's where, uh, we've estimated that to be. The proposal, again, is based on a 4% LITHC, and they've suggested a $2 million lot purchase with a need for about $7-10 million in TIF, which, uh, based on that valuation number, we would expect to take anywhere from 8 to 12 years to- to pay off at that 100% level. If they shift to the competitive LITHC, that 9%, which, again, is harder to achieve, uh, that could lower the TIF significantly, um, and change that overall financial picture for this project. [01:39:58] Is it a sense of how long- is it significantly for all the parks or is it too early to? [01:40:06] 1 think more than half would be our expectation. Both teams would obviously try to work to try to get that to zero, but I'm not sure if that's financially viable. This does not include subsidies for any other uses. So I mentioned the- the Englert has a letter of interest in there. And talking with the Englert, we know, regardless of what proposal it's in, they're probably going to need some help with, uh, build out and with, um, perhaps a- a rental subsidy going forward. So all those things are just factors that can push up or down on that TIF request. Okay, we'll look at some of the architectural conceptual rendings that were submitted. Page 38 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at.https:llcitychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. [01:41:01] This was submitted just to, uh, show the context of a 13 story building, uh, within the downtown. So, uh, calling out the- the seven story, uh, neighbors here, uh, with the Vogel House, uh, you've got Plaza Towers at 14, uh, you've got Park @ 201 with 14, and- and so on. We'll get into some of the floor plans. Uh, there was not any parking proposed on this. So, uh, leaning, uh, on our existing parking facilities. Uh, you can see the ground floor concept here. Here's that entertainment space. They listed it as restaurant/live music venue or anchor retail. So you see they're still very flexible in which way that would go. Um, and then you see that micro retail down on Linn Street, uh, right here. And by micro retail, we're just talking about smaller, uh, square footages. Uh, we're not talking about any type of subsidized space, but by the nature of being small, it's going to be more affordable entry point for- for retailers. Again, it's not reflected as subsidized -based in the pro forma. You can see you've got, uh, both the office and residential, uh, lobby here. So Floors 2 and 3, they had, uh, identified for city office space. Again, should we choose not to do this, these floors could be eliminated, uh, or potentially, uh, converted into, um, the residential units. Uh, there are- go ahead. [01:42:35] In this- in this proposal, no one will- um, it's not going to be condoed out, so it will all be rental, even for this here. [01:42:43] No, I don't think that's known at this time. It could be condoed out. So for example- are you talking this proposal specifically? [01:42:51] Yes. [01:42:51] Okay. Then it probably would not be condoed out under this. The other- except maybe the commercial spaces, right? But the residential pieces would- would likely not be. [01:43:04] What about the city space if that's become city? [01:43:07] Correct. So the city, if we wanted to own our own office space in any one of these proposals, we could absolutely do that. We wouldn't have to lease it. I think we would have the flexibility to work with the teams to figure out what the best option is. Uh, this is the, uh- the housing level, so it goes from Level 4. The only difference being Level 4 is where some of the amenity space would be. You see a community room here, you see a- a patio, and amenity space out here, and then the upper floors would all have the same floor plan here. The top level is shown as the ACT office space. So this would be a similar setup to what we have at the Park @ 201. The Park @ 201 is on the- the north end of the Ped Mall right on Black Hawk Mini Park. Uh, it has a couple floors of office, and then residential, and then another office level at Page 39 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at https:llcitychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. the very top. This would follow kind of a similar, uh, type of offering with this space. Any questions on the Iceberg 1 right now? Okay. We're going to talk about the Salida Partners proposal, uh, which also includes Shive-Hattery, Skydeck Capital, and Simeon Tally. Um, and, uh, we'll walk you through that proposal. Uh, this is the most, um, kind of defined proposal, uh, that we- that we saw the most level of detail, particularly on that first floor. Uh, so you have, uh, 6,900 square feet of flex entertainment, uh, micro kind of kitchen, you have micro retail, and an art alley. Uh, the proposal describes it in great detail. Uh, talks about it being the community living- uh, community living room, uh, the space