Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-06-17 TranscriptionIowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. [00:00:21] I'm going to call this work session for the city of Iowa City to order. It is 4:00 PM. On Tuesday, June 16th. Welcome to everyone that is here present and anyone watching virtually. We- our first agenda item is a joint meeting with the Community Police Review Board, so we want to welcome all of you here today, and we'll just go around and, uh, have you introduce yourself. And after that, we welcome you to just go into any discussion that you wish to with the council. So welcome and we'll start over here tomorrow right. [00:00:57] My name is Marie Braddock, and I'm a very recent, uh, addition to the board. Are you asking for my position right now, which may not be consistent with the board or? [00:01:09] Well, you can share whatever you would like. [00:01:12] Okay. Um, well, I am not here to criticize the Iowa City Police. I have been very impressed by their professionalism and a belief in a culture of service. I think that what we are here to address today is due to perhaps a misunderstanding by the legislature in the role of Civil Service Commissions. Those commissions do not address or give voice to citizen concerns. Those Civil Service commissions do not provide, um, checks and balances or transparency to police departments. And I believe that in the current fraught political circumstances, it's particularly important to have those checks and balances and transparency. I also think that in the current fraught political circumstances, there are additional pressures put on police. Some of those pressures may come from outside sources like ICE, and it might be helpful to the department to have input from citizens. I believe that giving citizens a voice, um, can de-escalate problems, and it can, um, promote peaceful resolution of problems. So my recommendation is that the council take action to fill the gap created by the legislature. And the way I suggest that you do that is to appoint a committee of citizen volunteers, perhaps consisting of willing members of the Citizens Review Board, representatives of the police department and other interested parties for the purpose of creating recommendations to the council for an advisory board, much as the city already has an advisory board for public art, but this would be an advisory board for public safety. And it would have no cost to the city. I believe it would have no risk of harm to the city because any recommendations about the structure of such a board would come back to this council for review and consideration. So I am suggesting that this council create a committee of volunteers, uh, to give recommendations about an advisory board of public safety to basically fill this gap that I believe was created by the legislature. [00:04:21] Great. Thank you. Welcome. [00:04:23] Hi, Thank you. My name's Melissa Jensen. I'm the incoming chair of the CPRB probably the shortest tenure. Uh, but I have been with the board before, so have a fairly good feel for some of the history Page 1 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. that's taken place over the years. I'll hold my comments. I believe David's going to do an introduction and has a few words to share with us. So thank you. [00:04:48] Thank you. [00:04:49] And we're just gonna bounce this over a little bit Saul, our current chair is here, and so I want to let him go first, and then I'll fill in right after him. [00:04:58] Well, I'm Saul Merkies the current chair of- of the board. I was absent at the last meeting in which a lot of the discussion took place on this issue. So I will see the floor today. [00:05:12] Okay. Thanks all. So we had our regular meeting on June 10th, just a week ago where we kind of discussed as a board, just an open discussion about how this legislation was going to impact the board and how we kind of individually and as a group might see that moving forward. So I'm going to kind of break my comments up into two pieces here. The first is about the general discussion we had as a board. And then I just very want to clearly define that I'll then move into kind of my personal thoughts and recommendations. So as a board, we- we were not coming with any single board recommendation. We only discussed it at that one meeting and did not come to a consensus as a board or vote on any particular one solution. Um, so it's great that we have four members here to kind of discuss those individually and give them to you. Um, the discussion covered ways to empower the community to feel comfortable reporting officer misconduct without having the review portion. So I think there was a lot of concern on will there be- will the public feel less empowered or less comfortable complaining about alleged misconduct of officers moving forward and how we could address that factoring in the new legislation? Um, [NOISE] and there were questions about any city decisions or thoughts on challenging the legislation. It doesn't sound like there's been any real discussion or thoughts on the city side for that, but the board was very interested to know if the city was going to mount any type of challenge to that. And [NOISE] overall, if the changes come that it seems are coming where kind of the main function of the board will be removed. There was discussion about taking the CPRB portion of the city website and including references on there to the legislation, how that is changing things that have been done in the past, and then having resources there for the community of how to file complaints or follow up on misconduct allegations moving forward. So just very explicit instructions, for example, if they can no longer file with the city clerk's office that that is a change and that they would now need to go to the police department. I'm not saying that is necessarily what it is, but some very specific instructions for the public on how to do that. I think overall, the board thought that was a good idea just to make sure that information was out there and easily available. I'm going to move now to my personal thoughts and recommendations. And I think for me, having a formal city appointed board made sense when we were reviewing misconduct allegations because the board was receiving information that wasn't part of the public record. We were viewing videos. Page 2 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. [00:07:58] Ah, we were having discussions in executive session [00:08:01] with information the public otherwise doesn't have. Absent the authority and ability to review those complaints and the police department's investigation of those complaints, we're now kind of limited to the main function of reviewing policies, which is all public record today. It's all on the city website. Anybody can do that today from home with an Internet connection. Um, I think there would be benefit in having a more formal option for reviewing those with a wider audience. So my recommendation is moving less away from a city board where we have the meetings and agendas, um, which I see as a limitation because what we've had in the past is board members or the public ask a question at a meeting where then the board can't discuss it. We have to put it on for business for the next meeting, and I'm sure you've all had this as well. Put it on for the next meeting. At least yours is generally like two weeks away a lot of times, whereas ours is the following month, and then the public would have to come back in order to engage in those discussions. So I see that as a limitation. Um, my thought is looking more toward an advisory board. I think we all kind of like the Advisory Board aspects. And in my thought it would be more of a police department, police chief run advisory board. Um, I don't know what those appointments would look like or what the limitations are there. But where more I'll use the word informal discussions can take place so that if members of this advisory committee come with a current event, it can be discussed on the spot. Um, because, again, a lot of times, if you have to wait till the following month, that's a long time to wait if you're looking for information about a police department or- or an event or policy questions. And so if we could have more ad hoc discussions that can just generically and more naturally evolve and learn information and have a group discussion on those, I think that would be very beneficial. Um, I would also see this Advisory Board playing a role in community outreach and educational activities. So the board currently has the annual forum, um, and we have the police department doing outreach. Generally, that's handled by the police department. So I'm envisioning a place where if there's a community event where the police department is doing outreach, could civilians on this advisory board also go and be just another voice there to talk about their interactions with the police department, the policies, why things are? Because I think- and for those you don't know, I was on the police department for some time. Um, there were situations where I went to public events in uniform, and I recall people saying they were scared to engage with me because I was in uniform and had a gun. So how could we bridge that gap? And I think having an advisory board or some civilian community outreach that's connected with the police department help with that. With that, I'll pass it on. [00:11:00] If I may add a few comments. Over my years of service on the board, uh, there are some observations that I would like to make. One is about the involvement or the lack of involvement of social services on a more practical basis. We've talked about the philosophical idea of advising, but on a more practical and immediate basis, ah, on a number of cases, there's scant evidence of involvement of the social services and all the ancillary agencies that we supposedly have. There are people who have been stopped 50-100 Page 3 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. times, uh, and nothing is happening. I haven't seen any evidence of any involvement of social services. There are times or multiple times where, uh, toddlers are involved, children are involved, and yet nothing is being reported. There is no social service evidence around. These are more practical issues that could be addressed, uh, immediately, uh, on the philosophical basis about the advising, uh, the police chief, I think there's a remarkable difference between the past, uh, police policies, philosophy, and the current one. There's, uh, I- I don't want to say new generation, but a new cohort of- of police officers who are better trained and better or more concerned with ethical standards and who are policing themselves well beyond what we as a board have even suggested. You know, I think the, uh, city council ought to take that into consideration. Yeah, I thank you for your attention. [00:13:00] Is it okay if I? So I just have a question for you. Thank you, everyone, for your comments. Specific to what you were talking about with social services, um, not being as involved, um, through when there have been, um, police call outs and they've gone to attend to things. Ar- are you saying perhaps that social services in this new potential of an advisory board, that there would be representatives there so that if there were a situation [OVERLAPPING] [00:13:29] 1 think that would be helpful. [00:13:30] You're talking about more broadly in terms of when there is actual, um, when a police officer goes to an event somewhere or has been called to a situation [OVERLAPPING] have social services. [00:13:42] Yeah, that would be helpful. But I think putting it more bluntly, I think they ought to do theirjob. [00:13:48] Social services? [00:13:50] Social services, psychologist, whoever we have on the list are supposedly helping the police. I haven't seen any evidence that they're there. You know, you would think after 50 or 100 times, something would be or you would think when- when toddler's children are involved, and police are repeatedly called upon, somebody ought to be involved. [00:14:15] Thank you. [00:14:20] Wanted to know if there's any additional comments from any of the members? Page 4 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. [00:14:26] 1 think David did a good job, so thank you for that. Um, consensus wise, I think we as a board, how we go about it, I don't know that we reached an agreement, but we very much supported the idea of an advisory, whether it be a more informal board, so we were not restricted by some of the things that David mentioned, um, about the ability to discuss certain things, um, and maybe just be that liaison, where we could perhaps be another point of contact, another way of saying, we as a city didn't have an - didn't have a choice in this particular manner with this particular board. However, this is what we are going to do to try to help bridge that gap. [00:15:13] 1 understand you all have at least one more meeting before it, um, sunsets, August 15th, 16th, somewhere in there? [00:15:23] Yes. [00:15:24] O kay. [00:15:26] And during your meeting, you did not come to a consensus, which I, you know, keep hearing. Is it possible that you all can make a recommendation as a body to the council? Um, certainly, council can engage in any discussion with you right now, um, but I wonder if that would be the most appropriate next step for you all to continue your conversation, um, maybe take some feedback back away from council should there be any given, and then you all make a formal recommendation as a body to the council. But, um, I'll open it up to my colleagues for comments or any discussion at this time. [00:16:12] Mr. Mayor, um, first, this is great. This is, like, a piece of the puzzle. Like, what can we do moving forward in order to keep some sort of public engagement? Uh, I don't know if you can call it oversight anymore. I mean, kind of, but not in the way that it has been. I think it's- I still think this is one of those incredibly dumb things to come out of Des Moines. Our CPRB has been working, and the members of the CPRB have been working for many, many years. I know there's at least one member of council who's been on the CPRB, maybe two. Um, you know? And so there's been lots of ways that that has helped members of the community engage with these issues and be able to see some of those things. And the ability to look at some of that non-public information in executive session adds a layer of credibility or a layer- layer to the process, which adds credibility to whoever needs it. Like it's an independent fact- finding mission, and that is something that I think the city has been really fortunate to have for many years, and I think we're going to miss that when it's gone. Um, you know, I just- I just do. So I appreciate this idea of what can we do to keep some shreds of that in place? Uh, the other part of it just to kind of share with my council colleagues, and I've had- we've had some discussions about this, I think, but I can't remember with which people, so I just want to make sure that- that everybody kind of hears these Page 5 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. thoughts is that when we- whatever we have to do to adjust the code, I would be very interested in putting something in so that even if it's like a clause, like everything after this we used to have and it was taken away by the legislature, and should the legislature change it, we would be- so I just hate the idea of completely deleting from our city code or city statute, everything that we've had that talks about the CPRB so that it just becomes a ghost that only few- fewer and fewer people will remember in the future. Uh, but I don't want to leave it in there, just as it is with nothing, because then it'll just be very confusing. People will go to that and say, Well, where's this thing that I should be able to put my complaints in? But if there's some way to adjust things so we don't delete it, but we make sure it's very clear that, you know, the following is no longer in effect based on, you know, the state legislative nature and whatever, you know, the legal boilerplate, whatever they- you know, whatever it was the name of the actual bill passed. Um, so that, if we get a- what I would consider a more forward -thinking legislature in the future, and they remove this law that we've got something we can- the city at that time, whoever is sitting up here, could more easily re-engage with this, uh, this kind of a body. So just something to think about in parallel to our discussion of what do we put in its place? So -Thank [00:18:55] you all for coming. [00:18:56] Um, I- uh, there's some stuff here that maybe, you know, I don't want to put our city attorney on the spot, sorry, Eric. Um, some questions I have specifically about the language that's used in the- the code, um, of this new law that has passed, specifically a city with a Civil Service Commission established under Chapter 400. And I'm wondering if that's all encompassing or if there are ways around that, or if there's a way that we can do something not within the confines of Chapter 400 and then be able to- you know, thank you, Eric. [00:19:33] Sure, Eric Goers, City Attorney for the City of Iowa City. Um, I'm not sure that would be relevant to Iowa City, because we clearly meet the standard for a required Civil Service Commission and, of course, in fact, have a Civil Service Commission. So I don't think, um, that would be an avenue, uh, to be able to move forward despite Senate file 311. Um, you probably have other comments, but I thought I might take this opportunity to interject a couple of other things that have come up. One was some discussion about, um, having a more informal body, and one of the benefits of that would be that we wouldn't need- we could address comments from the public or questions from the public right away. Um, that is, they would not be constrained by open meetings law. Unfortunately, if you have any kind of body, any kind of governmental body, open meetings law will apply. So, you know, you could have a circumstance where the, you know, police chief or the city manager or someone else kind of does some informal recruiting, saying, hey, would you be willing to go out and just listen to folks' complaints and, you know, offer comments and so forth. And I think that would probably be