City Council - Regular Meeting

Hello and welcome to your city Hall. Today is Tuesday, April 21st, 2026. This is the opening of the work session. Uh, Mayor Teague is attending the Senior Center Volunteer Appreciation celebration and so will not be here. You are with me today. Um, and as such, I'm taking the reins. Um, no, but before we turn to our agenda, um, I want to pause to recognize with deep caring and a moment of silence, the many people of Iowa, of the Iowa City community impacted by Sunday morning's shooting Thank you. And I am sure that Mayor Teague will also have some words upon the formal session's opening. Um, so to begin, we have, uh, USG updates and a little bit of our own celebration

Hello, everyone. Um, we wanted to start out by just also acknowledging what happened this weekend. A lot of our student body is pretty rattled by it, especially our younger students who may have never encountered any form of gun violence before. And, um, we tried to think of something to write before coming up here, but didn't feel natural that way. Um, I guess all I really want to say is that, especially online, there is a lot of nasty stuff being said and being spread around, and I the way I've been trying to approach it is with a little bit of grace for some of our students, especially some of the younger ones who might not know what to do in these situations, not know who exactly is to blame or what is to blame. Um, it's not an excuse for some things that a lot of people are saying online, but I think maybe approaching it with some grace when it comes to especially our student body, is good.

And then coming up, we will be sending out our renters guide survey. So get excited for that. Um, we'll have that data soon. Also, I have yet to find someone who's suitable to replace my role. So we're going to wait until fall to see who's going to fill the deputy role. Then just have to say. So that might become the new norm, waiting until the fall to fill the deputy role. Um, but we'll see. So this is my last city council meeting in the role as city liaison. I've honestly been trying not to think about it because I don't really know what I'm going to do with my Thursdays now or every first and. >> Third Tuesday.

Um. Oh, Tuesdays. I'm sorry. I've always had trouble with those too. Um, it's the t I'm dyslexic. It's it's a thing. Anyway, um, yeah, I just want to thank everybody here, staff and council alike, for everything I've been able to learn over these past couple years. Um, for those of you who don't know, I have recently applied for the Master's of Urban and Regional Planning here at the University of Iowa that I'm waiting on to hear back from that. But, um, my decision to pursue that path was largely informed by what I've done here. And, uh, I still want to go home to Kansas City, Missouri, and continue my work after graduation, uh, with the city back home and kind of building my community and helping it. So, uh, yeah, it's been a really, really great time here and I'm going to miss it a lot.

Well, before you both go, before you go, especially Ava, um, the city wants to recognize your amazing work and truly, um, each year that I'm on council, I see the engagement factor up and up and the kind of work that USG is doing is amazing. And the updates that we get from you have been tremendous. So thank you so much for your service. Um, and I'm going to read this in replacement of Mayor Teague. Um, we want to present this certificate of appreciation to you for your thoughtful contributions during the 20 2526 year of service as the city Council liaison and alternate liaison from the University of Iowa undergrad student government, and for demonstrating commitment to student participation on this 21st day of April 2026. And the mayor sends his regrets that he couldn't be here to give this to you. Okay. Moving on. We are on to agenda item two, which is clarification of agenda items. >> I had one question on the item nine L supplemental. Um, for our attorney. And that would be just the gist of what that late handout is asking for. As I understand it, it's they're asking for a stay of the 500 foot rule is that the basics. >> They are and I'm sorry, they are. And but I probably can't say much more than that. I'm sorry I misunderstood which item you wanted to have clarification for, because I'm conflicted out over that item. You can ask Mr. Sarenac when he arrives. >> Sounds good. I'll do that.

Thank you. Okay >> There are other items for clarification. Hearing none, we will move on to item number three. Our information packet discussion. Let's begin with April 9th. In that. And of course I don't have the IP up the specific number, but it has to do with the bylaws of the nonprofit that IP two. Thank you. Um, I did have one question probably for attorney Goers. Um, under section 4.09, the treasurer sort of the duties, the roles, et cetera.. Regarding the treasurer, um, what I was wondering is can we build in um requirements for audits or is that something that the board sets up after with a separate form from this document, from the bylaws? Or do spelling out the need for we expect the board expects that there will be audits, say from a third party or something like that. >> I hate the duck. Two questions in a row from council. But because I do not represent the nonprofit board, I think it would be best that that be answered by the independent council. The board will eventually take on. We did. That answer might be confusing, given that we did put the bylaws out and available. Um, these are of course just proposed. It will be ultimately up to the board of the nonprofit to adopt or modify these. But um, yeah, I'm sorry, I probably should refrain from answering further.