has been dubbed Billy's at this time. Uh, it's clear that, uh, there would be a partnership with the Englert on that space. Uh, the first floor would also include the primary entrance for the upper level stories project. There's about 9,000 square feet on upper levels for the stories project with an opportunity for them to grow over time, uh, if needed. And also has office and commercial, uh, space in these, uh, upper floors. The, uh, quite a bit of mix of housing here, five upper floors of residential, we see 26 market rate units, six affordable units, and 14, uh, short-term stay. Um, and there is a letter of interest from the housing fellowship for the affordable units, and we also see that letter of interest from the University of Iowa International Writing Program, uh, in this proposal as well. Um, I skipped over the stories project pretty quickly, but there is a lot of detail, uh, in the, uh, slide of partners, um, proposal. So as you spend some more time looking at this, uh, if you're interested in learning more about the stories project concept, I would encourage you to look at that slide of partners, um, uh, proposal for that level of detail. And we can- we can answer questions about that if you've got- if you've got those, uh, ready tonight. Uh, we estimate the total valuation to be about 37 million. And, uh, the team has proposed a- a lot transfer of a dollar, so essentially, uh, no cost land transfer, and they would anticipate needing, uh, the full TIF that's generated off the property, uh, for, uh, as many years as possible, probably we would say, probably in that 15-20 years range based on what we can see, uh, in this. There was two different, uh, pro formal submitted, one that had kind of market rate users in there. So if we didn't subsidize that space for- for stories or for Englert, there is a remaining gap of around one million dollar that's estimated. And when you get into subsidizing that space, uh, for some of those, uh, prioritized users, that gap grows upwards of about the five million dollar level there. We'll go through some of the images that were submitted. There's an art alley concept that's prominent in this one, and you can see that in this lower right-hand picture here. A couple of the elevations. Did you see the underground parking? Okay. And we'll walk you through some of the floor plans again. Uh, this is the underground parking level right here. Uh, then you move into that first floor. Again, a lot of detail on- on this proposal. Uh, there is a two story venue back here. That's the Englert kind of performance venue. Uh, all tied in together, uh, to this Billy's space. And you see some of those micro kitchen, uh, units here, designed to be, uh, again, very accessible entry points for, uh, food providers that would work together with the Englert on the operation of this space. The art alley sits out in this area here. And then those micro retail spaces even smaller than what you saw in the iceberg proposal here at 300 square feet, would sit here on, uh, Linn Street. The stories project entrance kind of comes in on the corner, uh, of the property right here. That second level, again, we've got the performance venue that's two stories back here, so there's a balcony area. You can see the stories project, uh, which is spread out over a couple of floors to start, uh, sits in this area back here. And then there's a, uh, kind of an emerging artist gallery, uh, seating area to round out that second floor. Uh, the third floor has the remainder of the story space as well as, uh, flexible office space. And then the fourth and fifth would include offices for, uh, the city. We should- again, we need to or- or Page 40 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at https:/Icitychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. want to pursue that, uh, particular option. Uh, the 6th, uh, level and 7th, 8th, and 9th, uh, show the- the residential, uh, footprints, uh, right here. And then the- there is an upper floor, uh, roof and pavilion patio that's really, uh, designed to, uh, bolster the offerings of the Englert and the- the stories project or host other special events, uh, that, um, are held in the building. Any questions on the Salida Partners proposal? Okay. Uh, this is the same, uh, table that is in your, uh, memo. Uh, that, uh, and- and all the proposals, I should have mentioned up front are available on the website now at icgov.org/21-linn. So you can, uh, reference that as well. Um, I won't walk through these. We just walk through these, but I think this is helpful for the discussion. So, uh, the- the staff, uh, is recommending that we move forward, uh, with public presentations of the grand rail and iceberg proposals. And, um, uh, I- I do want to note that the- the Salida Partners proposal is very impressive. Um, and, uh, it's very clear that they put a lot of time into, uh, trying to understand what the public