permissible. But if you have a council appointing people to serve on a body, then open meetings law would- would still apply. Um, my other comment has to do with Councilor Harmsen's suggestion about leaving what I'll characterize as the skeletal remains of the CPRB on the books and so forth. Um, you know, you could probably legally do Page 6 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. that. I would recommend that you not because that does- I mean, there is a written record. I understand the benefit of having it on the books for people to see, um, but we try not to leave, um, things that have been repealed and so forth on- on the books. Um, certainly, if the state ever changes their mind, uh, about this matter, uh, I- I suspect Iowa City's Council, future council would leap forward and probably bring it back, uh, into life and probably wouldn't need that reminder. But I would recommend the council don't engage into that, uh, kind of, uh, behavior or that kind of change. [00:21:43] Follow-up question. Would that be a way instead of leaving the skeletal remains, by the way, it's a catchy phrase. Skeletal remains there, just replace it with something that acknowledges some of the - the existence, why it went away, something that would be part of that public record of- you know what I mean? So- so maybe not leave these skeletal remains there to cause confusion, etc, but something that would replace it so that it would exist, you know, in perpetuity until we had an opportunity to do something about it. [00:22:11] 1 would- my answer would depend on what you mean by the public record. That is, if in the ordinance that repeals the CPRB, uh, you could have all manner of whereas clauses and so forth, you know, whereas, we really don't want to do this, but we're forced to do this because of Senate file 311, etc, and we think that the CPRB has been great, and here's the purposes that they've served and so forth. That all is part of the permanent public record and would be present for anyone to see in the future. Uh, and I have no objection to that. Uh, where I object is to leave it in the- in the code itself, such that you've got something that no longer exists and thus has no functional, uh, meaning. Um, but the first part would be fine. [00:22:56] Okay, so thank you. [00:22:57] Sure. Any other questions you want, Mayor? [00:23:00] So the follow-up is we were discussing- I- I guess my original question with Chapter 400 was when we talk about like an informal- a more informal process, uh, that may or may not be subject to, um, open meetings law, that's what I was referring to. What type of- what would this actually look like? Uh, would it not be just -just no appoint- appointments by the city council itself. But if, say, the city manager did the appointments himself, then it would be okay. [00:23:29] Well, it depends on what function that, uh, person or group of persons is serving. That is, if they are a conduit to pass on, uh, community concerns, let's say, or to pass on opinions on policy matters or something like that, then I think that's all fine. But what the, uh, bill that passed prohibits is any kind of Page 7 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. citizen review, I'm using their language. Citizen review of the conduct of officers. So, if your question is, could we have a less formal, not governmental body, but just some folks appointed to do that kind of work, I think the answer remains no. Uh, of course, it should be clear, or I should make it clear that, you know, the absence of the CPR- CPRB doesn't mean that there's no means by which members of the community can complain about police conduct. They- they certainly still can. There has been a process throughout the life of the CPRB and before um, where folks can complain or make their complaint to the police, and the police will engage in a thorough investigation. Um, we, in fact, have an officer who's present here today, Jeff Fink, who is tasked with doing nothing, as I understand it, and I don't want to limit, uh, Sergeant Fink's abilities, but, uh, you know, basically, primary duty is to do internal investigations. [00:24:54] So it's just not necessarily the form that it takes, but the- the work that it does. So you're saying if someone comes to the board or whatever body this would be and asks the question or brings a concern, if that concern involves conduct, then that's not something that can be talked about. [00:25:14] Well, I guess I'll say if it concerns individual conduct. If- if a member of the community came to- let's say this is a board. So it's a governmental body, and said, I think that Iowa City police officers stopped too many people for speeding. I'll make it simple. Uh, that's fine. Um, that board could discuss that and perhaps request statistics from the police department about how many stops they make for speeding. I don't want to carry this hypothetical too far, but they could engage in that. It's only when they're engaging in the review of the conduct of individual officers that Senate File 311 would stand in the way. Okay, so in- sorry for bogarting this time, y'all. So in the- uh, for- for what the current members of the CPRB were suggesting in terms of, uh, some- some more informal perhaps having the police chief or other officers involved, that would still be the case where they wouldn't be able to talk about individual police conduct. Right. If there's any, uh, to use, again, the, uh, statutes language, if there's any citizen that's taking part of that and engaging in a review of the conduct of officers, then, right, that could not take place. [00:26:32] So that was going to be my other question. If, say, um, we wanted to appoint the- the city clerk, Kelly, to be the person, would that be considered a citizen? [00:26:44] Well, let me ask you to fill out your hypothetical. If you wanted to appoint the city clerk to serve on an informal body but a governmental body to review the conduct of individual officers, is that what you're asking? [00:26:57] Uh, yes. Page 8 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. [00:26:58] Um, and you would be appointing her in her role as city clerk, not as a member of the community. [00:27:06] Or just as a city employee, period. [00:27:08] Right. Well, I mean, yeah, that's an interesting question, because, of course, the police officers or the police department, you know, has folks, including Sergeant Fink, who- that's exactly their purpose. So the notion of having an employee do that kind of review is permissible. I think that's a distinction from the language that the state legislature used in citizen. I'm taking that as limited to no other involvement other than as a citizen. So that would probably be permissible. You know, that's perhaps one of those questions about, is it- is it legal? Yes, is it- would that be practical? I don't know. I'm guessing that city clerk might object to her involvement in that, but- [00:27:51] City clerk, that was just an example. [00:27:52] Yeah- no, I understand. [00:27:53] Something that- something that I was thinking, sorry, Kelly. Something that I was thinking, uh, would be - the city employs a lot of people, right? [00:28:03] That's right. [00:28:03] A lot of people, uh, in various capacities, um, having the pool of people making up this board being employees of the city, whether they be landscapers, whether they be maintenance people, whether they be transportation, whether they work in forestry, something like that, if that would be a way to get around this to where they are basically citizens that would review the conduct, but, uh, they're technically not by the laws citizens that review the conduct. [00:28:30] Right. Uh, interesting. Uh, well, one of our restrictions on appointments for board and commission members is- is that they're not serving on a board or commission that would have any interplay with their, I'll say, professional lives. We can't have a Parks employee serving on the Parks and Rec board because they might, you know, do something, or at least there might be the appearance that they're just making decisions to make their lives easier, for example. Um, so that would be the first constraint I would offer. Um, but the second would be that one of the constraints that's always been present on the Page 9 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. CPRB is the presence of Chapter 400. That is, it has been a valuable opportunity for folks to be heard from the community and know they've been heard and that an independent body is looking into their concerns. But ultimately, the CPRB has never had disciplinary authority or officers, and, you know, that's been the source of- of complaints from some members of the community that, you know, they are toothless, anyway. Um, this would be the same. That is, even if the body was made up of nothing more than employees, uh, and not members of the public, they still would not be able to, uh, take disciplinary action. So that limitation would remain. Um, I'm guessing that many would criticize that structure as well, of course, fellow employees are going to give the officer the benefit of the doubt, um, as well. I think in answer to your question, I would want to give it a little more thought, but nothing springs to mind why that wouldn't be legal. I just wonder if that would really serve the purpose that you intend. [00:30:12] As you would, um, continue thinking about that a little bit, my mind immediately went to how unions, you know, employees who might be a member of a union that would be employed. Um, it is on the one hand, there's certainly committees and whatnot that- that many employees serve on within their capacity of jobs. I just wonder if this would become something that, um, might become like job creep or scope. Um, in the easiest example to go back to, say, what- what is the- what is the actual job description of the city clerk, right? And can this be incorporated into it? Or if this was something that was voluntary, maybe that makes the difference, right? [00:30:56] Sure. [00:30:57] Um, but I'm just- I'm wondering, then how, um, how that might play out in terms of, I don't know, all sorts of things. HR. [LAUGHTER] [00:31:06] Um. [00:31:06] Yeah. Um- Unions. [00:31:08] I'm here to say that this would cause any number of- [00:31:10] >>Right. [00:31:11] Problems-, Logistical- Yeah. Page 10 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. [00:31:12] Considerations, and I was just- [00:31:13] Hey, I'm just looking for a way around this stupid legislation. [00:31:15] [LAUGHTER] I'm just- I'm, kind of thinking like what would be actually possible. [00:31:18] Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. [00:31:19] So I'm just, sort of, like, I'm equally thinking out loud to- to say, these are the things that came to my mind. And just if you're saying that there wouldn't necessarily be a- a legal prohibition to this, I would just be interested as you thought more about it, well, whether these are things that I'm just going, oh, and here's why not. Or if these actually are considerations that would make it difficult and also employees in a position that they might not want to be in. [00:31:39] And- and the reason I was thinking about it in this way was because uh, you know, we talk about uh, you know, potentially the employees giving the police the benefit of the doubt if the- you know, because they're all city employees. You know, even the things that were recommended, it involves this body now just being basically run by and controlled by the police themselves, which we basically already have that. It's called the police department. And why it- it, kind of, defeats the entire purpose of if oh, you have complaints about the police? Go to this other thing that has the police chief sitting there or other police officers sitting there. I mean, everybody has heard, oh, we investigated ourselves and we found we did nothing wrong. I mean, people just have that in their brains. So I feel as if if- if we have police officers involved in this process in any capacity, it, kind of, defeats the purpose. [00:32:27] Yeah I mean, I- I get the- that argument, and I get that there probably are large segments of the community who have that perception. But I'm here to tell you that I'm aware that the, you know, police department does discipline, including terminate their officers if they feel that they've acted um, poorly. Um, and many of the disciplinary matters that have come up before, well, that our officer has been involved in that the police chief has engaged in, have been regarding matters that were not brought to the police department, either by the CPRB or any public complaint. Theyjust became aware of it on their own and they acted and- and that includes up to and including termination of officers. So I- I understand that there are probably many who have that perception that you're articulating, but that has not been my experience. [00:33:13] Page 11 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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 also wanted to just mention because Councilor Alter just talked about, kind of, the union, so the police does have a union, and my assumption is if there was something presented um, that was approved by us, where we would allow their co-workers in a way uh, to review individual. I'm assuming that you were stating individual performances, that -that [00:33:41] would be something that they would [00:33:42] come back with their union and say, they wouldn't be comfortable with that. I personally, if I was an employee I am an employee of the city, but we're very transparent. People give us public grading all the time. But I think for employees to be um, just as a routine where anything can be brought publicly, because it still is a public setting um, to have those discussions about performance outside of a HR you know, guard railed session. Um, I think that could be very- there could be some issues there. Also, when you're talking about disciplinary actions, um, there's a lot of things to go into that. Like, you need to know how to one, evaluate um, you know, situations. And so I- I think there could be a lot of work, not to say that's not something people can't learn, but I think it would be met with a lot of resistance. >> And again- [00:34:52] And- and maybe resistance isn't the right word, but it, you know, just from an individual who has the potential of being, you know, displayed and wi- without those proper checks and balances, I think that could be problematic for some folks. [00:35:11] And let me just uh, re emphasize that whether this body is made up of members of the community or employees, they would have no disciplinary authority whatsoever. [00:35:22] 1 just have a few comments, and I'll uh, ask Eric while he's at the podium. Uh, I believe the commissioners wondered about the possibility of the city challenging this bill, which we have not uh, talked about. Um, is that something your office has looked at or? [00:35:39] I'm sorry, I let you finish. [00:35:40] No, that- that's the first question. [00:35:41] Yeah, I've thought about it briefly, and I was at a meeting of Metro Attorneys um, that is city attorneys for the largest Metro Cities in Iowa a couple of weeks ago when we discussed this bill and none of them Page 12 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. mentioned anything. I can't think of anything. I'd certainly be all ears if someone thought of a way to challenge this, but, you know, the legislature has always had the authority to preempt our home rule, you know, engagement. And I think that this is just a political and legislative step that they've taken, and I think, you know, like it or not. I think they're empowered to do so. [00:36:17] Thank you for that on the fly opinion. [00:36:20] Yeah -yeah. [00:36:20] Um, I also am interested, as the mayor said in hearing a recommendation if you all are able to come to a consensus on something more- more crystallized from the commissioners themselves. But the last thing um, speaking to Commissioner Schwindt's thoughts on the ability to engage in real time conversation, I know in 2020, in our plan to restructure the police department, we talked about having quarterly, I think, um, like town hall type events with the department. And I know I've talked with the city manager about maybe implementing that. It- it didn't really happen because of the pandemic, but certainly some, kind of, more regular forum in which it was understood members of the public could come and, you know, ask questions about policy and that kind of thing, probably wouldn't hurt, regardless of the exact future of this commission or something like it. So I don't know how others feel about that, but I think it would be good. [00:37:24] To echo some of the sentiment that the mayor has expressed. Currently, we- we have no uh, right as a board to discipline an officer or even make a recommendation about any- any of that. So as such, I don't see anything preventing the police chief appointing an advisory board doing essentially the same thing that we're doing now. Essentially, it would be a shadow, for lack of better word, a shadow CPRB that he could implement immediately. [00:38:03] 1 really agree with you. Um, I've been serving in the Police Review Board before, even, though, it's one of the unique board that we have in Iowa. But it's still- I- I felt like it doesn't have any taste to it. When it comes to- I remember, you know, since this has been been when- when myself and I thing another Latino person join and also Roy San Barter. She was there. We are like three minority people in the board. That's the first time was sustained. I complain for the history of the Bills Review Board. So and even though after we sustained, that's complaint, nothing happened. So because, you know, that we just say sustain and we don't do anything. Uh, I think now this is being killing him by the state. I really don't feel like, you know, we are losing a lot, to be honest. But maybe this is like a chance for us to do something locally, and fulfill the same thing, like the requirement by the state. In the same time, we come up with a recommendation for the police chief that to reduce the- the practice that the- the public Page 13 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. complain about it, you know, and I- I just feel like this is a good chance for us to sit down and