I do have one follow up question though, that perhaps you can answer. Okay. If the board were to decide to make changes, would they have to then come back to council for approval of the bylaws since it is coming to council to approve or this is actually not to approve. This is just to give us a heads up. >> Well, it's in between there. The answer to your question, no, they would not need to come back to council. What this item does on your agenda this evening is authorize staff to go ahead and file the articles of incorporation to kind of get the ball rolling and create this new thing. And from there, once created, um, then you and the other two initial directors would be in control and take the ball from there. >> Okay. And yes, I am aware of the timeliness of the. I just wanted to, but I did want to put that out there, at least as a question in terms of what kind of oversights should we build in. So and if that's just something to happen later, then that works.

R I p. Um, the IP, the Councilor Alter was referring to IP two from April 9th, exactly the same. Or articles of incorporation from our agenda tonight. Item nine M. I'm sorry, what was the question? Are they the same? Are they the same articles of incorporation? >> The articles of incorporation have not changed from the prior version. Is that your question?

They're they're presented in the IP and also in the formal agenda tonight. >> Right. There. Originally we thought that they had been presented to you for last meeting. We were mistaken about that. And so we wanted to hustle and provide you with the versions that we had at that time. The articles of incorporation have not changed, but the bylaws have changed a little bit. Okay. Thank you. >> Any discussion on the substance of the articles should be during the formal meeting? Yeah. If you're talking about a substantive discussion, great.

Okay, cool. >> And to be clear, so if we have those substantive, um, discussions, it should be on the versions that are attached to the formal agenda item, not the version in the, uh, April 9th packet Is there anything else from April 9th? Okay, let's move to April 16th. >> Sure. We'll discuss my memo when it comes up in the formal agenda.

I every 16 IV5. I just wanted to highlight that we have 2503 in the waiting list for housing choice voucher. And we have 1530 for the public housing waiting list. So we still short in affordable housing.

Um, under IP3 pending work topics. I don't know if there is anything that um council wants to bring up. Um for upcoming, we do have just as a reminder, one that struck me was um, the strategic plan prioritization that is slated. It has an appearance of, um, for the summer, but if there's any work that needs to be done or any homework that we need to do, um, it's just good to have that in mind And while this is also something that is absolutely raw and new, um, I wonder about putting on the pending work topics that we should talk about ped mall safety at some point >> I'd be okay with that. And I think, uh, you know, giving, giving us time to get more information before we have that discussion is going to be important. So whether it's the next meeting or the meeting after that, I think I would appreciate being doing it, but making sure we've got something substantive to, to chew on.

And, and data to know exactly what we're dealing with. Yes. Yeah. >> So is there okay. Yes. Thanks. So it looks like there's a majority Okay Uh, was there anything else from April 16th? I don't want to cut anyone off. Okay. Um, item number four is Orchard Court Lighttech project presentation. And at this, I will now turn it over to Jeff. Thank you.

Okay. One minute please, while I get queued up Okay. Geoff Fruin City Manager, thank you for the opportunity to present this, uh, project to you today. Um, we're going to talk about this Orchard court for percent lighttech public private partnership that's in front of us. Um, and I'm going to walk you through kind of a, some, some introduction before we get to the specifics of the project. So we'll talk about some guiding principles from your strategic plan that were pulled from when working on this project, we're going to talk about the demonstration of need. I actually already talked about that a little bit with the, uh, notice of the, the voucher and waitlist numbers. Um, we're going to review our active affordable housing efforts because this isn't the only thing that we're focused on right now. We're focused on quite a bit of different actions and want to make sure that we can cover those with you because staff is recommending that we use the riverfront Crossings Fee in lieu program. We want to make you a re familiarize you with that program. Then we're going to get into the project and ultimately end with, uh, our recommendation for you tonight. So again, these quotes are taken from your strategic plan. So when you charge us to, to look at something such as affordable housing, we're going to pull from the plan and try to find elements of that plan that we can work into any project that that we, uh, are working on. Um, our plan is broken up, as you know, into different sections. We have visions that talk about compact communities and areas with, um, services, uh, readily accessible. We talk about neighborhoods that are compact and socially diverse. And then we get into broader