input that we gathered really was calling for, and they responded very well to that. Uh, but at the end of the day, um, we really didn't- did not feel that they presented a- a financially viable proposal. Uh, and we were pretty clear in the RFP that we really wanted to try to produce a- a property tax generating, uh, building that was going to be also of, uh, of kind of fiscally supporting of the city. And with the inability to pay for any of the- the land or recoup any of our land cost and a full encumbrance of TIF, uh, with a remaining gap that would have to be plugged in some way shape or form, we really felt that, uh, it fell short of that objective, as, uh, inspiring as it is. And I completely, uh, unintentionally, uh, dropped- missed, uh, letting you know that they proposed a mass timber building, which is- would- would be, you know, kind of an incredible, um, construction technology to- to bring to Iowa City. It's an emerging sustainable, uh, construction tech- technique that, um, Iowa- the state of Iowa has seen very little of. I think the more- there's a project or two, but I, um, should have mentioned that when I walked you through the- the property there. Um, but at the end of the day, um, we just didn't think it was a viable project. And, uh, in the effort, uh, of really focusing in on- on the two that we felt were viable, uh, we are recommending that we not pursue, uh, any- any further with Salida, uh, on their proposal. Um, let's see. Um, one thing I- I did want to stress again. So what I recommend, uh, you know, for a next step is to invite the teams that you wish to- to come forward and present publicly. Um, I can present you a summary. You can read it in paper, but I can tell you hearing the teams that developed the proposal present it and allowing them to introduce themselves to you brings a whole another dimension to the vision and- and to the project that I think you would find beneficial, and I think that the public would find beneficial when- when giving you their input on which direction that you should go. So I do- I do think that's the next step when you are- are ready for that. And then lastly, again, just keep in mind that at this stage, I think all the teams are- are indicating some level of flexibility. And, uh, it is an opportunity for you to, uh, see these and react in ways that can more clearly express where your strongest priorities are. And, uh, once you, uh, get to the point where you can select a preferred concept, uh, to move forward with, we would work with that team to try to make sure that we can meet those, uh, top priorities for you while still producing a- a viable project, uh, for- for the team as well. So I think we'll end it there. I'll leave this up for discussions. Um, and, uh, let me know if you have any questions. Otherwise, I'll just turn it back to you. [01:54:03] Can you remind me how much was the land again? Page 41 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at https:.I/citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. [01:54:06] Four -and -a -half million. [01:54:07] And- and if we want to sell the land at today, how much it will be? [01:54:13] Well, that depends if, you know, how we want to steer the project. Um, we felt, uh, and I still feel like four -and -a -half million the property would have sold for that amount, and we probably would have seen, um, one of the- one of the, uh, groups that were inquiring with us about it, um, come in and get it. So it would probably be a- a student housing type of project- [01:54:37] Yes, I know. [01:54:37] -would be our best- would be our best guess and I think we could recoup that cost. [01:54:41] No, I just wanna know the value of the land. [01:54:44] Four -and -a -half million is my best- my best estimate at this time. So when we're looking at these proposals, they're- they're producing something that the market may not otherwise produce, which was our goal, and we may not recoup all of our cost in doing that. Each one of these projects in that way is subsidized. [01:55:03] Yeah. That's why I want to comfort it. So what we giving and how much we getting from them, so we can choose which project here. [01:55:15] And as we start to have convers- conversations, I do wonder, you know, everyone has presented their, uh, proposals, and, you know, that public process has been opened- has been closed for other people. So what is the wiggle room that we- or boundaries that we would have if someone- because I hear they are willing to- to hear council and willing to present something, um, based on, you know, some of our discussion today. But if it's significantly changed, I- I guess I need to know what those parameters are, or is- are there any? [01:55:59] Yeah, I mean, I do think we- we should expect that these projects will evolve, right? This could take years to get from the RFP stage to a construction stage, right? We still have probably a year at