come up with something even better. [00:39:35] 1 like Councilor Bergus' suggestion of enacting some, kind of, town hall or listening post in a somewhat regular format. And I also was thinking about our conversations about the mental health liaisons and the mobile crisis units and one of the challenges that we have and the, sort of, silos of information between the pol- the police's privacy and also people's mental health privacy. And so I can imagine this town hall including both of those parties and, like, maybe being a way to address some of those disconnects that - that are happening. I know the police department is working hard to put those two things together, but the more opportunities we can have to do that, I think, could be beneficial. Um, I do think that again, having some forum for people to at least be heard and- and have somebody maybe answer some questions is- is worthwhile. But the shape of it, I don't know. I'd be curious to hear what the commissioners would recommend, what that forum would look like and how often and, you know, maybe where to, because I can imagine it being not here being a very good thing, too. [00:40:36] Yeah. [00:40:39] Yeah, the- the one thing that won't be very productive if, you know, this town hall meeting is all about, you know, abolish the police. Um, in- in my opinion, I think we would want to make sure that it's something set up that will actually have bans, things in the best interests of this community. And so that's I'll leave it at that for now. [00:41:12] 1 just want to say thank you for the suggestion because I know that it has come up before, and I also recall perhaps just a one off comment some time ago, actually, by the- by the fire department, talking about how their outreach efforts, even though they were small- smally attended, that it made a real difference in terms of people understanding better, you know, what the fire department does. I mean, you'd think it would be a no brainer, but, like, to- to really be able to- to talk, but also to listen to people about what their concerns were, whether it was, you know, faulty wiring or what have you. So I just- I think in the same vein, I do recall the fire department or a representative from there talking about that it was a successful thing, and I think that this could do quite a bit, as well. So thank you for suggesting it. And- and just as you guys come to, you know, have your discussion again, you know, maybe this is- it- it doesn't have to be the only solution, but it could be one of the- you know, one piece of it, perhaps. It could be something to try. [00:42:19] Well, I want to say thanks to you all for coming today and having this discussion with us. And uh, we do welcome the opportunity for you -all to uh, meet amongst yourselves and submit a recommendation from your body. So thank you for coming today. Thank you all. I am going to take us to the next agenda Page 14 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. item unless there is one pressing comment from anyone else. All right, thank you all. All right. We're going to move on. Yes -yes. [00:42:52] One minute, thanks. [00:42:56] We're going to move on to Item Number 2, which is clarification of agenda items. [00:43:01] [inaudible 00:43:08] [00:43:16] We'll move on to item Number 3. Information packet discussion, June 5th. [00:43:20] [inaudible 00:43:20] [00:43:23] O kay. [00:43:24] Okay. All right. [00:43:24] God, I think there is. [00:43:25] Hold on. [00:43:29] So we'll continue with June 5th, and then we'll go back to clarification items. [00:43:34] IP 2 and IP 3 are both ones I'd like to talk about. I'll take them in order. [00:43:38] Same. Sure. [00:43:39] IP 2, the air quality testing update. Let's say thanks, um, to Climate Action Commission for putting the climate action coordinator. And city manager's office is putting together that, um, memo, as well as the, Page 15 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. sort of, long-term effort of figuring out what the source of- of the smells that people were reporting during the Proctor and Gamble rezoning, and the- the- I guess, the punch line is, is that um, in the analysis, that it was a chemical called tooling, but it was far- far- far below anything that's known to be harmful to human health. So in parts per billion with a b instead of parts per million, was a pretty dramatic difference. So people were right that they smelled something, but they can feel, um, better to know that there was a long-term effort to figure out what it was. We've been talking about having it on a work session for a long time, so I don't know if that needs to be a work session with this really robust report that fully explains everything. I don't know what everyone thinks about that. [00:44:43] Well, I would also, um, make sure that we mentioned it was not Procter & Gamble. [00:44:49] Yes. Yeah, no, I think that's- and I think one of the things from this is, kind of, an illustration of us taking all parts seriously. And when we turn- as the city, turned this over to the DNR and the EPA, um, knowing that then we were for a period of time, just for public explanation, for a period of time, we were not told what they were doing, just that they were looking into it. And part of that is- is their practice, as I understand it of making sure that nobody tips off a company when they're going to be doing testing. So they just go ahead and remove that possibility. So they operate independently. Um, and then yeah, as they do this, they do all the analysis, collect the data um, have a- if you look through- if anybody's interested in this, if you go into the city website, it's the Information packet. From two Thursdays ago, um there's quite a bit of details in there and some maps and pictures and things like that that are worth seeing. Um, but the people to know that the city was responsive to those concerns. All of us up here took those concerns very seriously, certainly didn't just ignore them, but it took a little time, as we see, you know, a year later, we're kind of getting the information in- in a way that is carefully scientifically tested and determined. Um, and yes, as Councilor Alter notes that um, it turns out that, you know, again, it was in a different facility altogether than the one that we were discussing last year. [00:46:16] If I may, Mayor, I actually have a clarification, and that's on Item 9E, water service agreement for hidden lakes. We discovered uh, this afternoon that the uh, an older version of the agreement was signed uh, not the latest and greatest version. And so we've reached out, and we're trying to quickly correct that, and we'll probably be asking council to make an amendment on the floor to swap out those two versions. [00:46:44] Just for the knowledge of the Council and everyone that is looking, we jump back to Item Number 2, which is clarification of agenda items. Great. [00:46:54] Sorry about that. Page 16 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. [00:46:55] Yep- yep. I was going to get there, but you're halfway in. All right. We'll continue now with Item Number 3, which is information packet, June 5th. Any- I know that you wanted to go over another IP. I think I understood. [00:47:09] Yeah, I- I guess the follow up was, is there a reason to do more on IP2, or is this everyone feel satisfied that we've done our role, and this meeting right now is the time to talk about it? [00:47:22] 1 didn't look to see. Is that report somewhere other than in our packet? Like, I don't know if there's an appropriate place in any of our climate action information online or relating to the commission, just to kind of elevate that or to send out a press release with it um, just to make sure that it gets into people's hands. [00:47:41] 1 would only be in the Climate Action Commission Packet and this packet, so we could certainly do a press release or find a home on the website, whatever the preference of the council is. [00:47:52] And since it's up and not to put city staff too much on the spot, but any communications with Loparex. [00:47:58] We did meet with Loper X. We being Sarah Gardner with our climate action team went through the report with them and asked if there was anything that could be explored to further reduce the cause of the smell, even, though, they're meeting all federal regulations, and they were going to check in with their corporate office and get back to us. We've exchanged a couple of a -mails since then just seeing if there's any updates. There hasn't been any updates yet, but we'll keep following up. And if there is something that we can do or they can do independently, or perhaps we could partner on, we'll absolutely consider that to the full list. [00:48:38] Thank you. I do think that it's going to be probably in the media. After the discussion today. So we may want to do our own press release. I think that might be a good idea, whether that's social media, whatever that looks like, but I think that would be good. [00:48:58] Uh, would- pardon me. Would just, kind of, like a physical mailer to everybody to the households in the affected area, would that be too heavy handed, you think, or would that be a way that we can ensure everybody who might notice a smell can get this in their hand and say, oh, this explains. [00:49:20] Page 17 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. Yeah, I think we'd have trouble defining the impacted area. I mean, we'd have to blanket pretty much probably the east and south side of Iowa City because so much depends on the wind speeds on how far that smell could carry. [00:49:36] Probably wouldn't recommend the mailer, [00:49:42] but we can give it some thought. We can you know, there's certainly neighborhood associations that we could share it with the next door app that many use. I'm sure our team can think of plenty of other ways to target a release like that, and we can explore that. [00:50:00] Okay. Thank you. [00:50:01] Thank you. I want to do IBS. Okay, back to Iowa City Housing Authority waiting list and home discount. So for -A- are you on June 12th? [00:50:18] Oh. [00:50:18] Hope, no. [00:50:18] Yes. Or not we still on five? [00:50:20] Yeah, we're still on June 5th. Yes. [00:50:22] Yeah. [00:50:24] No, I was the IP3 I think we're down to two now. IP3 was the residential development report. So thanks for that report. I think it's very helpful. I will continue to beat the drum and read the little summary that recent permit trends suggest Iowa City will only see 3,120 new units developed between 2020 and 2030. And that's just 68 percent of the housing demand that we need. So we're doing good, but we need to do better. And one thing our city manager pointed out is we do actually develop a lot more housing than North Liberty and Coralville. Like, people sometimes have a perception that we're not developing. We Page 18 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. are developing a lot of homes. It's just we have a lot of people who live here and don't have a space to call their home. [00:51:11] Anything else from June 5th? June 12th?. [00:51:17] Okay, again, IBS, Iowa City Housing City waiting list. I notice here, like, Sing has been cleaned up by license and now Geoff you tell us last time that they just eliminated everybody outside Iowa, right, or even Johnson County. That's why the number become less from, like, around 9,000 to 2,000. That's the reasoning for April to May, between April and May. And April was like 8,000, and in May was 2,000. [00:51:58] One second. I'm trying to refamiliarize myself with the memo here. [00:52:02] Yeah, I do remember you said something like, because we eliminate all the people who are living outside, is Rachel here? [00:52:11] It's on Page 33 at the back. [00:52:12] Yeah, thank you. [00:52:14] Yeah. [00:52:17] It's not that we don't automatically eliminate anybody, but we are constantly going through the list to see if they continue to be eligible and remain interested because there's any number of factors that can remove you from that. It could be that you're no longer interested. Maybe you lived here, and then you relocated to another part of the country and are no longer interested in- in being on the waiting list. It could be that your income situation has changed and you're no longer eligible. So the staff is going through [00:52:46] You mean, they send out a letter to them to make sure maybe they did not reply. [00:52:52] Correct. And if there's a situation where there's no reply, they're removed from the list and they can be reactivated on that list if they then follow up with us after six months. That's why you see the slight Page 19 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. uptick in numbers from May. So from April to May, we had a sharp decline, and then it bounced back up slightly.Yeah, that's- [00:53:11] Then in June. That's because we had people contact us. We removed them from the list because they didn't respond to our inquiries about being still interested and eligible. And then we remove them, and then within a six month period, they call us back and say, wait a minute, no, I still- I still want to be on the wait list and they are still eligible. So you see a slight uptick in May and you may see that number continue to go up. I wouldn't expect in- in large amounts, but over the next six months. [00:53:45] Yeah, that's what my really next question, which is increase from April to May to June because people reach out. [00:53:53] Correct. [00:53:54] And we already made it clear on the letter. You have to respond within six months. You might see this even increase more. [00:54:03] Correct. [00:54:03] All right. Thank you. [00:54:05] Yes. [00:54:09] Anything else from June 12th? [00:54:12] Does that do anything- sorry, just to follow up with Mayor Pro Tem's item, is that related to the order to the wait list itself, in terms of what their position is? [00:54:27] No, it shouldn't unless they fall in or out of a preference category, but right. [00:54:34] And if they reply, they will be back to the same waiting list. Page 20 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. [00:54:38] Oh, I see what you're saying. [00:54:39] That's what I was asking. [00:54:40] I'd have to get that answer. I don't know that. We can have Rachel here. We had Rachel here at the last work session. And I think we ran out of time. If you want to have kind of a detailed conversation about this, we should probably schedule Rachel Carter to be here so that she can confidently answer all your questions. [00:54:59] Yeah, sure. No problem. Yeah, sure. [00:55:01] Would you like me to have her at the next meeting? [00:55:03] Yes, please. [00:55:04] Okay. Sure. [00:55:04] Thank you. [00:55:05] Yeah. Sounds great. Anything else from June 12th? We're going to move. [00:55:11] Thank you. [00:55:14] We're going to move on to item number four, which is USG Updates, which they are still on summer vacation. So we're going to always leave them there just in case we get an update. But we'll move on to item Number 5, which is our local option sales tax presentation and discussion, and is right, we'll turn it over to the city manager. [00:55:40] Page 21 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. Mayor, we're going to reserve most of the time for your discussion, cause I think that's what's most important. But I did want to point out that IP3, there is a memo from Kirk Lehman, Assistant City Manager. We gave you the full presentation at your last work session. That memo covers any questions that were asked at the last one, and also talks about the need to potentially move up your decision to the first meeting in August. We would certainly urge you to think through that if you're comfortable moving that quickly. We did change the draft ballot language per your direction. You had given us direction to change the housing ballot language of the 20 percent. Then, Mayor, you had invited any input from affordable housing providers, nonprofit providers in the community, and we did sit down with several [00:56:33] who took you up on that invitation [00:56:35] and thank you for doing that. They have submitted an email with some ballot language that is also as an attachment to that. [00:56:45] It's attachment three to that. [00:56:47] So if you're looking at your 612 IP, that would be on Page 25 where their recommended ballot language lies. So we can get into the memo specifics, I'll have Kirk come up and answer those questions if you have them. Otherwise, we felt like the time is best for you all to discuss where you're at. [00:57:05] Thank you. I'll point, Counsel, if you're in the packet to page Number 7, and that's where the, kind of, to move forward with this lost discussion, staff is asking for direction on four questions, the election date. Are we going to go with the next regular election of November 4th of this year, or are we going to look at other dates? And there's I think some dates that we would have to do some things by in order for that to really be possible. Sunset clause, we need to ask ourselves, is that something that we want to do when we have this ballot language, use of revenues, which, of course, that is the majority of the discussion time that I anticipate we'll have and then allocation of funds as well. So and that would be percentages, really, how we're looking at that. [00:58:11] Can I make a suggestion that we it's not that none of all of these questions are important, but I feel like one or two of them might go might be easier to answer and have a less discussion. Can we start with that? So we can say, okay, we got through that- got through that. And then we can have the bulk of our time for. So for instance, I'm thinking the sunset clause. That's- is that something that needs a ton of discussion that we see as particularly contentious? Page 22 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. [00:58:42] 1 don't know yet. Unfortunately, to me, the sunset clause is tied to how specific the language we arrive at. So Fair. [00:58:51] 1 do think there's some wisdom and thinking about, you know, letting the voters have an opportunity in the future, anyway, to, sort of, say yes or no. Now, how far in the future, I think it could be many years, 15 years, but I don't know if you guys. Again, I think it depends on how specific the language is. [00:59:12] 1 think that's a good point. I have a couple- couple of concerns about sunset clause, although