kind of strategies and we talk a lot about in those strategies, partnerships. And there's some definitely some partnerships here and addressing the unique needs of vulnerable population and low to moderate income neighborhoods. And then lots of times we focus specifically on the actions. Those are the numbered items in our strategic plan. And I pulled out a few here that I think speak to the project. We'll be talking about tonight. Tonight. So we talk about significant scale affordable housing projects in our strategic plan. And we look for innovative ways to leverage partnerships. And with this project, there are quite a few partnerships to to note. So I feel like there's quite a bit of that leveraging going on. And then on the financial side, we also talk about preserving our tax base. And one thing that we tried to do with this, uh, project that we'll present to you is ensure that there's full property tax payments still coming not only to the city but to the other taxing bodies that rely on that tax base. So keep in mind all those threads as we get through, we get through the project. This is one where I probably don't need to do a whole lot of convincing. We've talked about this a lot, but just a couple of recent documents and, and reports that you've seen that project out a number of units per year. And as you can probably appreciate, um, there is some different methodologies and to how you can come up with this. So I wouldn't focus so much on why these numbers may be different compared. We're comparing the 2022 affordable housing action plan, uh, that talked about 4500 more units needed by 2030. And then you've recently been engaged with the comprehensive plan, which talks about 9000 or more units by 2050. There's some difference in those numbers, but, um, the scale is what you should be looking at. The idea is that we need probably that 350 to 550 more units per year just to keep up with the growth projections that we have So what are we actually doing?

What's our track record? Um, these are, uh, units permitted per year. And I'll kind of walk you through this on the left hand scale. There you have just the raw number of units and then the individual bars represent the different colors, represent the different types of units. So that lower bar that tends to be the largest are multifamily units that are created. And we have single family duplex ADUs. And then the line across is that that running average. And one thing, uh, one thing I want to point out is just obviously there's a notable difference in the last couple of years, uh, really when you look at 24 and 25, they were down years at a time when we need housing units the most, we're struggling to get those out of the ground. And that's not a criticism of, of local government. It's a tough economy to build in right now. We've got interest rates higher. We have unpredictable prices. Um it's a very difficult time to, uh, be getting new starts when it comes to, to housing. Um, so we're looking at ways across the board in which we can accelerate those, uh, those types of projects. Um, the other thing I would just note is that even when you look back at some of those years in which we exceeded 4 or 500 units per year, um, a lot of those are a lot of those are, are, um, they consist of 1 or 2 really large focused projects. So you think about some of the really large student oriented housing projects that we have that could be two, three, 400 units in one year and just student oriented development. We've also seen a lot of senior oriented development. So while these multifamily numbers look really strong, our experience of late has been they've been very targeted to certain demographics being students and seniors. And we know that those units are needed across all demographics to, um, and again, this project that we're going to be talking about, I think is one of those projects

that can reach across a lot of a lot of demographics.

Jeff. Do you do you count at occupancy or count at permitting? >> Permitting? Yeah So again, um, what I don't want to do is fall into a trap where we are, um, thinking about this project in isolation as this is our only strategy. Um, if this was our only strategy, we wouldn't be successful. We're going to have to continue to do a lot of different things to help spur housing opportunities and address the housing crisis that we have. So, um, this list is not exhaustive. This list is really just meant to show you what are some of the new and emerging things that are happening, some of those ongoing things, a lot of the programs that we've done year after year, programs funded by Cdbg, the million dollars from the affordable housing fund that, uh, that the general fund pays into the affordable housing fund and the good things that that does, those aren't represented here. These are things that are new and in the works to try to show that we are doing a number of things to try to accelerate housing in Iowa City. So on that very low income side, we've got a couple of examples. Um, excuse me, we're expanding the amount of housing that we own as a public, as a housing authority. So you've authorized in the last couple of years the purchase of a number of townhomes to expand public housing. You're well familiar with the partnership that we have with the county and the VA for permanent supportive housing. Um, we've talked quite a bit about the Summit Street project that, uh, staff is moving forward on and kind of put together with that is the repositioning of, of our public housing. A few of these, you'll notice, have asterisks on them. Those are kind of new initiatives or initiatives that are supplemented with lost or anticipate, um, some lost help. Uh, we have dollars in our, uh, lost budget for permanent supportive housing that will be new above and beyond what we've