least of Page 42 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at.https:,I/citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. design work to do. The teams would have that type of work. So market conditions will change, uh, and again, opportunities may change, uh, you know, there could be, ah, an office user that all of a sudden is interested in downtown, which may expand the need for commercial office space in this particular location. There could be a particular retailer or- or something else that, uh, that comes forward. So some of that is going to- going to- to change, and we should expect that. Um, construction costs will change, right? Uh, certainly kind of in those discussions now as- as tariffs are- are- are being pursued. So, you know, thi- this is a moment and time slapshot- snapshot that is- is the best, uh, kind of proposal, but we have to expect that's going to change. Um, I would say, uh, even bringing in new partners to the teams, right? I think the- the principal structure needs to stay the same, but, um, some of these teams may find, uh, new partners that help them further their goals. I- I think that's okay, but there are- there - there will be a time and I'm not sure if I can define that really well in which the project changes so much that it's not consistent with what was originally proposed, and that's where I would have, uh, that was where I would have a concern. So I'm just going to use an example here, maybe to help illustrate this. If the Iceberg project came back and said, you know, light tech is probably not going to- not going to work, we'd rather do, you know, a major shift in the housing offering. That's a pretty big change. And that fundamentally changes how we would have assessed that initially. I think we'd have to have some conversations about that. Uh, but if they were to shift from, uh, a senior light tech to a- a non -senior or kind of family light tech, as we refer to it, I wouldn't view that as a substantive change. [01:58:09] 1 would add, Mayor, that I- I think since we're just selling land, we really do have a free hand for, um, negotiating, uh, with the, uh, the proposers, as, uh, City Manager has described, I would say the only kind of guard rail is, if for some reason, the council were to upend the criteria by which the proposals were made, that would probably not be fair to those who maybe chose not to propose because they saw that we were offering those constraints. So short of something like that, which I would not anticipate, I- I think you're free to do what you wish. [01:58:42] To that, um what has come before us, you know, has done so much due diligence in terms of thinking about what we put out in the RFP. And as you said, Jeff, where it was like, and I think you actually mentioned it at 1.2 where it's like, you know, these- we gave enough shape to something, but then how that was expressed is in three very different projects. And- and so I think that as counsel as we talk about it, we want to make sure that we don't just sort of redesign the projects at, you know, Frankenstein, you know, Frankenfurer kind of put, like, oh, that's good, and that's good, and piece it all together because so much work has gone into this based on the homework that's been done. So, I mean, I just say that to counsel because it doesn't sound like that's a legal constraint necessarily. It- it does impact feasibility. But it seems also to- to- to give credence to the work that has been done because it took months and months to- to develop these plans. So we want to- I'm not saying that we take them whole cloth. I love that there's the flexibility of, like, what are the needs? What do we understand needs to be as well, um, but to sort of redesign from within a project seems kind of unfair and not true to the- the- the way that the RFP was put out. So I just - Page 43 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at.https:/Icitychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. [02:00:13] To- the months of their design flow- that- which followed our months of deliberations on what things we were looking for. Um, yeah, I think if we decide to change or what we decided be- at the very beginning, that's one thing. Um, you know, I'll- I'll just quickly comment and compliment all three of these groups. When I, you know, when I heard we had three, uh, proposals, I was like, oh, I was kind of hoping for more, and I no longer after I got a chance to really look at these, I don't feel the least bit disappointed. I just wish we had three street corners, uh, that were open, uh- uh, because I think, they- they- they're- was- you know, they're all very different, but there was- there were components of each one that I thought were, uh, you know, jumped out at me as unique advantages, uh, you know, and it wasn't- it wasn't different kinds of- different kinds of things. So I actually do see a little bit of that, uh, Frankenstein