I certainly understand the, point of making sure that, you know, kind of locking in a future referendum. One thing is, at any point in time, the public could do a referendum to end it should there be a strong desire. One other thing, and this is, kind of, mindful of, every time I'm a planner, not a gambler, so every time you throw it up on the ballot, you're rolling the dice a little bit. So there's that. But probably the biggest concern for me in doing a sunset is, kind of, when I look back at the last one and then what's changed in the laws to this one. So should those laws change again, for instance, now, you know, I'm just going to say, we can use 50 percent discretionary for the city. Ten years ago, that would have been 100 percent. If we have this come up you know, if it comes up as a referendum, again, in ten years from now or 15 years from now, might our ability to do- put our priorities first shrink even further? And it's just such an uncertain. Like, that's one other roll of the dice. So when I think sunset clause, I'm actually not in favor of a sunset clause for those reasons, essentially, although, your points very well taken, there's always that element of, like, well, we're going to go ahead and build in, um, into this, sort of, what sounds like a safety net, but I'm afraid in our climate, it might end up being the opposite, even though logic would seem like that wouldn't be the case. I don't know how much logic has control these days. So that's, kind of, my thoughts. [01:00:50] Yeah, I appreciate you going through that because I think there's some real legitimate reasons for consideration of not having it sunset. Um, I mean, and, of course, my initial would be no. You know, let's- let's have it sunset, but I think there are so many unknowns in the future, given the example that you just mentioned about how now we're a little restricted, but had we done it 15 years ago, we would have been grandfathered in. And because of the opportunity to rescind that, right, go back on the ballot again, I have confidence that if the city was like, we want to no longer do this, and that's what we advertised. That was the campaign, then I am 99 percent certain the community would vote to essentially repeal the loss. [01:01:51] Yeah, if we did not live up to our end of the bargain, either us or future councils. [01:01:55] Page 23 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. Yeah, or if you know, or the right. Or but if the council was saying, you know, let's get rid of this, then, you know, I think the voters would do it. [01:02:05] Yeah, I think my thinking about the sunset or not sunset has changed a lot over time. So I just want to, kind of, say, because, Josh, you said broad, like, the breadth of the language informs the question of sunset or not sunset. And I think I really see the utility of what I think Jeff your recommendation was as, like, have it more broad, but no sunset if it's narrower than sunset. And, you know, kind of, thinking about it as the will of the voters, maybe it goes the other direction. Like, they're saying this specific thing, then it would be up to the voters to come back and say, No, this needs to change. So like if we had one specific thing and saying, This is our funding stream and maybe not one specific thing, but just more- more articulation in the ballot language itself so that the voters could say, yeah, we're in for this and we want this to keep going. And then it would be up to another referendum to change that. So I think it's really just, kind of, a question of balancing the future. Like, do we want the voters to bind the use of those funds or do we want the council to have more flexibility? So I see it both ways, but I just wanted to articulate it that way because I think if it's less broad, I appreciate the idea of actually not having a sunset. [01:03:32] And actually, because of the language proposals, especially, I know we're going to get into the proposal from the Affordable Housing, uh, coalition and those others that was a part of that discussion, that was more specific language than broad. And so I think that is what informed my position a little bit on having not having a sunset, which I should have probably mentioned, right? It's all- it's all a part of that rationale as to why would we have it? And if it's more specific language, then the voters know what they're getting versus it being broad. [01:04:16] Question, though, um, and here's I don't know. The third side of the coin, the little thin sliver or something is I was thinking about what if it's not sunset, but in fact, a future counsel or counsel say get people saying, you know, now we're locked in to this percentage or this particular project or initiative or what have you. And we're not seeing the need anymore. So I mean, I appreciate, actually, and I do believe it it was Counselor Moe who said actually, both of you were saying that actually the language is going to impact whether it should be sunset or not. And so just the flip side to your flip side, is that more specific language and then saying, This is what this will be. And if there is no sunset, needs change over time potentially. And so, residents may well say, and now here we are locked in. And I recognize it could be that, you know, there's a petition and says, we want you to change this bond or we want or sorry, the lost. But what would have to happen to undo that what's in place? So it's just more food for thought, perhaps. I mean, personally, I- I am in favor of no sunset because I think, like the Mayor said, it's gonna be a lot easier to get a vote to repeal it than it would be to, um, I have to redo it after 15 years or what have you. But by the same token, I like there to be a little bit more flexibility for counsels who hopefully will be in the same kind of approach as we are, which is to listen to constituents. I mean, that's where some of these categories for funding and what they should be going for came from the public and from Page 24 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. engagement saying what was important as a priority. So that's at least where I'm thinking is that no sunset, and I actually would prefer Sutly broader language, although I felt that the language that was proposed by some of the agencies are not necessarily so specific that we're locked in. I think, you know, they give clarity for the public while also being broad. [01:06:55] 1 just had a logistical question. I think one version of some proposed language I saw from a community organization would be like, to implement January 1st, 2026 versus July 1st, 2026. Is that even functionally possible as far as the implementation date? [01:07:18] Kirk Lehman assistant city manager. Perfect. [01:07:25] We got this done before. It's good for you. [01:07:28] It's got to be 90 days after the election. [01:07:30] O kay. [01:07:31] So if there is an election on November, then we can't hit that January. But if there's a spring election it would hit July, because it's got to either be January 1st or July 1st. If you have a spring election, it could also go into effect July 1st. And then the way that you'd hit January is by having a fall special election. So if we had done this a little earlier and had it in September, then that could have been on January. [01:07:58] Okay, thank you. [01:07:59] So either way we go about it if we want to have a special election in the spring or November regular ballot election. [01:08:07] It goes into effect, the same date. [01:08:08] Same date in life. [01:08:09] Page 25 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. That is correct. But the difference is you have to pay for the special election, and yeah that's that. [01:08:16] And you know, you had some conversations with, like, the city manager and other staff about what elections are good for special elections and what things are good for normal November elections. And I guess I just didn't know what other people's thoughts were when it came to because kind of where I'm sitting is if the efficacy date is the same, and we give ourselves a little bit more time to not be so rushed as into saying, Oh, we got to have it the stuff by the August 1st meeting, and we only have one meeting in July. So between now and then, there's one meeting, and some folks are gonna be out of town as well because it's July. I guess I just didn't necessarily know the downside. People would say. I would be happy to hear what people would think the downside would be to going for a special election. [01:09:15] 1 think the downside for me will be that people don't know about special election all the time, especially low income people and immigrants who turn your voter and the turnout will be a little low. Make it like on November. Everybody, know about that. And I'll also give you time to be to learn about this and understand what's going on. I prefer November. [01:09:38] 1 agree. [01:09:38] But I prefer like sun clause. Of course, I need a set clause for that because I think sale taxes are really hard on working class and low income families, you know, and adding that automatic separation date signal to the voter that the cities respected their sacrifice. And we can come and revisit the policies through, like, transparent and democratic process if we just make it like that. I am not in favor of making it just indefinite, we need to have sunset to it. [01:10:16] Sorry, Kirk, you sat down, but I do have a question about timing and about the funding formula with partners, not partners, but our neighboring communities. If neighboring communities elected to use a different election date, we don't have to enter at the same time to have the funding formula work, right? [01:10:35] That's correct. [01:10:36] It's just all collected at the same time. So if they have a different election than you, then once their local option sales tax is effective, then that's when it would start being added to the pot, so to speak. Sure. [01:10:52] Page 26 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. It was a simple one but. [01:10:54] 1 can stay here today. [01:10:55] Yeah, no. And I think the thing to agree with Mayor Pro Tem's point about the advantages of a November election where people are aware of 100% agree. And I think, too, I think, Oliver, I take your point well about, you know, does it feel rushed? The flip side of that, you know, there's really not that many questions for us to figure out. It's the percentage. And really, you know, we're probably talking adjusting things, you know, five or 10% up or down in these categories. I haven't heard anybody on the council think any of these categories, yet, at least so far, these categories themselves, in general, are a problem, um, maybe some of the language. But again, I don't I don't know that we're I don't get the sense so far that we're any of us are terribly far apart on that. I could be wrong. [01:11:48] Yeah, I guess I'm in support. If we're talking about the election date, I am in support of November also for the reasons articulated by my fellow counselors. [01:11:57] 1 would agree with that. [01:11:59] One sort of, I guess, zooming out framework question, which maybe is a segue to the actual funding split is I don't know how you guys are talking to people, your people, to other constituents, but I've been pretty clear that this is not for new stuff. This is not a bonanza of cash for anyone. This is back -filling lost property tax in a lot of ways, and that this formula has something to do with the reality of how we, like, currently run the city, and we're not getting a whole lot of extras, I don't think, out of this. We're just sort of re capturing dollars that we've lost due to property tax reform. And this has a a relationship with sort of those things. I'd be curious to hear if you guys are thinking about it and communicating it the same way, because I do worry that some people think that this is gonna be a whole bunch more money flooding through city government, and I don't- I don't, I'm not communicating that. I don't know what you guys are saying. [01:12:55] It's a good point. It's not a silver bullet. I think the 50% that we are intending to use in the property tax relief in order to prevent taking out loans on projects, city infrastructure projects, for example. I think that fits pretty well with what you're saying. I think to the amount of money, the other 50%, you know, isn't in and of itself, you know, a giant. I just won the lottery windfall, but I think it is probably worth saying, yes, it does all the things you mentioned, but I think it does have some potential, especially as we take a look at the ability of year after year planning and the cumulative process of that. And it's one of the reasons, too, why I lean away from a sunset is being able to do that long term planning between the Page 27 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. city projects and projects with our partners, that that actually does have some I mean, I think it's both. I think it is everything you said, and I think there is, I mean, to put this forward is like, Oh, all of our problems are solved now. That would be disingenuous, but I think it does have some nice potentials. [01:13:58] And I haven't even gotten to that level of discussion because I'm still having to honestly explain myself and the position of the counsel going forward with this in light of it being a regressive tax. And so to say that this is just I mean, this is a conversation about communication and messaging. And I think it very much depends on who you're talking to, because we have to be incredibly sensitive to the fact and very upfront about, yes, this is regressive. And so that the money that's going into it is not just to say, Oh, so that and forgive me, because this is not what you said at all. But that poor people are going to actually help fill in the gaps for the government is that's I'm not going to say that. What we are trying to do is to help bolster the essential services in housing, in, I think, social services, and in quality of life. I do think that that is an incredibly important part in terms of equity. So looking at the bucket that has, like, parks and rec and the facilities that help for the arts and whatnot, I think those things actually very much contribute to the quality of life for everyone. So that's trying- that's for me to say, I'm not at the level of being able to have conversations with some folks on it in the way that you are because I'm still kind of grappling with trying to explain why is it that the council has said that they will go forward with this, however reluctantly, you are indicating that you're going to do this, so why? So that's kind of where I'm at is trying to explain that. And to say, also, one of the pieces that I keep that I do continue to emphasize is that we are uniquely positioned as an absolute tourist destination, almost, if not every weekend, for people who are out of the community. And so we are leaving those dollars on the table, and that that, too, will help. It does not mitigate the fact that there are still people within there are people within the community who are paying and that are, you know, also being served by the very things that this tax is supposed to be helping with. But we also were not one tree. We have and no offense to loan tree. It's just much smaller. We have a lot of tourist opportunities in retail and entertainment that could bring dollars in. So that's the kind of conversation that I'm having with people to try to sort of position where we're at and why we're doing what we're doing. [01:16:33] It does sound like the majority of counsel want to engage in a conversation relating to the revenue, where that revenue is going to go in. So I want to shift our attention to that now and maybe at the same time, folks can throw in some allocations of funding for percentage, but I think that's not critical at this part of the discussion. So we did have, you know, kind of a draft ballot language in this page eight, the information packet. And so maybe we can look at this as a starting point. I also want to remind us of our strategic values and you know, what we, you know, have talked about we want to do and that community impact while we're thinking about what these are here. So we see that there is a proposal for 20%, and this is really related to programs and initiatives that increase housing supply and access that include affordable housing and housing projects designated by City Council. The next one is 20% revenue for maintenance and construction of streets, public facilities, and supporting the art, culture, and learning, recreation and public safety as designated by council. And then the last is 10% revenues for community partnerships, including but not limited to partnerships that support internal inter Page 28 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. governmental. Economic development, arts and culture and social service priorities as designated by counsel. We do also know that we received from Jessica and Dino at that email. And I don't know what page it is right now. [01:18:32] Page 25. [01:18:33] Page 25. And so there is some drafted language there, as well as a percentage, and that is 30% of such revenue shall be used to preserve existing affordable housing stock. Increase shelter supports and increased access to and the supply of affordable housing for households with low income. And so I want to just maybe focus in on this if people are thinking that these are the right categories. Now, maybe we don't have to get involved with the percentages for right now, but are these the right categories? There is a difference in language between what the Affordable Housing coalition submitted versus what we have, um, you know, in the proposal, it's a little more specific, and I guess we can get into that discussion on, is this a right balance? Which one is the right balance? [01:19:36] Sorry, I mis- I misheard. [01:19:38] Yes. [01:19:38] 1 mean, so you were talking about [01:19:39] the right balance but you're talking about the language right now, the categories. [OVERLAPPING] [01:19:43] Language is the right balance of being specific. [01:19:47] Got you, thank you. [01:19:48] Versus being broad. Right. [01:19:51] I- I think- I don't know. Um, I feel like we don't have support for no sunset. We have support for no sunset, but no, we don't have support for sunset. I think if you