done in the past. Same with continuing a housing stability program that is largely being phased out because it was based on Arpa funds building capacity in non-profits and growing the aid agency. Those are just, examples of things that we're doing in that very low income side of things on that lower income side of things, we talked about using loss to increase down payment assistance, to continue the student build program, and to bolster our neighborhood homeownership program. I would put this Orchard Court partnership in this category as well. Um, this, this project does not address the very low income needs in, in the, on the spectrum of things, but, um, it does have, um, rent controlled units that addresses what I would consider that middle low income section there. And then even on the, the middle and upper income, um, we're focused on that too. We talked about the comprehensive plan a little bit, but making sure our comprehensive plan can set the stage for zoning reform that will reduce barriers to market rate units. And then for those of you on the EDC, you had the initial staff proposal on a tax exemption pilot program to also aimed at spurring market rate housing. So all these things are kind of new and emerging strategies. But tonight we're focused on just that. Orchard Court Lighttech partnership. So because we're talking about using riverfront crossing affordable housing funds for this project, I want to just familiarize yourself with that. Um, the city code requires that residential property that is rezoned to an RFC designation can either provide 10% of the units as affordable for ten years, or pay a fee in lieu of, um, for those properties that are maintained on site. Rents are capped at HUD fair market

rents or Lighttech rents, if that's applicable. Um, the fees that are collected must be used in that riverfront crossings area. So we've collected the fees in this area. We have to spend the fees in this area. And then you can see the accounting of the fees listed to date. Um, most of these dollars have been collected in the last 3 or 4 years. You see a couple of the, the larger numbers with the hive and replay. Those are recently added student housing buildings in the Riverfront Crossings district. And you can see those consist of nearly $5 million of, of the funds that have been collected. So we've amassed amount of money now that we can truly invest to work on that large scale housing that's envisioned in your strategic plan, this 5.8 million, um, is just those fees collected. It does not and it does not include the interest that those dollars have generated, but that that interest is available for us as well. Um, to, to utilize for this or other projects. Um, I thought it would be interesting to look back at, um, for those, uh, riverfront crossings projects that have provided units on site Where in the army sector, the area median income spectrum are, are, are we falling with those? So there is income verification processes. And again, there is a 60% Ami requirement, but you can see in practice that those units are actually serving, um, many populations that are under that 60% threshold. I think that's just important to keep in mind because, um, there's similar, um, requirements with lighttech projects and um, it's likely that when we talk about a 60% cap, those falling into that 60% cap may not always be right up at that 60%, right? They may be at 55, they may be at 50, 45. And that's been our experience with those units on site. I think

that would be our experience in investing the few dollars as well. So let's talk about the project. Um, your, you're familiar with the site because this was in front of you for a rezoning a few years ago. This is, um, uh, just behind, uh, or to the west of the maverick gas station, uh, off of Riverside and Benton Street. There, an orchard court. Is that, uh, cul de sac that's depicted there. Um, and then this is kind of a, the schematic of the, of the project that we'll be talking about. The project is a public private partnership with a group called the annex Group. And I want to introduce you to the annex group a little, a little bit. Uh, the annex group is new to Iowa City, but not new to the state of Iowa and actually develops all across the United States. Uh, you can see there that they over, uh, they have over 7900 units across 48 different communities. When you drill down to, to projects in Iowa, I, I pulled out a couple here. Um, these, uh, five projects here are scattered across Iowa. We have Waterloo, Dubuque, Des Moines, Council Bluffs, and Cedar Rapids, where annex has either successfully delivered a project or is in the is in the middle of delivering a project there. So I think we're working within very experienced group, both in terms of the volume of development that they've done, but also working within the tech realm. And a quick overview of the project. The total estimated cost for the project right now is 57 million. Uh, we're looking at a fully taxable project. And again, that's important. It's noted in our strategic plan as being important, but, uh, you know, just tomorrow, the house is going to be voting on, uh, property tax reform. We're told