Mix and match and wha- whatever direction we go, because whichever one we go as a council, there'll be other ideas that will -hopefully they'll be able to incorporate. And I think it was also interesting that- that a lot of them had some overlaping possible partners. Uh, you know, I think that speaks to the seem really positive things about our community and community institutions and organizations and people, um, that pop up in a couple of different places on here, and I just think that's- I- I found that to be really encouraging. Um, yeah. So, I mean, again, thank you to all of the- the- the groups that put this together, the outside groups that were looking at it and offering support or possible deals. Uh, you know, and- and you know, and I'm really excited about that, so- [02:01:52] And when are we supposed to choose this one? Like today? Not today, right? [02:01:56] 1 think it's whenever you're comfortable. [02:01:58] Not today. [02:01:58] You certainly don't need to choose a proposal now. I think your next steps would be identifying which ones that you want to hear more from at this time. Understanding that you are asking them to commit more resources and more time and more energy to it. Um- uh staff has recommended that you- you hear directly from the Grand Rail and Iceberg teams, but ultimately that's your decision on which teams you hear for. And I think that's the next step. I don't- I don't- I wouldn't even suggest you do a whole lot of picking apart these proposals at this- at this stage, because I do feel like it's important that you hear directly from the teams that spent the many, many hours preparing this. They can tell their story a lot better than I can represent their story, uh, here before you. So that is probably the next step, whether tonight or at your next work session is to say, let's move forward with Team A, B, and C, whatever configuration that needs to be. [02:02:51] To come and present. Page 44 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at https:/Zcitychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. [02:02:53] To come and present, just information. [02:02:54] Not like you. Okay. [02:02:55] What would be a reasonable amount of time to- once whether it would be tonight or our next work session, which I'd be kind of leaning towards the next work session, um, after that, what would be a reasonable amount of time to give these groups to prepare a presentation? I'm- I'm guessing it's - because yeah, as you say, if we ask for that for another group, we need to be serious about them as serious contenders, um, and 'cause they're gonna put some more time and effort into it, and so- [02:03:19] Yeah, at this point, we're not asking them to- to change anything. So I think they're probably ready to go with- with the two weeks notice if two to three weeks between council meetings. So if you told me tonight that you're ready to move forward and you know who you want to hear from, then, uh- uh, as long as they're, uh, available 2% at your next meeting, we could do it at your next meeting. [02:03:40] And we say next meeting, but if- if it's okay, the next one or two meetings. Just we need to look at the works. [02:03:48] Yes, sure. [02:03:49] But we want like each meeting one of them to come and present [inaudible 02:03:54] [02:03:56] You could- I- I would do it both at one time. I would recommend you just- you- you do both at one time, or even if you choose all three, all three at one time, if that means flexing your work schedule, your - your work session time a little bit, that's fine. We can give them time parameters, right? I don't want to give each group an hour. You're gonna want to say, we're gonna have 20-minute presentations or whatever the, you know, whatever time, uh, allotted is needed. But I would recommend that you keep them all at the same cadence, and you don't give one team extra time to prepare or react to something a previous team said. [02:04:27] Oh, sure. Page 45 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at https:llcitychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. [02:04:28] Oh, yeah. That's good boy. [02:04:30] And it'd be good to compare side by side. I- I would find that useful. [02:04:34] Then both of them, if not, next meeting, the meeting after, but I think next meeting should be. [02:04:41] Yeah, 1-1 think if we are having, uh, one, appreciate the three that has submitted, very impressed by, uh, some of the items and some of what they presented. Um, of course, there are some questions about, um, some of the- some of the things, especially when it comes down to what the city is being asked essentially for subsidies. Um, but with that being said, if we're saying that we would entertain some changes to, you know, even the two that the city or that the staff has recommended, then I think it would only be fair that, um, all three have that same opportunity if there's, um, if