don't, I think broader language is better. So the council can choose wherever. That's what I believe. Page 29 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. [01:20:12] 1 agree with you. [01:20:12] There's- there's also, I understand the desire to have broader language when it comes to a lot of these things, but I- I think that there are some things where it's like, no, I don't actually want you to have flexibility on this when it comes to housing, right? I don't want, uh, there to be some type of way for housing, which is why I like the, uh, the language from the Affordable Housing Coalition, uh, broadly that says, such revenue shall be used to preserve existing affordable housing stock, increase shelter supports, and increase access to the supply of affordable housing for households with low incomes. Um, I think that that is a way of leaving it broad enough, but also specific enough, uh, to make sure that this, um, money coming from a regressive tax doesn't inadvertently when less cool people are on the council in the future and staff, uh, hopefully never, but, you know, it could happen, um, to be used for a more nefarious purposes. I don't know if that's the right word, but you know what I mean? Um, and also, when it comes to some of the language with- um, from the original, uh, 20% of such revenue shall be used for maintenance and construction of streets, sidewalks, trails, parks, public facilities that support arts culture, learning, recreation, and public safety as designated by council. I understand how some people could think that, um, money going to arts and culture might be not essential. I think of a lot of these institutions that promote arts and culture to be very, uh, especially in times of hardship to be places of community for a lot of people where people find a lot of solace and are able to build that type of, uh, foundational support for each other in times like this. So it's not necessarily just going to, you know, a sculpture. You know, it's going to facilities that, like, foster this community. So I'm- I'm in favor of keeping that language in. Um, when it comes to public safety, I really want it to be more specific than just public safety because that is so broad. You know, public safety could be, uh, public health. It could be guardrails on a sidewalk or something, or it could be a tear gas for the police department. You know, public like, that can take literally any form. And I don't want to give any, um, of this regressive tax from working people mostly to, uh, the ability to be given, uh, to something that broad that could be antithetical. [01:23:06] So I- I misread- well, I read it differently. I read it that it is about the maintenance and construction of the streets, etc, that support public safety. So I- I thought bike lanes immediately. I mean, it's about the maintenance and construction of streets, about actual things, whether it's streets, sidewalks, trails, parks, public facilities that support these other things. So public safety would be like that there could be, I mean, maybe I'm misunderstanding I didn't- I saw it as specific enough that it was about that. [OVERLAPPING] [01:23:38] We can wordsmith. [01:23:39] Page 30 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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 think from a drafting standpoint as soon as we start disagreeing, we know it's not clear, so I think- [01:23:45] Fair enough. No no. [01:23:45] No, I- I thought that, too, but then I saw that and public safety. I feel like could be interpreted by somebody. [01:23:50] Guys, see where the coma is. I mean, I'm being facetious. I'm sorry. [01:23:55] No. [01:23:55] 1 mean, I did have too specific, I mean, actually, within that, without going into wordsmithing. So I do appreciate what you're saying because I actually also, just as a case of point, it's actually two places, but one is on that particular bucket, um, because I also know that the city manager mentioned that in the 50% with the property tax, that the- and I'm not going to phrase it well, so help me out here. Being able to not go in debt meant that we can put money towards streets and maintenance, right? So is there a way to put that language in there? Because it's 50% is property tax relief, but it doesn't incorporate the fact that actually, we can use some of it to help with our street maintenance, right? Because we're not incurring debt to- to help our streets. [01:24:49] We have to have the property tax relief. [OVERLAPPING] [01:24:51] Oh, I'm not saying that we wouldn't. So we can do an add on or anything. [OVERLAPPING] Okay. [01:24:57] We cant describe that. [01:24:58] And it goes beyond just the debt, right? [01:25:01] The property tax relief could also help relieve pressure on the general fund as well. So, um, I think there's a good argument. It's probably more natural to- to use it to reduce the debt service levy, but you could use it to, uh, reduce other levies, uh, that could create more opportunities for the general fund to expand. Page 31 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. [01:25:25] Well, I guess I just want to finish my thought. I'm so sorry. Um, I guess where I'm concerned is- is that we can use some of that money, and it maybe is relieving the general fund by to work on streets. But we also have that language in there specifically about maintenance and construction of streets. And I want that- what I'm hoping for is in that second bucket, the maintenance and construction of streets and sidewalks, etc, are supporting arts, culture, learning, recreation, not just infrastructure. [01:26:02] Yeah. [01:26:03] I'm afraid that we're gonna double dip. [01:26:04] Yeah, this is- this is good. And I think, you know, making sure that we're very clear on the language is obviously incredibly important. The intent, staff's intent behind this language, was to fund public roads, public sidewalks, public trails, public parks, and public facilities. Public buildings that support arts, culture, learning, recreation, and public safety. So that could be fire station, that could be your library, it could be your senior center, it could be rec centers. It is not intended to, uh, used to be fund private or nonprofit public facilities. Certainly, that you could change that language to bring those in, but that was not the intent. It was, uh, to help us, uh, fund some of those public facilities that are incredibly difficult to fund because of bonding restrictions. [01:26:54] Okay. Thank you. [01:26:55] 1 see. [01:26:56] Sorry. [01:26:56] Thank you for that, too, because I was kind of- I had some of the same questions, and I think that, you know, that the clarification between public facilities in- in the one and then the, uh, supporting operations in the last piece. I think that's- that's- that's- that's a really important clarification. Thank you. [01:27:15] Thank you. [01:27:16] Page 32 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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 just- Josh, your question about, like, how are we talking about this and how do we characterize this revenue source. I do think the 50% property tax relief to me is the backfill, right? Like, that is, like, that's the intent of it. That is, you know, we- I understand that may not be exactly the legislative intent of it, but I think- I think as far as how we understand it can be used and the existing, um, opportunities that we have for that, that's kind of how I've been characterizing it, and that the other 50% is where we can really address the regressivity of- of the tax to say, those dollars should benefit the people who are impacted most proportionately. That- that's how I've been thinking about it and kind of talking about it. But I think- I do have a specific proposal relating to the housing portion, wherever we might land with that, which would be to limit it to public and something like mission driven or not- it's what- Oliver was speaking to the last meeting about, like, not private market, right? Because this portion of whatever the dollars end up being, it's a sliver of the tools that we have for economic development, right? And so I think because the revenue source has to be matched to the, you know, what we say we're going to use it on, I would like to exclude those market and profit -driven uses from those particular housing dollars. [01:28:53] What about Li Tech project, gap filling? Is that- [OVERLAPPING] [01:28:56] 1 don't think we should for this. And especially because what we've seen is there, you know, we- we've been allocating general fund dollars for the Housing Trust Fund, which is where most of that goes. And at least in, you know, the last half decade, that's not really- I mean, I don't think we'll ever run out of public, you know, expenditures relating to housing or mission -driven organization expenditures relating to housing that could come from just this pool. [01:29:27] Related to housing, this is an old question now. Um, the- we have the 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan. Does it matter that we have that plan, and we're defining affordable housing differently in different places? Is it really just kind of icky form, or are we legally obliged to follow any of the definitions in the affordable housing action plan? Sorry, Joe. [01:29:53] [LAUGHTER] Yeah, that's hard to answer. As council is aware, it has been a year -long process to try to discuss and define what affordable housing means. And so, uh, if you use language, uh, in the ballot measure that is as I'll say, as undefined as that, then I think that maintains some flexibility for future council- councils to decide how best to distribute that. I- I don't think, I mean, I'm aware that we have that plan and that we offer some definition there. I don't know that that is the single definition or the defining definition of what that would mean. [01:30:37] So I- I heard the word mission -driven, which I love, um. I guess I'm- I'm a little concerned that it is a little too specific for limiting- are you saying only well, no in general practice? Are you saying that only not for profits could do this? Page 33 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. [01:31:03] Or public. So our projects, our expenditures, things that we are putting money towards. [01:31:09] And we're assuming that all- all the monies that would be received would be allocated just from those sources. Is that what you're thinking? [01:31:18] Or public or, yeah, organizations that aren't in -driven. Yeah. [01:31:23] And- and I would say not necessarily to entities that don't make any profit whatsoever. Uh, I do not know that there are people when, like, non market is discussed, it doesn't necessarily- like, people can still make money off of things that are non market. Uh, it's just- non market means not beholden to market conditions. So you have limited -profit housing associations all over the world that, you know, cap their profits at certain levels. Um, and within the past, like, 40 years, that's how so many different cities across the world have really expanded their non market housing supply is through these limited profit housing companies and associations. Um, and I know that there's talk of folks wanting to do it in Iowa City. So not necessarily something that is, like, you know, nonprofit, um, but not, uh, driven by market conditions is the- the language that is used elsewhere. [01:32:25] I- I don't want to interject. I'm- I'm curious the difference between what you proposed and the language that was proposed by a lot of sort of collaboration in that sort of housing space, the affordable housing coalition language. Like, what do you see the difference in examples of who would and wouldn't be allowed to receive funding through that funding pool versus what you proposed on this. [01:32:45] 1 think there's would include- could include, like, the Li Tech example that you gave. [01:32:52] So I'm suggesting something that is more- more limited in terms of being more specific to accelerate our funding of those public and mission driven housing opportunities. [01:33:09] One thing I think, um, the more we're discussing this, one thing that comes to mind that I think will get us in trouble, um, is if we put in here permanent affordable housing because that's a need that we have. And so that's why I would look to the attorney and say, if we had any of that language in here, what are our chances of getting in trouble if we included permanent affordable- affordable housing? [01:33:37] Page 34 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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 don't think- [01:33:38] Because then I think that really meets the intent. [01:33:43] Well, I think- [01:33:44] That was going to be my suggestion on how you could word what I was describing. [01:33:48] Sure. [01:33:48] Yeah. [01:33:50] You know, I think we would be bound by- by the ballot language. Um, I obviously haven't given that a lot of thought about permanent, but I- I think that word probably speaks for itself, and there would be justifiable concern expressed by the public in the future if 20 years from now, 30 years from now, it became market or something. [01:34:11] Yeah, you could imagine a situation in which you grant a mission driven nonprofit money to build a home, and 40 years from now, there's good reason for that mission, uh, driven nonprofit to sell that home and reinvest the profit somewhere else. I think you'd be- you'd be running- you'd be kind of on a - on a pretty slippery slope there. So we can get around that a lot with- with, um, some of our decisions, whether that's a TIF deal or a general fund grant or something like that, or we could interpret it one way. But once you put it into ballot language, it really ties our hands and how we go there going forward. So you might be tying the hands of the people you're granting to as well to their detriment decades down the road. [01:35:02] But still, even if we don't put it on the ballot, but when we grant money to the nonprofit organization, we can state that on the contract and the agreement. [01:35:11] Yeah, absolutely. I thinkjust kind of, I would jumping back a little bit in this conversation, but just to weigh in on specific language, um, I agree with Councilor Weilein that I do- I kind of like the- the recommendation on this, the- from the Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition, um, the percentage was a separate conversation, but for the rest of that, um, I think that, I mean, I like that. Um, Page 35 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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 don't know if Councilor Bergus, if you were thinking of- of adding a phrase or something in there with some of your concerns. I did have one question just to make sure, um, that we wouldn't accidentally be doing one of the kind of what we're talking about is unintended consequences from good intentions. Um, the last part of this, uh, increased access to and supply of affordable housing for households with low incomes. Just double checking, uh, with our city attorney, if we had a future project that was a mix, right, which we've talked about here on the council of wanting to do mixed projects, some market rate, some 80%, some 60%, some 30% AMI, um, would the inclusion of some market rate this would not affect. This language would not tie the hands of future councils, including us to have to avoid those kinds of projects, correct. I mean, I just want to make sure this language would not do that. [01:36:31] 1 would want to pull up that language in so I can take a closer look, and I'm happy to do that. Uh, maybe as you folks continue your discussion. [01:36:38] Page 25 of the IP, if that helps you. [01:36:42] When I thought about this, too, because that was one of the concerns that I had, um it seemed to me that you could justify the more market rate units in a project, um, by saying that -that support they support the lower AMIs, as well. So that's the conclusion I came to, but I was going to ask the same question. [01:37:09] Well, the assistants of the city manager, I've reviewed it just real quickly. First off, I think it, um, saves you from the discussion you had a moment ago about what happens 30 years in the future and so forth, by using the word existing. So money could be spent on existing housing stock. What happens to it 30 years from now? Well, when we spent it, it was existing. Um, getting back to your question, Councilor Hampson, your concern was whether there would be a larger project in which there was both affordable housing stock and market stock. [01:37:40] 1 just want to make sure we weren't preventing that accidentally. [01:37:42] Yeah, I think, um, I think that could be avoided through careful drafting of, you know, the contract or agreement by which we would share that revenue to make it clear that that money would be spent solely on the existing affordable housing stock and not on the market rate portions. I get that money is fungible, but as long as there's you know, expenditures that the owner can show on that affordable housing stock. I guess my, um, from the hip reaction is that that would be a manageable concern. [01:38:18] Page 36 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. Excellent. Thank you. I'm satisfied. [01:38:19] And another direction of that is that the -when you have a project that, you know, is like 40 or so units and 20 of them are more market rate, 20 of them are 30-60 or something like that, AMI. Um, this when it's not beholden to market conditions, what you see is that over time, they do become affordable because the rents increase at a slower rate than the ones that are conducive to the market conditions. So in my brain, that is how you got around it, because just by investing in those, you are adding to the future affordable housing stock,uh, and creating a more permanent solution to the problem of unaffordable rents. So yeah, I don't know. That's just another way to look at it. [01:39:11] O kay. [01:39:12] 1 know that we only have a few minutes, but since we were on that language, I had a question, and I don't know, because we're in work session. Oh, and I don't know that she's still here, unfortunately. think she just left. [01:39:24] Okay. I had a question or perhaps anybody could, who is in those conversations. The part that specifically talks about increase shelter