the Senate's already taken action on property tax reform. Um, bolstering that tax base is going to be incredibly important going forward. So when we think about innovative ways to structure this, um, the traditional way cities might assist, um, light tech projects is through either tax exemption, which would take properties off the tax rolls through grants. Um, and in this case, we wanted to approach this in a little bit different way for, for a few reasons. So we explored this concept of providing a loan. Um, that would be secured by the land. Um, so in this case, we're talking about a $5.1 million loan, which represents the sales price of the property that gets to just under about $28,000 per unit. If that loan amount is divided by the number of units, um, and it would be a set at an interest rate of 1%. So one of the reasons we thought about structuring this, um, as a loan is because I know the council has been very clear that they would like to see these riverfront crossings fund, um, get as close to permanent affordable housing production as possible. Um, and um, one way to do that is to ensure that those dollars are paid back and that future councils will be, will have the opportunity to invest those funds, uh, in more affordable housing down the road. So the way that this is structured, um, conceptually is that there would be an annual interest payment to the city of $51,000 and then a balloon payment in year 16. That balloon payment was estimated to be 6.1 million. Um, and at that point we would have those dollars to be able to, invest in other, uh, affordable housing, uh, affordable housing projects. So we think we can achieve, and I'll get to this a little bit more. We think we can achieve 30 years of affordable housing through this project and then give a future council the ability to reinvest those

dollars and get even a even more affordable housing down the road. Um, staff did have assistance with Baker Tilly. As you know, Baker Tilly is assisting us on, um, our housing authority, Summit Street project and just creating more development capacity in our housing authority. So we tapped into that expertise and, uh, utilized Baker Tilly to help us break down annexes, proforma and understand, test their assumptions, and understand how best we can contribute to this project. You see the breakdown of units. Um, they are proposing 183 units across one, two and three bedrooms. There are 24 existing market rate units on that site. So, um, some of those, those market rate units would go away with this project from an affordability standpoint, we have 50% Ami, we have 15 units at that level. The bulk of the units are at 153, 153 units are at 60% Ami, and there are 15 at 70% Ami, which balances them out at that 60% level. So we have a total of 168 units at that 60% Ami or lower. And just like we saw with those, like we're seeing with those, um, affordable units that are on site for those developers that choose to put them on site, I would expect that we'll have a range of residents in these units that go well below 60% Ami as well. The 4% Lighttech award that annex has received, uh, ensures that at minimum, it'll be 15 years of affordability. But the vast majority of light tech projects extend to 30 years, plus the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County has provided an additional loan of just under 650,000, and they have a 30 year affordability

requirement with that loan. So we're confident in saying that we'll be able to achieve a 30 year affordability period. Um and, uh, and then again, have the loan proceeds to be able to reinvest in new projects just as the trust fund, uh, structures theirs as a loan and recycles those dollars into the, into the community, I will point out just from a partnership standpoint, this is public, private annex is a private organization, but we are partnering with the Housing Trust Fund, who's also contributing, and we're also partnering with, um, the state, uh, who is awarded the, the, the Lighttech project. There uh, section 42, which covers Lighttech prohibit source of income discrimination and annex has committed to us that they're committed to accepting vouchers, which we know is critical, uh, going forward and annex has agreed to provide the city with the first right of refusal for outright purchase. So when the time comes for annex, if they decide they want to sell and sometimes that does happen. Uh, as you get into that year, 16, 17 of these high tech projects, the city at that time will have a decision if we want to purchase that property. So, um, I want to kind of talk about what those alternatives would be, right. And to be clear, there are alternatives on how to invest our riverfront crossings fee in lieu dollars. And you all know that we've been thinking about that at the staff level. We've talked to you about potential land acquisition in the past, so let's focus on that too. If this isn't the type of partnership that you're looking for, um, land acquisition is one other, um, one of the challenges with land acquisition is again, we're constrained to that riverfront crossings environment where prices are, are elevated quite a bit. So I, you know, we have, uh, roughly $6 million in this fund. Um, that dollars, those dollars may not stretch as far as you think.