there's potential for change. Um, I understand that the next, when they present, they're going to be presenting what's here. Can they- I guess this is up to the council, can they even, um, say, you know, this is what we might think about altering or people. [02:05:55] 1 think given that we're talking about them just presenting on what they mostly have done, that that makes a lot of sense to see all three. Um, I do think that, you know, given the flexibility, I like the idea of having them all in the same room, honestly, and being, you know, the degree to which we've talked about, wanting to, uh, encourage collaboration and sort of sharing of ideas. And this is a very public process. And so I- I like the idea of having them all do that presentation just to potentially spark more, you know, something more collaborative that could come. [02:06:35] And the spirit in which I think you were- sorry, the spirit in which you- I think you were talking is that they get the opportunity to see the presentations of- of each other, which may spark ideas and may be able to move forward with some potential changes. I'm less inclined to say that essentially on the fly, they would talk about, and we could incorporate this or this or this. I- I would wanna just hear what they have and allow everyone with- within the teams to be able to hear what everyone has, and then see where that goes, as opposed to having them project or speculate about potential changes that they could incorporate if that makes sense. [02:07:20] Yeah, I mean, we're sitting here saying that we'll be- we're open to flexibility. [02:07:25] Absolutely. Page 46 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at https:.//citychanne]4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. [02:07:26] Um, and I even heard the word collaboration. Maybe there is some opportunity to, um, because I mean, there are some, you know, some things I like about all of them that I wish was in one proposal. So if we're- if we're talking about that right now, I- I think it would be very challenging not- for them to just present what's there, especially, you know, for the one that's not being recommended by staff. If- if they're just presenting what's there, I mean, we have a, you know, a- a huge deficit that they're going to be presenting on. So I- I guess, personally, um, I think we- I'm comfortable with them, you know, certainly presenting- um, making the case of ho- how they can bring this opportunity to the city. But if they felt like they can cram something in within their 20-minute time of, you know, of some hope from this conversation, then I'm comfortable with that. [02:08:36] That's what I was going to say, is I think they're all listening right now, right? [02:08:40] Well, I guess it's a matter of- I think of it as more of a matter of what is their comfort level in doing it. Is it essentially fair to ask them to do that? Because this is essentially if- whether it's two weeks or- or what have you, that is having to pivot pretty quickly from things that they've been working on for months. So I- I do take your point and I know that they're all listening, and that there will be probably some conversations, but I would just would hate that, in a way, that there's that extra sing that we want. And - and if a- a team isn't comfortable or- or able to respond in- in such a quick pivot that that would actually end up, I don't know. I- I think that there's opportunities, and they don't need to necessarily have it here. There could be some, like, yeah, we- we like the idea of X, Y, and Z in terms of future looking and - in ways that we could pivot. But I guess to maybe keep it at a high level. [02:09:35] Sure. And I see some of that conversation happening after we hear this presentation, right? (02:09:40] We have stats. [02:09:41] You know, I mean, I've got in my mind, already a list of things all the way from aesthetic, all the way to the dollars and cents to the constru- yeah, right that- all of those things, but I feel like to start going off down those tangents now before they have a chance to present what's there. And then ultimately, it'll probably be which of these three is closest and would need the least amount of changes to hit whatever, after I have more time to think about it, would hit the things I like. And then- then they can incorporate those, maybe some of those other things, you know. So, I mean, that's kind of my, you know, having had since Thursday to look over these, that's where I'm at currently, um, uh, you know, but that's probably what I foresee, you know, 'cause, like I said, there's definitely things I like and dislike about each one. Uh, I think they're all overall, really cool. Uh, but yeah, no, I don't really want to say too Page 47 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at.https://citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. much more until we let them have a chance