supports, I think, you know, this is obviously incredibly important. And yet, I'm the [01:39:40] one who's been talking about sort [01:39:42] of the different categories and where there might be additional percentages gained or garnered from different categories, right? So we also have a bucket that is about community partnerships, including social service priorities. My question is, does anyone know when we were in conversation with the Affordable Housing Coalition, whether shelter support would be essentially moved over so that housing is in one bucket, and then the community partners piece would, um, not include, um, some of our social services that this is a matter of semantics and, like, where the categories are. Would social services that provide housing supports would their, um. [01:40:41] Would they fit into two categories? [01:40:42] [OVERLAPPING] Did they fit in two, or would they move over? Page 37 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. [01:40:47] This did come up in our conversation with some of the providers, and, um, my- the intent, certainly, is that they could fit in both, that you could fund emergency shelter, winter shelter through the 20% allocation and you could do it through the 10% allocation. Um, certainly, if you have the word shelter support in there, it's clear. Um, you know, there was a question whether there's a common understanding that, you know, is shelter housing or is it not housing that's a good conversation to have. But from city purposes, if you look at our past practices, we fund the shelter out of our affordable housing fund the winter shelter, that is right now. So we already have a practice of doing that, and I would say they fit in both categories going forward. [01:41:38] What- what's the definition of shelter support? By the city? [01:41:43] How does has a definition for shelter, right? [01:41:46] Shelter support. We have not defined shelter support. [01:41:49] 1 have a-. [01:41:50] 1 just want to ask you about what the definition even for shelter too. Like, the city when you say shelter, is this shelter for homeless or any shelter? Because I don't know. I feel like shelter is anything, type of housing. [01:42:03] Yeah. [01:42:03] Is- is that what the city is saying or shelter mean shelter for homeless? [01:42:10] When it's called out specifically, I would say it's for homeless. But the language would say any housing project designated by the council, so you could broaden the definition and the uses as you see fit. [01:42:24] For the shelter supports, I'm wondering because I know that there's various types of supports. So folks that are- are even going from being unhoused into, you know, a house, so transitional housing. Sure. Is that under shelter supports? Is that- I don't. Page 38 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. [01:42:48] 1 wouldn't lean too much on shelter supports personally when you have language that says, or other housing projects designated by the city council. I think you're going to be covered by that, uh, if you feel like that shelter supports really needs to be there to- to for the voter purposes so that voters understand that, then we can define it, right? We can- we can put some more clarity to that. But I look at the language on page 8, and I feel very confident that any types of those shelter supports, as you all have described them, would be eligible. [01:43:30] So we're approaching our time. Um, I wonder if counsel is amendable to us coming back to the work session after our formal meeting. [01:43:41] 1 think we have to. [01:43:42] Yeah. [01:43:43] Okay. All right. So unless there is something else that we can do within a minute or two, um, I'll just have us be adjourn, why don't we jump to item Number 6? [01:43:59] Um which is? [01:44:00] Which is our council? [01:44:01] 1 just had one question. [01:44:02] Sure. [01:44:03] When is the next time we're going to be discussing this? [01:44:06] Right after- after the formal meeting tonight. [01:44:09] After the formal meeting tonight. Okay. Um, I Page 39 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. [01:44:11] can talk about it then then. [01:44:12] Okay. Excellent. Great. All right. We're on item Number 6. We'll come back to item Number 5 after recess. Council updates on assign boards, commissions and committees. Hearing none? We are in recess. We'll come back after the formal meeting. So we are returning to our work session from having a long recess, while we did our formal agenda. But this is, again, June 17, 2025 work session. And we're going to go back to our item Number 5, which is the local option sales tax presentation and discussion. And we'll just pick up wherever folks want. I just want to remind us that where we left off was talking about the language. Um, so maybe we want to pick up there. [01:45:02] How are we going to talk about everything? Like everything even the percentage everything or we're just going to talk about. Because you were saying about don't talk about the percentage now. [01:45:13] 1 was just referring to, um, maybe we wanted to talk more about what things we wanted to do. [01:45:20] Oh sure. [01:45:21] But yeah, at any point, I mean. [01:45:24] Don't we have to make a decision on all of these. [01:45:27] So I want to direction. [01:45:29] 1 think. [01:45:30] We have to give direction. And- and it's more of a timing um. [01:45:35] Sure. [01:45:36] Page 40 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. Because I think the council the majority of council has identified November is our target. And so with that, there needs to be some direction tonight. [01:45:48] Uh, I have an alternative idea if people want- if people are agreeable to this, tell me if this is a terrible idea or not. I won't be offended. Um, I feel like, you know, technically, we could talk till midnight tonight about this. But I feel like I would feel comfortable if especially if you want to have it on the November ballot. I would feel comfortable if we had, um, a special meeting sometime just to talk about only this, maybe even as soon as next week, so we can just dedicate from here until now to researching and then talking with staff and then coming and having a really long form discussion about it, I would be comfortable with something like that because I just want to do something like this right. And I would- I fear of us doing the whole, maybe not saying things we would because we're tired and it's late and it's rainy. But that's just my thought. [01:46:54] As one, not necessarily to- to say no to that, but one of the things that I actually would, I mean, in counsel's past, have gotten this levied at them is -is it's purely that you had mentioned about, like, well, we could have a really long, you know, in depth session on this. And I think that we need to reallyjust look at what is it that we need to do? Yes, there are many angles, but let's not get analysis paralysis. This is about, do we want to move forward with this? What is the language that we think is going to put our best foot forward? Right. And to be able to direct staff towards that. This with a few hours distance from our initial conversation, and I was guilty of it myself. I feel like there were moments where we were really getting into what is it going to look like when we're actually doing a project, right? And we do want to make sure that we cover that the language allows us to be able to do the projects, like, to make sure that they're the types of projects that we want and that. But I think that if we really start- if we go super deep in order to come back up and say, so here's the simple language that'll cover it all. I think that's where we're going to end up having meetings that are four, five hours long, and we're going to still end up in the same place, which is, yes, let's make the language broad so that the public can understand it because we're not going to be able to do a, you know, two page explanation for this. So I just want to say that it's not that we're not doing due diligence. If we don't talk about every single permutation, I think that we need to think of it in the big picture. What is it that we want to accomplish? Have we got the language that we believe best covers that? And then we go from there. I've just been in my daily life, I've been in too many meetings where that's sort of what the end goal is, and it goes so far down and you come up going like, okay, so we're going to change it from a to the. And I just- I think we would- we're not doing ourselves or the public any favors. We just have to balance that. I think we absolutely have to be very thoughtful about how we craft the language and the percentages, but I don't think that we need to try to think what if or what about on every level. If we think about, does this language fit the spirit of what we want, that addendum or not addendum, but that document that if this passes, that we then have committed to owing the public and ourselves and whomever to say, these are the things that we're going to be targeting specifically, that's when that, like, here's what you're going to get for this money will come out more specifically. And I'm not saying it as an argument. I'm just saying. Page 41 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. [01:49:48] No. [01:49:49] We don't need to spend six hours to craft a four, three bullet ballot language. [01:49:56] So what I would say is I do appreciate, your thoughts, um on this, Councilor Weilein, um, um, Weilein. I- I get it. I understand it. Um, but I think if we're just looking at three categories in a way, um, we'll be able to come back again when, you know, the resolution is before us to make those final decisions. So we'll still have that opportunity. I know that there'll be two counselors potentially, well there won't be present in July. Um, and so that's where, you know, things still have to go on. So I do understand that. What I would suggest is, um, I think we've had a lot of discussion so far earlier about the overarching languages. Um, that's in that draft. What I might suggest is one, we get a majority on if we're, you know, okay with the first overarching affordable housing. Um, and then we'll go into the maintenance constructions. And then we have arts, [NOISE] as well as social services. Um, and I did hear about, you know, should we separate arts and put it in one, because some of these are overlapping. We don't have to fully get too descriptive [NOISE] tonight, but I think we have to have a good walkaway for the staff to craft language and come back for us. So we're not trying to create every word. [01:51:59] So if we can start with the overarching affordable housing, let's just keep it at that. So we have, of course, two proposals, er, that I've heard tonight. That's the one that, you know, staff has in the IP, and the other that the affordable housing has submitted. Um, what are your thoughts on- the- on the language that the staff has committed? Do we feel that that is too broad? It does state including affordable housing or other housing projects designated by the council? [01:52:45] 1 think, especially in terms of public understanding of what we're trying to do, that that might accidentally, um, signal something other than our affordable housing priority, right? And so I don't think it's bad language. I think it- but if I put myself in the view of- position of trying to understand it from somebody new to it, um, I think we kind of run a little bit of- kind of runs a little bit of risk there. I think, you know, generally speaking, none of these are, like, super objectionable. I have a slight preference for the affordable housing, um, wording. Um, uh, you know. [01:53:20] Housing coalition. [01:53:21] I'm sorry, you're right. Thank you so much. [01:53:22] Page 42 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. It's okay. [01:53:23] Affordable housing coalition wording, um, but I wonder if maybe that's, I mean, whatever the final thing looks like, I think for me personally, I would like it to look more like that one. Um, I don't know if anybody else feels the same way. [01:53:36] 1 agree with you. I think it's- I like the staff one, but I also very much understand that this involved different partners who could help, and they had conversations about this. So. [01:53:47] And including with staff. [01:53:48] Including with staff. So I- I- by the age, see the Affordable Housing Coalition language or something. Some version of that makes sense to me. [01:53:57] You know, Councilor Bergus, you mentioned, um, you know, the- the funds kind of being really directed, um, to a- to a select group, in a way, er, to make sure that the- the- the heart of the city is met. And I think that's what I do see, um, more narrow in scope with affordable housing. And actually, after tonight, all of the discussions, um, I'm reminded that, um, housing is a human right. [LAUGHTER] Um, and, you know, the shelter supports here, I find to be appropriate, as well, um, in this one. And so I am more leaning towards the- I can fully support the affordable housing. Now, if there's a few things that need to be tweaked open to that, but I can support that. [01:54:54] Oh, there is one thing that, er, I thought, er, because I- I think sometimes with, like, increase- increasing, like, shelter supports, I think sometimes, like, certain transitional housing gets left out. So I don't know if maybe adding something like increased shelter supports including transitional housing, um, because, you know, it's such a, uh, sometimes shelter, I don't know, it can leave out, uh, just various programs that I can think of. Uh. [01:55:26] I- I don't want to backtrack, but Mayor, you said, I think we're in agreement on kind of like the three main categories. So we have housing, generally, right? Uh, we have support for public infrastructure, and we have grants to organizations, right? So I- I think the question that I have for the group is, how much do we expect of this housing money to go to organizations and, like, what's the- I just want to be cognizant of that overlap that- that we've spoken to a few times. [01:56:00] Page 43 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. Sure. [01:56:01] Also the overlap of the 50% property tax relief that could go into facilities and public infrastructure as well. [01:56:10] For housing. [01:56:11] For housing. [01:56:12] Anything. [01:56:13] Are you seeing that? [01:56:15] Yeah. [01:56:15] That would make us have to talk about how much percentage we want to give it to the housing in general. Is it 30? Is it 20? And after that, we can say this percent to this and this percent to that. [01:56:28] One thing I will say is that anything that we do that, um, is currently supported by our general funds, you know, may relef- may provide some relief once- if loss is approved. So then there will just be more funds in general funds, although, you know, the increases there- the needs there are still great, right? [01:56:51] Yeah. [01:56:51] But so I just want to remind us that anything that is here is probably associated with the general funds now. And so if- it- it will you know, kind of give us funds and a new revenue stream and relieving that pressure off of the general funds. [01:57:13] Well, and I would also say that especially since I'm the one who brought it up, I feel like it behooves me to say it, that I'm reminded that the number one thing that the community said that they wanted was better roads. So, for us to completely say, like, we can divert some money so that it doesn't go towards Page 44 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. as much in streets, but it could go again, towards housing or what have you, I think we just want to sort of honor the categories, and I'm not saying that that wasn't what you were saying. I'm saying some of the things that I was intimating about, like, well, I want to make sure that they don't double dip in categories, I still would prefer as much as possible because we do have a lot of need to backfill and to- to support our own general budget, as well as these particulars that are such great needs in the- in the community. How can we best serve these- these entities? And I guess what I am concerned about is the possibility in overlap that there may be some inadvertent or- or intentional, um, ways in which some things are, um, favored in terms of funding even beyond what the percentages of the buckets are. And so I just- I want to be cognizant of that because there is such great need holistically. I want to make sure, for example, in community partnerships, um, that there is room for us in a meaningful way to help the arts community, um, to help economic development and social services. Um, but, you know, as we've just gone through with, um, working with aid agencies in our funding, um, the need is huge. And so if, in fact, one entity perhaps is covered through housing, then it might be something that when we work out the details of, like, how are we actually going to allot dollars, um, that we just keep that in mind. So that's nothing that goes into ballot language. I just wanted to put it out there. I am okay with the language of the talks about, um, shelter supports. I actually very much like the idea of transitional housing because to me, that is getting someone into a whole home situation. [01:59:31] Anything wrong? [01:59:33] Yeah. [01:59:34] So I just want to make sure it doesn't get lost in translation. [01:59:36] Ye p. [01:59:37] By not like, assuming that it is covered under shelter. [01:59:40] Yeah. But that's why I ask area, the- the- what the interpretation of the shelter to the city, and I think I fell is like, it's not transition. It's just, like, only homeless. That's what- if I understood you correctly, Jeff. [02:00:00] If I- yes. I mean, shelter, we would- we would look at shelter as probably the emergency shelter that we contract with the shelter house, the winter shelter. Um, that's probably the definition. However, both of these languages, whether you're looking at what staff provided at your direction on Page 8 or on Page 25, 1-1 don't- I think transitional housing and shelter is covered under both of those languages. It's my Page 45 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. personal opinion. How specific you want to be? I mean, if you think that that's important, uh, either so that future councils and future staff make no mistake, that it's