Again, this property that we're looking at now, the purchase price is 5.1. Um, there's a 1.59 acres for sale and a different part of the riverfront. Crossings district that's listed at 4.7 million. Um, so that would be, um, uh, utilize the majority of the funds to, to assemble land for a project of this scale, right? Certainly you could assemble land for a smaller project, but if you want to get something of this scale, you're talking in that 4 to $6 million range. Um, in addition, what's changed over the last couple of years? Um, we've committed to building that Summit Street project. We've committed, committed to taking on the Vasq partnership with the county and the VA. And we've also purchased a number of townhomes to add to our public housing inventory. So we have a bit of a limited capacity at this point to buy another property and start developing that, which is why staff started to shift our thinking from land acquisition and development over to this public private partnership In addition, you could look at building acquisition. So can we purchase units? Can we purchase an entire building in the riverfront crossings that would be allowable? Um, you could create new affordable housing opportunities where they might not exist in a particular part of riverfront crossings or in a specific building, but that doesn't add to the well documented supply. Um, challenge that we have. So, um, staff has not really pursued this option with any vigor. Um, because we're really trying to focus on producing more supply along with this effort, um, we also have limited impact on just economic benefit, right? We'd likely be potentially taking something off the tax rolls instead of encouraging more to come on the tax rolls and support our services. There's not much on in the on the market right now. Um,

there is one just outside the riverfront crossings district that would not be eligible for our funds. Um, but it's close and probably provides a comp. So you can kind of understand what, what kind of the magnitude of cost a 1971 construction with 442 total units is listed at 3.65 million. That gives you an idea of how far those riverfront crossings, uh, funds could stretch. So looking at all those options, I think the value proposition for this public private partnership is exceptionally strong. Um, with those that riverfront crossings, those fee in lieu reminder, we've collected fee off of 68 units or what would have been 68 units, uh, at 60% Ami for ten years. And with this project does is it, uh, produces 168 units. Um, and that we're excluding that 70% units because those would not be eligible under our riverfront crossings program. So 168 units at 60 or 50 a m I income limits. And we're getting a minimum of 30%, uh, we're getting a 30 year affordability period. Uh, so three times that of what would be would have been required had these properties put those units on site. So we're getting a high volume of rent controlled units to the market, to the market as quickly as possible in a very desirable location. Um, think about accessibility to, um, employment centers. This is about as good as it gets. We'll have full property tax generation. We expect that property tax, annual property tax, um, once you net out the existing properties on there, it's an additional $450,000 per year. Is our conservative estimate on what that might look like going forward. That would support again, all of our taxing bodies here. We talked about the recycling of the the loan. One thing that

Baker Tilly did for us is they they try to capture a kind of a return on your investment number. Um, and what they do is they look at for every dollar loaned, how much are we getting back to the city, whether that's loan repayments, property taxes. And they also put that rent differential in there. What is the the rent? What's the difference between the rental caps of the Lighttech program and market rate. And they put that in that public benefit equation. And their their analysis shows that they would estimate that for every dollar that we're loaning, we're getting $4.4 $0.85, uh, back. So that's not an exact science, but it shows that, uh, at least from a performance standpoint, we're leveraging quite a bit, which again, is one of those strategic plan goals. So just kind of end with this because, uh, while, while we're looking for your guidance today to say, um, yes, move forward with, um, the formal agreements that would come back to you for that final vote. We also just want to continue to remind you that staff is staying exceptionally busy and focused on doing a whole number of things at this time. And we realize the importance of, um, hitting all of these different areas as we move forward to achieve your, your housing goals. Happy to circle back, answer any questions or clarify things.