to talk without having to filter through and trying to play either guessing game or what are those- what are those, uh, trying to second guess what those five people up there on the Council Dias want, uh, between now and two weeks from now or five weeks from now or whatever. [02:10:43] 1 do think there's been tremendous value, though, and I want to commend staff on, like, just sort of forcing the scoping of subsidy through this process, right, by even just making that recommendation of saying, three really good, cool projects, one that is asking so much financially of us, we don't foresee being able to support that. I think even that exercise has been really, really helpful. [02:11:13] And even if we, uh, like, for example, I went by the staff recommendation of the one not asking like too much subsidy. I guess when I look at those too, when it comes to height, completely different. Like you - you said earlier- you've said earlier, you know, there is some king, just could be easy king from, like, kicking seniors to- but- but there is major king sometimes, are they open to those like major th- king, and that's why we need to hear from them. [02:11:45] Yep. [02:11:47] So we- I think we're kind of all saying the next work session that we can devote the whole work session. You know, I don't mean like next time. This uh- the next time it fits, we have a work session to devote to it. I don't know what's'cause- [02:12:02] 1 could check with the teams and- and see. Obviously, we- we want to make sure that they feel like they have the time. I don't know the vacation schedules or other project schedules that could be pressing for them. So we would- we would try to get it done either the next meeting in February or the first meeting in March, and I'll just work with the teams to figure out, I think what- what would be best. [02:12:24] All right. [02:12:25] 1 will try- I- I'll try- I want to make sure I capture this right. I'll try to limit the- the amount of kind of flexibility discussion, or did you land the other direction to where if they have ideas on responding to different needs that they should feel free to articulate those. Are you? [02:12:46] 1 think what I heard was we're open to whatever they're comfortable. Page 48 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at https:,[/citychannel4.com/city-council.html) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. [02:12:50] Yes. Yeah. But there's no pressure to do it, but yeah. [02:12:53] 1 think a lot of the team- I think all the teams have indicated flexibility. So we'll let them kind of express that in their own words, and we'll go forward. My understanding, you want to, uh, allow all three teams to present. And is that 20 to 25-minute range sounds? [02:13:11] 1 like the idea of keeping it consistent. Do we want to also program in a certain amount of time for Q&A? So we don't end up with somebody who presents for 20, gets 20 minutes of Q&A, and then the next, uh- he's out of time because we've run out of- we've run out of work session time, and they have to go after. [02:13:27] Actually, guard rails on us? Whoa. [02:13:31] Wild, isn't it? But I would like to see- in the interest of comparing side by side, I would- I would hate for a third person or a second person or whoever have to go after a regular meeting and some before. That seems like that would also be- I mean, it's not the end of the world, if it happens, it happens. But if we can avoid that, I'd like to avoid it. [02:13:47] 1 think that would be good. I think that- that seems equitable. [02:13:51] So are we thinking 20 minutes for presentation and then just allowing 10 minutes for discussion? [02:13:58] Clarifica- and maybe clarification questions. [02:14:00] Not- not like, yeah, just the clarification, like I confused by this one Jimmy. [02:14:08] Thirty minute per- [02:14:09] Per person. Total of 30 minutes per - Page 49 Iowa City City Council Work Session of February 4, 2025 (audio and video recordings can be found at https:/Icitychannel4.com/city-council.htmi) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription through Verbit: AI -Based Transcription & Captioning Services. For greater detail please refer to the meeting recordings. [02:14:11] Total. [02:14:12] Tota I. [02:14:13] Yeah, total which is 20,10. [02:14:16] And if I could come even start like half an hour early. Uh, I teach on Tuesdays, uh, so I can't come too much early, but I could be here half an hour early if- if that would be helpful to the group. I'm just going toss that out there. I'm not saying I have to do that. [02:14:301 I- I guess what we can do is, um, check in with people, check in with counsel and see if that is possible for you all, as well. [02:14:40] Okay. All right. I think we're good. Thank you. Anything else on this topic from Counsel? If not- if not, we are adjourned for our work session. [02:14:55] Thank you. [02:14:55] All right. [MUSIC] Page 50