eligible, that's great. If you think it's important to getting votes, uh, uh, at the ballot box, that- that's great, but I can- I can absolutely say that transitional housing increases access to the supply of affordable housing with households with low incomes. Like that- that's not a hard argument for, I think, us to- us to make. [02:01:06] Thank you for bringing us back to, like, what, honestly, one of the driving forces has to be what's going to actually help pass this. What's gonna work for the votes. [02:01:15] Yeah. [02:01:15] But if this is really going to be, like, no sunset for this? I think you never know who's councilor gonna come next. How can I interpret shelter and all this. That's why [OVERLAPPING] [02:01:28] 1 think adding transitional housing makes sense. I mean, I think it's different than- than, you know, maybe the middle ground between the laundry list and the, you know, broad language. I also would like to just put on the table the question of whether we intend to do, like, a- a statement of intent or a resolution as to how we want to use things. Like before November, it seemed like a really reasonable idea, but like when I'm thinking about our time and energy and capacity to garner the input to do that versus being more precise in the ballot language and being able to rely on the voters to say, yes, and then to say to staff, you know, we've had this conversation. These are the categories. Follow the strategic plan. Um, I think maybe not setting ourselves up for continual renegotiation every few years of like, we could do that, or future councils could do that, but I- I very much like the idea of trying to say, can we make it narrow enough that it's a little more clear? [02:02:34] I- I agree that a second, like, a corollary document. Just I- I thought about it, talked to several people about it, and they're like, that's gonna be confusing. Like, what are we actually talking about? [02:02:44] Yeah. [02:02:44] So I- I'm kind of, like, against that. Um, I think we should make the language, um, perfect. [LAUGHTER] Perfectly, uh, yeah, clear so the community knows what- what that- what that means. [02:03:00] Page 46 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. So it does sound like, um, [NOISE] we want to be clear, ah, and more precise with no sunset. So, um, let's just stay with affordable housing now. It sounds like the majority, if I am hearing this correctly, are comfortable with what was submitted by the, um, Johns County Affordable Housing Coalition with the addition of, um, adding transitional housing. Is there anything in that statement that we want, um, that we think we want to see here or take out? Are we comfortable with that, um, with the addition of transitional housing? [02:03:41] I'm comfortable with that. [02:03:42] I'm comfortable with that. [02:03:44] Yes. [02:03:44] Yes. [02:03:44] All right. Then let's go to the next one. Uh, so this is going to be infrastructure. Thank you for, er, er, bringing in that word. Um, so we have- so this is where, you know, we have to have that balance of precise [LAUGHTER] but also with flexibility. Um, so is- so what's here, we- we see supports arts, culture, and learning. You know, are we wanting to remove some things that are not because even the supports of art, I mean, you can put something on a- on a building, and that is, you know, it's defensible. But maybe that's not what we want in this category. Do we really want this to be fully? [02:04:40] 1 think it's buildings. So I see public facilities that support art. So I- I don't- I don't think it could be used by arts organization to operate. I think it- and- and that's how I read it, Mayor Teague, but. [02:04:53] All that support, I see. [02:04:54] Yeah. [02:04:55] Yeah. [02:04:55] What if we ended the sentence at public facilities? Page 47 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. [02:04:59] Right? [02:04:59] Yes, but. [02:05:00] The rest of that sentence is almost trying- trying to put boundaries, which I appreciate, er, but it may also be creating, you know, unanticipated confusion. So I was thinking the same thing. I like Councilor Bergus, about shortening that. Um. [02:05:13] Yes. [02:05:13] You know, but I mean, I see- I- but I very much see, I think, where staff was coming from with this trying to make sure that we weren't just lumping in all public facilities because, uh, I think, like, maybe Councilor Weilein made the point earlier aboutjust public safety even being in there is like, if it's, you know, if somebody's going to oppose this because they think it's going to go to whatever thing they don't like. [02:05:37] Yeah. [02:05:37] You know? Uh, so, I mean, I'm kind of arguing both sides of that, um, saying that the public facilities, uh, you know, there's a way to make the sentence more clear on public facilities, especially facilities that support arts, culture, learning, recreation. I mean it may be that simple of a solution to clarify the meaning of the sentence or just dropping it completely. [02:06:01] Or for the public good. I mean, that's where you could just say streets- streets, sidewalks, trails, parks and public facilities that support the public good. [02:06:10] Yes. I like that. Simple. The other thing is, it seemed like, um, a word is missing when we talk about what we used for maintenance and construction. Um, I don't know if we say city maintenance and construction because, you know. [02:06:31] Or public maintenance, construction of public streets. Page 48 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. [02:06:33] Yeah. Yeah. [02:06:34] That's what I was thinking. Public streets, sidewalks, trails, parks, and public facilities. And I think the interpretation would be we're not gonna use it for private. [02:06:43] Sure. [02:06:45] 1 see here. [02:06:46] Yeah, just because I think it could be used for private. [02:06:51] Good point. [02:06:52] So maybe we don't have to work smith and now, so we want to make sure that we have clarity on what the maintenance and construction is for. We want that to be public or city, something like that. Um, and then I think I here just ended it at facilities by, um, as designated by city council. [02:07:19] Okay. All right. Let's go to the next one. And then after this one, we'll come back up and do percentages. Uh, so the next one is really surrounding social services and hearts and culture or, uh, well, say well being. [02:07:39] Social infrastructure was a word someone said. [02:07:43] 1 was thinking of a phrase like arts and partnerships just because it sounds a little catchy. [02:07:48] Uh, that doesn't really account for social. [02:07:49] [OVERLAPPING] Social services, which is huge. Page 49 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. [02:07:51] Partnership. [02:07:52] It's huge. [02:07:52] Yeah. [02:07:53] And if it'd be helpful, just a little bit about staff's intention, and we're obviously trying to be really broad here. Uh, arts and culture, we did have in mind. You know, you've been contacted by, uh, many of those organizations over the years who have had flat funding for the city for multiple years in a row, social services. You just went through eight agencies. You know the need. Um, but we've also had unique partnerships over the years proposed or pursued with other governments. So if you think about childcare wage enhancement, that's really us and the county, us giving dollars to the county, the Trip Connect program that's being piloted right now. If you were to see a continuation of that, we could tap into these funds. A few years ago, the school district proposed lost for preschool. So none of those are in our mind as these are where the dollars are going, but we just know that these things come up from time to time. So that's why you see intergovernmental there. Uh, economic development partnerships could be, uh, with greater Iowa City, Think Iowa City, something along those lines, where we frequently have partnerships. So we drafted this to be very broad, and, uh, that's a little background, and you'll have to kind of decide how to narrow that down if you want it to be. [02:09:12] That helps me a great deal. I like that that's in there, and that's what those are referencing. [02:09:19] And I think in practical terms, although I don't know this is, uh, valid language, but in practical terms, I think, uh, the point that was made earlier about, you know, if the lost revenue takes pressure off of, let's just say arts and culture, just picking something from the general fund that opens up general fund money to go into community partnerships. In a practical sense of how it will play out in the future, there's some of that. But what we're just trying to do here, though, is making sure that future counsels can't spend whatever percentage we allocate to anything outside of these categories. So um, you know, I mean, that's kind of how I see it. [02:10:01] You know, I just see that, you know, since we have, like, all these lists like art and cultures and economic development and intergovernment, you know, can we just, like, add also childcare? [02:10:13] Uh, you mean, like, if we're gonna list some things, but, like, put childcare in there? Page 50 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. [02:10:19] Because we're listing art, we're listing culture over there, we're listing art and culture facilities. And I just believe if we had. [02:10:28] 1 feel like that would be good for you. [02:10:29] 1 know, it's- this was something that I. Like, I think that- I'm so with you. [LAUGHTER] And yet, um, I had a lot of conversations, both with some state reps. This is a couple of years ago when the school board was thinking about putting a lost for preschool. And to put forth childcare when there are community members who do not have children and don't understand it as a fundamental economic priority could actually backfire in terms of being able to pass it. In the conversations I was having, at that point, it was sort of like, well, make sure you really target property reform so that,- you know, so that people might be inclined to vote for this. And I realize there's many more sweeteners in here for- that I think really do cover the public spectrum. The only thing I would say is that like, well, I don't have a kid. Why do I want to put money in for childcare? And when it is actually covered through these intergovernmental and social service. [02:11:41] 1 don't know, but still, I'm going to repeat again that we cannot tax the poor to fix the poverty. We still going to do it anyway. That's why we should give them priority. I think, like we should do childcare, we should do affordable housing. And I just want to see something like those happening because I'm not agreeing to the loss at all, but if we want to do it, I want to make sure that. [02:12:09] Oh, Mayor Pro Tern, I'm completely on board with you that childcare should be covered in this. That's honestly why. [LAUGHTER] When we get to percentages, I have some thoughts. Uh, but I'm just talking about in terms of ballot language, I'm- maybe because it is one of many, I just wanted to say at least what prior conversations had been. How about that rather than say, no, no, I'm just saying I'm laying out what some conversations about introducing the specific language of childcare into a bill that goes to the entire community. [02:12:41] Yeah, I guess I thought that childcare was pretty up there in terms of community input. [02:12:49] Yeah, I just believe that this is really disproportionately affect our working class resident, immigrants and everybody. [OVERLAPPING] So this is- this might be- they can campaign against this if it's not. We would like to say, hey, we know that it affects you, but look at this. We have all this that can benefit the low income people that been hit hard by this. Page 51 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. [02:13:15] 1 worry that I have, and we'll have to talk about percentages, um, if we are going to identify one element right here, because we have food insecurities right now, you know, that is increasing utility needs, a lot of stuff. Um, I'm not exactly sure if we, you know, go down that rabbit hole of pulling out some of that stuff. I will stand, you know, very firm on housing, being a human right and identifying that carved out of a big group and, you know, citing it. I think the other things can we can get a little bit too descriptive because it will be covered. So that's the only hesitation that I have for that one. Um, and I know, you know, someone could argue that there's many other things that we can cite here and list out. But I- I feel comfortable with it being covered under social services. [02:14:34] Well, it's also intergovernmental. As Jeff pointed out, it is fundamentally economic development and social services. I think that there's three. I mean, the main argument of even being able to get childcare and wage enhancements was that this was about economic development and strengthening it. So I also feel like. [02:14:53] It is covered. [02:14:54] It is covered, and out of- three out of four, and I will be right there holding your hand leaping into the breach about childcare as [LAUGHTER] I'm campaigning on it. [02:15:04] [OVERLAPPING] We understand we said it social service priority and intergovernmental does include childcare. And we say public. That's it. I can go with that. [02:15:16] Okay. [02:15:16] [BACKGROUND] Just kind of brings us back to the language there, you know, we're really talking 10% for community partnerships, and then it's including but not limited to. So as long as it's a community partnership, you know, I think- I think that underscores the point that you both have just made. That - that's part of the- it's a community partnership thing. So it would be allowable, even if it's not. Specifically, there. [02:15:42] 1 would just like to say I'm really happy that we're having this conversation where we're talking about core needs of the community instead of just being like, let's give it all to a football stadium or Page 52 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. something. I just want to point that out I really like this conversation [OVERLAPPING] I really like this conversation we're having just I'm really happy. Anyways, sorry, I was just thinking. [02:15:59] [OVERLAPPING] Our neighbors listening? [02:16:01] Yes. [02:16:02] So this is our pivotal point, and this is going to be the percentages. [02:16:07] O kay. [02:16:08] And so I'm just going to open it up to see what folks say. I might insert from the beginning. [LAUGHTER] I don't know. I don't do that too often. [02:16:21] Usually. Let us off if you listen. [02:16:24] 1 don't do that too often. So, we know that, um, the housing and kind of what we just finished discussing, you know, those priorities within the community, core services, that's probably going to get a lot of weight from this council is what I anticipate. We only have 50% that we can work with. We talked about infrastructure, potentially, you know, having some, uh, opportunities under the 50% towards property tax relief, even though we know the ballot language will say 50% allocated for property tax relief. So for me, that kind of can switch instantly the 10% and the 20% on one of them, where we have that 10% going for kind of the infrastructure. And then from [BACKGROUND] 10%. [02:17:32] You were saying, got you. I apologize. I wasn't following. [02:17:35] Yes. [02:17:35] Continue. Sorry. [02:17:37] Page 53 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. So- so then if we had 20 for affordable housing, 10 for the infrastructure, 20 for the really core services that really support the core needs of our community. So I'll leave it at that and then, uh, those are my comments. And we can do numbers however we want from there. [02:18:01] So I keep looking at the Poco survey. I just keep looking at that because that's a data point that we have, and that is how we, I think, get to the finish line. And I think we've all kind of understand that there's a lot of fungibility in how this works. And if we look at that, it's the top priority is bridges, streets and sidewalks, and then affordable housing, and then parks and trails, and then social services. So if we were to follow that rubric, we would do like 40, 10, 10, 40 infrastructure, 10, 10, but I don't think that's what this council wants. So I'm not going to propose that, but I'm just saying that's the will of our community in this survey. So I think that we should be informed by that. So that's kind of why when I look at the 20- 2010 that's there right now, that feels like we're waiting housing more because it's so important to us than what this survey says. And that's just that's how I'm coming to my conclusion is by looking at this and also understanding the magnitude of infrastructure costs and how that sort of gives us a little bit more flexibility for some of these larger buildings is using the lost revenue to sort of buy these really big ticket things now and then use the general fund for the things that we're all going to do anyway, we're going to do affordable housing. We're going to do partnerships. We're going to, uh, work with our community partners and support the arts and culture. I'll just leave it at that. I like the numbers as presented by staff for that reason. [02:19:42] 1 have one question. Are you thinking that affordable housing, any type of affordable housing funds will only come from loss from the city moving forward? [02:19:52] No. [02:19:52] No. [02:19:52] Okay. [OVERLAPPING] No, I'm looking at the survey and mapping it out. That's a very simple way. [02:19:59] Just highlighting that for us. Yeah, I agree, but, you know, we can go with that, but believe me, you know, the people who are really in need of affordable housing, most likely, they don't get to fill out those surveys. [02:20:11] Yeah. Page 54 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. [02:20:12] You know, those people who really dislike surveys. [LAUGHTER] We try to, like, ask people questions about survey many times. They don't want to do it. This could be right, but because now all of us really thinking that we need of affordable housing, we have 1,100 people in the waiting list. We have all those homeless they just talked about. Those are I don't think those reflexive. I agree with that. That's completely done. They would, like, a very hard work to get this