Just a framing question. First of all, I'm very excited about this. And I think there's a lot of effort that went into this. I'm very, very happy to see this as an option. Um, but I am curious about what we're looking at. If it is this is the package that we decide we want to move forward with, or if this is a beginning of a negotiation kind of thing. And how would you characterize that? We know Baker Tilly has looked at this. They've reviewed it. It sounds, from what you've said, that they think it's it's fair. It's a good deal. I don't know, just tell me where we're at with what we're being proposed.

Yeah. This is, uh, you know, this is many months of back and forth negotiations, analysis. So I would say that this is a near final, um, uh, position here. I say near because we really haven't entered into those discussions on creating loan agreements or anything like that. So there could be some nuanced things, but the, the, the analysis that led to, um, determining that it was going to be a loan, um, and what that loan amount should be, how it should be secured, the interest rate, that's all been the product of many months of discussion. And we did look at alternatives. We looked at, um, tax exemption, uh, alternatives. We looked at grant alternatives where we're not getting those dollars back. Ultimately, we landed at the loan is the best thing for the city. >> Thanks

Can you go back to the affordability slide? Yes. Project. Yeah, I just want to ask you because I think something here said that this will be accepting vouchers and 50%, 60% sound like really here look good. But my question will be like, based on the proforma that they provide, how much is one bedroom? How much is two bedroom and how much three bedroom. And is this comparing to the vouchers? Somebody have a voucher? Can they live there? >> Yeah, yeah. Compared to the payment standards. Yeah. Um so it's hard to project out what these, what the rents would be in 2028, 2029 when a project like this could be, um, delivered. So the 2025 lighttech rents are the best that we would go on right now. So for one bedroom at, uh, at that 60%, you're talking 1330 is the rent >> The voucher is not 1300 for somebody who have, you know, one bedroom vouchers, right? The voucher limit is less way less than that.

Yes. Yeah, it could be, you could have, you could have a disconnect between voucher standards and that payment. Uh, and the maximum rents there Okay. But how is that going to help us help the people who have voucher if they the section eight, are they going to say, no, this is more than your voucher.

Yeah. If if that's the case, they wouldn't have to accept the voucher now they're still going to fill those units at that rent cap. So it's still providing needed housing with a rental cap. But if they're not, if those vouchers if there's a disconnect there 3 or 4 years from now, you might have a situation in which they accept some vouchers and they don't. Um, in other cases. >> Yeah. Because what I know from Lighttech program, my experience like all 60% and up most likely will be more than the vouchers for the people. That's why I, I don't know, but yeah, it's, it's, I'm not against the project by any means. It's really like we need to have more housing, uh, of any of all kind. Uh, but when you said this is going to be accepting commitment to accept the voucher, I was just thinking about that. >> Yes. I appreciate you clarifying that. So their commitment would depend on that, that payment standard. Right? So, um, they're not going to deny anybody just because they have a voucher. But if that payment standard doesn't meet what their allowable rent is, they wouldn't be obligated to take that person. They may choose to, they may choose to work with that household, but wouldn't be obligated to

Um. >> One of the. No. Go ahead. >> Um, One of the things, especially since we're talking about go bonds later tonight, uh, thinking about risk of, of our loan. And I think on one of the slides, maybe the one before this or the one after it talked about the loan being secured by land. Is that. Yes. >> There we go. Um, so in a practical sense, does that mean if, God forbid, the company that does this ten years down the line goes bankrupt, that we would get that 5.1 million balloon back? Or would it be the typical situation where all creditors would get some percentage of the value?

We're not going to be first in line with this type of loan. So we're going to be, um, down the food chain a little bit on terms of who, you know, who their creditors would be. Um, so there's risk, there's going to be risk, um, with this, there's a non repayment risk that we have to be able to, uh, be comfortable with. That's one of the reasons we worked with Baker Tilly is to assess that risk. You know what based on what they're showing, um, what do you what does Baker Tilly see in the, uh, the annex pro forma? Is it, uh, is it on very thin margins or does it look like a strong project? So yes, there's, there's some risk that we may not recoup all of this. I would say there's risk whether we were providing a grant, a tax exemption, a tiff, um, offering all of those, uh, different mechanisms carry some level of risk. Um, with this one, I, I feel, I feel good and I think Baker Tilly feels really good that that risk is, is minimal, but it's absolutely there. >> Um

Uh, just out of curiosity, I hear a lot that like what you said when it comes to tech projects that after the 15 year mark, the vast majority of the time they choose to extend to 30 years. Um, I was just wondering how that calculation is made by these companies and like what comes into play? Uh, is there a way that we could encourage that? Or is it just kind of up to them? Or do they have to apply again? Or I'm sure.