data. I understand. But this is the reality is sometimes different. And that's why we think affordable housing should be really the high percentage. I understand what you're saying, Mayor. But I just believe again, again, again, again, I will say this is really going to hit hard. The people who are really, you know, people who are need affordable housing, people who are really low income. That's why I'm not going to say 30, but I really proposed 25, which is quarter percentage of the whole thing to allocate it to affordable housing, just 25%. [02:21:24] I'm going to say 30. [02:21:25] Okay, I will go with 20. [OVERLAPPING] I'm not going to go up. [02:21:30] [OVERLAPPING] Here is 25. And then what were your other two? [02:21:34] Oh, sorry. [02:21:34] Yeah, I said 25 because I guess like to start seeing some people saying different things and I would like just to be in the middle. And I'm saying 25%. [02:21:46] And what for the other two? [02:21:48] For the other two, I will see that we need like only like 15% and 10%. [02:21:53] Ten. Thank you. [02:21:55] Of what? [02:21:55] That's I was trying to keep track of it, everybody. Page 55 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. [02:21:57] Fifteen of the infrastructure and stay at 10% for the core services? [02:22:02] No, 10, 20, 25, 15, 10. [02:22:07] Ye p. [02:22:07] Okay, so community partnerships. [02:22:09] Yes. Still the same. [02:22:11] Um, I guess my pitch for 30% of housing is that just for my entire life and also just, like, looking back into, like, what counselors and, like, mayors and city staff have talked about since the'80s and'90s in Iowa City. It's just housing is unaffordable in Iowa City. What are we going to do about it? And it just seems like not that nothing is being done, but that this is a really cool chance for us to maybe break that, like, somewhat stagnation a little bit and just, like, go over drive into the, you know, 30%. Let's really make a dent. And I think that is something that would resonate with the community. If this is an overwhelmingly, like, we are going down the path of making housing more affordable in Iowa City, and the bulk of this is going towards that. I think that that is something that would be so easy to win and would also just not even just for this one survey, but just like I said, we've been talking about in Iowa City for, like, 40 years, it seems like. That's my pitch, why I think 30% is an appropriate number for housing. [02:23:25] What's your other numbers? [02:23:27] Ten and 10, 1 would say. [02:23:38] Sorry, I was thinking, um. [02:23:40] Yeah. I- I don't- I don't have a strong objection to anything. I was thinking, uh, can we do partial percentages? But then also, like, how does that play for the voters? Um. Page 56 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. [02:23:52] 27.5. [02:23:53] Because, I mean, 25 and 12.5 and 12.5, um, was in my brain. But, um, yeah, I mean, I think- I don't - yeah, I got right now. [02:24:10] So just to sort of get us actually, and I don't know. Sean hasn't weighed in yet, um, I vacillated, um, between 25% and 20 for as initially put out there 15 and 15. 1 think that's where I kind of landed, partially because that- when we talked about it the very first time without even having percentages and buckets, it was like, what we didn't want to do was dilute so much, right, that we weren't able to really make an impact in any way, shape, or form. That last bucket includes a lot. [02:24:49] It does. [02:24:50] And that is the smallest percentage at the moment. I absolutely say, affordable housing, we need to build on the money and the work that we've been doing, the programs that we still have- that we've got, that, um, as well as to build on them, and we need more money to do that. Um, so I'm fine with it being the top percentage. I also see that there's gonna be a lot of people who are voting on this to say, where are my sidewalks gonna be? They're not going to be swayed one bit. It's not the easiest thing in the world of, oh, my God, affordable housing. That's it. No problem. I'm sold. They're gonna say, what's in it? My sidewalk is crap. I need that. I need my roads, you know, anybody on the north side with the kind of potholes and stuff that can happen over winter. So I just think it's sort of like we really have to cover the gamut in the most effective way that we can, so that we are putting money into these areas in a way that residents can feel like it isn't just lip service, right? So that's why I'm like, yeah, it's kind of wishy washy, at least on its surface, because we're kind of splitting it down the middle. But I see it as like a 20 wait, what did I say? 2015, 15. 1 mean, that's kind of where I've ended up landing, okay? And it's still- and it's not exactly reflective of what the survey did, but I think it shows, here's our priority. We know that this is a crisis locally, regionally, um, federally. We need to do something about this, and people want to live here. So, how are we addressing that? And then how are we dealing with these other things in ways that people can say, okay, there's a chunk of money in there. They're all in double digits. So that's- I'm just- I'm very conc- concerned about that last, um, the community partnerships because I think there's so much important and innovative things that could be done there, um, as well as the fact that we just came out of the last council session funding our agencies, and there are agencies as happy as they are that they're getting the full funding that they asked for or, like, what's going to happen- what is going to happen when two years are up? So I think that we need to show good faith in that regard is not just good faith. We need to actually try to say we will support. So that's why I say 2015, 15. Page 57 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. [02:27:18] Alright, so I find myself, yeah, I mean, I think, kind of torn between, um, uh, the suggestions of Maza Here, Laura, and Megan, I think all of them. I mean, everybody made a good choice. And I think in all of these cases, we're funding good things. So one way in one way of looking at it is there's no wrong answers, uh, but we have to make an answer that sort of maximizes, um, the benefit. Um, you know, I think, uh, yeah, I think I would probably be somewhere in the either 2015, 15 or 25, 12.5, 12.5. 1 know that 12.5 is ugly, but, of course, that doesn't work well for the ballot language. So, um, so I guess it would be the 2015, 15 or the 25, 15, 10 would be the two, um, that would probably be the most practical. Um, but I think- but I think both, uh, you know, Megan and Bruce made a really good point about that last bucket, um, you know, being so important. And, you know, as we heard, you know, that puts a lot of people in competition, although that's not the only money we give to those things, right? So we need to be very clear about- about that, um, I think there's also value in and nobody suggested going less than 10% in that last bucket, which, um, you know, is good because I think there is some value, even in things like arts and culture, um, you know, because that helps. Well, that helps mitigate, um, the very impacts that we- the worst parts have lost, right? So, in terms of, like, charging, as Mayor Potem has made the point many times very well, um, you know, something that unfortunately hits with a greater proportion of their income to our lowest income residents. But if we're talking about people that can afford to come to town for tourism events, um, I think that assuages a lot of that guilt. So it's sort of like tending the garden is what I think of. Like, having some percentage of this boost the actual revenues that then, you know, makes the pie bigger. Um, so I think there's some value to that, and then- then I think, you know, uh, art is resistance. So that's also a good thing, um, you know, so- s I guess- I guess I'm talking myself into either the 2015, 15 or 25, 15, 10 would be where I go. [02:29:32] Um, I feel like, uh, on a personal level, I could live with the 25, anything lower than that, I start to feel pretty uncomfortable, um, when it comes to housing, um, I suppose something that I would be agreeable to would be 25 for housing, uh, 10 for the maintenance and construction of the street and then 15 for the community partnerships. That- that- I think that's where I was landing. [02:30:02] Um, on both ends. [02:30:05] I'm not there just because of this again, and go back to what's the win? [02:30:09] I- I mean the majority of the city has said that they want their- I mean, that's- and I- that was my first druthers. It seriously was, dude. My- my first druthers was to say that, like, sorry, the infrastructure would be the lowest. But it's also the thing that scored highest and that we all hear about, as well. And so I think that there is something- there is- in order for us to get what we want, I think that we also have to acknowledge that there's other things besides that that are important to the city, right? So - Page 58 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. [02:30:43] Make sure we don't live with zeros for everyone. [02:30:45] I'm trying to be really, really- like how are we gonna get this through so that we can get 20% or whatever for housing that we don't currently have? [02:30:55] 1 guess I just- I guess I just think that it would pass either way, but, you know, you don't have a crystal ball. You know, I understand wanting to be cautious. [02:31:05] Yeah. [02:31:10] Well, I was just going to say, you know, when we think about revenue sources, which is what this is, revenue a particular source that has to be spent in the way that we say. Um, so I really don't want to send the wrong message to the voters in terms of, like, divestment from infrastructure. I think that's- I think that's really important. But I also know that on the educational side, we can't bond for community partnerships, right? Like. [02:31:43] Yeah. [02:31:44] And we have- like, if we think of this as a tool in our toolbox, I think those more creative and, like, collaborative things are something we can use this money for. And the basic infrastructure, which is an obligation of the city government, can be funded in other ways. So I'm sort of talking myself into 25 15, 10. [02:32:12] You m ea n 25, 10, 15. [02:32:14] Well, sorry. If we're in that order, yeah, thank you. Yeah. I was like, wait. Yeah, 25 housing, 15 partnerships, 10 infrastructure. [02:32:23] 1 think that was the last one. [02:32:24] That's what I was thinking. Page 59 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. [02:32:25] Yeah. [02:32:25] 1 guess I just wonder, 25, 15, 10. If it's in this order. [02:32:31] Well, infrastructure is in the middle. So you're saying 15 for infrastructure or 10? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. [02:32:37] Yeah, I see you mean, 25, 19, 15. [02:32:40] Yes. [02:32:41] Yeah, that's good. [02:32:41] Sorry. [02:32:42] Twenty-five, 10, 15 with that. [02:32:44] Me too. Sorry. [02:32:46] There would have to, I mean, what I want more than anything is since we've- sorry, I'll be quiet. Since we've committed to pushing forward with this, um, I want to make sure it passes. And I just- I know at the same- and I so appreciate what you're saying, and I want to go there. I'm just afraid that there's gonna be people like, there they go again. Right? Not- not prioritizing what I want. Right? I mean, when people vote, what's in it for them? So I just worry. [02:33:24] 1 also think just it's- it's a campaign. [02:33:27] And all of us up here know how campaigns work. [02:33:29] Page 60 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. [02:33:29] And so much of it is about helping voters understand the message. And I think if the message is, we don't want to tax the poor to pay, right?\ [02:33:39] Yes. [02:33:39] And if, you know, we understand the aggressivity of it, I think those are the primary complaints that we have about, you know, when members of the public talk to us. And I think if we say the state is limiting our ability to raise money, to do things that we are obligated to do or we are compelled to do, we still have those options for infrastructure, and it's gonna be on the council to continue to fund those and to, you know, maybe bond more, increase the debt levy. Like, we're- we're gonna have to do those things. [02:34:12] Maybe. [02:34:12] But I think we can message it. [02:34:14] And we do better when we include everyone, I think, and we should go that route. I think- I think we do have a go for that. [02:34:25] So I know that everybody has had some numbers thrown out. It sounds like the last numbers that have been circulating, and I'm going to do it in the order of housing, infrastructure, and we'll say core services. So there's two different numbers that I've heard kind of on the ladder. So the housing at 25 infrastructure- infrastructure at 10, and core services at 15. [02:34:58] Do you want to say partnerships. [02:34:59] Partnerships. Yes, that works. Partnerships at 15. And then I heard 25 housing, 15 infrastructure, and 10 partnerships. [02:35:14] Those are the two that seem. Page 61 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. [02:35:16] Those seem to have the most traction. Even mine, you know, I kind of just threw that out there just to get started. I wasn't, you know, very firm on what I started with, but I just thought I would throw something out there. So, now, does anyone test either one of these, I guess? [02:35:36] 1 guess, I think, let us try the first one, 25, 10, 15, 25 for the housing, 1 for the infrastructure, and 15 for the butter. [02:35:46] So you're thinking about a vote. [02:35:48] Yeah. [02:35:48] Yeah, I can go with that. [02:35:51] Bolivar. [02:35:52] 1 mean, I think that's- that's fine. We're still actually just make sure for people watching, this is not the vote on this? No. [02:35:57] No. yeah. [02:35:58] This is us giving staff direction on what proposal to bring back to us that we will still vote on. And so after we have time to think about it and get some of the community feedback on some of these things, uh, which actually would, you know, the vote will be the first meeting in August, correct? Probably to make sure we stay on track. So, between now and that first meeting in August, and if we had to do an amendment, uh, of changing a percentage, 5% up or down in one of these categories, that will not be a huge lift to do if we hear something dramatically different between now and then. [02:36:29] Thank you for that. [02:36:29] And we'll also have this on our, um, on our work sessions, loss will still be on our work sessions between now and- and- and, you know, that vote of- of- in August. So if- if we are comfortable with the work Page 62 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. we've done tonight, uh, we did have a majority with the 25, 10, and 15, um, unless there is a last minute strong push by any individual on this council, I think we can consider our discussion kind of done at this time. I want to look at staff and see if they have direction from us and if they need anything addition. Okay? [02:37:16] And- oh, sorry. Go ahead. [02:37:17] No. [02:37:18] The only thing I wanted to say is the way that I feel like when I've been having conversations with people who've been, um, concerned, rightfully so, about the regressive nature of the text. I mean, the way I try to explain it to them is, um, this is just us as a community, playing with the cards that were dealt with and trying to, like, stand in solidarity with each other in this hard time. And it's about coming together and helping each other out. So it's, um, when I use that phrasing and, like, that as a message, it's just, like, always like, oh, that really makes sense to me. So I feel like- like I said, we're not funding a football stadium. Like, we're- we're doing things that I think the community overwhelmingly supports. And so I think we have a really good chance with whatever. Yeah. [02:38:08] Yeah. And I think we have a message for even the people who are going to be hit hard on this, and we can convince them it's something going to be good. [02:38:19] Yeah. [02:38:19] And that they can vote. [02:38:21] And they can vote. [02:38:22] Exactly. Should vote. [02:38:23] Yeah. I mean. [02:38:24] Uh, Mayor, I'm sorry. Kirk, did you need a clarification? Page 63 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. [02:38:29] 1 just wanted one piece of clarification. I heard the term core services thrown out a lot instead of community partnerships. We're talking community partnerships. That language remains. [02:38:38] That language remains. [02:38:39] Otherwise, I think I have clarity, and we can follow up after the meeting, too. I just wanted to make sure that counselor- [02:38:46] Counselor Hermson exed my term. [02:38:48] And thank you. [02:38:52] Yes, yes. [02:38:53] Thank you also for the amount of work, because it's like the simplicity of the language or the brevity of it completely belies the work that goes into making it. So, thank you. And, um, this is- we've got something that we can move forward with. Also, as you said, Laura, now we need to go into- once we get this settled, we need to go into campaign mode and to educate and to explain. [02:39:16] Yeah. No, no. [02:39:17] Educating not campaign. [02:39:18] Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry. You're right. You're right. [02:39:20] Counselors in their political positions can campaign, but city- the city staff is not using its city resources. [02:39:27] That's what I meant. Page 64 Iowa City City Council Work Session of June 17, 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. [02:39:27] No city resources. [02:39:28] Correct. [02:39:29] No, no, no, no, no. Just clear. Sorry. [02:39:31] As an individual also would like to shout out to greater city for, like, all the hard that you put on this, and you've been sitting here a long time. [02:39:41] Yes. [02:39:41] Thank you. [02:39:42] And if there's still listening, Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition and all those housing partners. [02:39:47] Afford housing coalition partners. [02:39:49] Yeah, and all the- [02:39:50] As a partner. [02:39:51] And the individual voices that have reached out. So thanks to all of you. We can consider ourselves adjourned. All right. [02:39:58] All right. [02:39:58] Thank you. Page 65