Yeah, that's not something I am, uh, very well up to speed on. I think where we pulled that, where we felt comfortable leaning on that statement is that the federal government has, um, kind of issued, issued reports talking about lighttech and assessing the success of Lighttech. And, um, I think vast majority is the word that they're using, but, um, I seem to recall that it's 85, 90% or more extend to that 30 year period. I don't know that what that internal calculation is. Um, with, um, with the companies that do that, um, we could probably follow up with you and, and I'm sure Baker Tilly or Time landed on those parameters since we like it to be much more aggressive today yeah so when the >> I was being developed. There was a committee developed. I think the council created a committee. I'm going on memory a little bit here. Council created a committee of staff, maybe a couple of councilors and private sector individuals, and they kind of went through the exercise of, how can we make this work to the point where the city's realizing the affordable housing benefit, but the, um, the requirements aren't so significant that it's going to stifle the development too. So they were looking at the increased density that the zoning was providing. And comparing that to the difference in, um, the rent controlled units, the 10% units, and the market rate. And ultimately, I think it was a kind of a committee workshopping this to say, I think we can do ten years or, um, or I'm sorry, 10% at ten years. And then we created that fee in lieu option and that rate that they pay that fee in lieu rate, which changes every couple of years. Staff updates that with, with the council every couple of years is really calculated to,

um, acknowledge the difference between the market rate and the rent cap, um, that we, that we impose. So what's the value of that over ten years? And I think we've been anywhere from the low 80s to 80,000 for that fee in lieu, up to maybe 112 or 115,000. >> Per unit. You had a slide on that. >> Per unit. So if you were to push that to 20 years, you would expect that that becomes a bigger financial gap for, um, the private sector to, to take on, um, which, you know, could or could not be a development barrier. Um, and also that fee in lieu, um, would be adjusted as well. I have a follow up history question if you're done.

Well, I just have one more history question. If you, if you know, or maybe our city attorney knows, I seem to recall there was something about the zoning and the affordability requirement, like trying to balance how much additional value the landowners could realize when we were doing the sort of mass rezoning with the district? Or is that. >> Well, like, Jeff, I'm going off of memory as well. But I know that there was some discussion in our office about making sure that we didn't have a regulatory taking, and the rationale was that we could impose this requirement for affordable housing for two reasons. One, because inevitably the property. I mean, it's fully developed, of course. So it's redevelopment by its very nature, the properties that are being redeveloped are almost always going to be affordable, not by mandate, but by practical reality. Two is the riverfront crossings form based code. Um, or I should just say the riverfront crossings zoning code allowed for this significant upscaling and up zoning and greater density. That really provided a lot of value to the homeowners. And so that was, I should say, the property owners. And so that that's the trade off that made it worthwhile. Now, obviously, there's a balance there. Um, we couldn't have said, well, we would like 50%, you know, to be affordable. That probably would not have flown. Is that responsive to your question?

Yeah, that at some point, if we imposed requirements that were too much, it would be a taking, right? >> There's not a bright line there, right? Yeah. >> I'd also, you know, part of our strategy when we adopted the code is we didn't do a large scale rezoning of the riverfront crossings. We didn't automatically bring those properties in. So a lot of properties in the riverfront crossing are under a more our older traditional code. And it's really the property owner's decision to come in. And so they, what they do is they would look at what can I build in this current code that I have and what can I build in the affordable, I'm sorry, in the riverfront crossings code. And they have to see that development potential there. Even with the affordable housing requirements. And what we're seeing is that those developers are choosing a lot. Many of them are choosing to forgo that traditional zoning district and come into the Riverfront crossings district and work with the city to satisfy that affordable housing requirement. >> So thank you.

Two part question about the history of this, um, was there at the time that this was developed or now any requirement that the housing be permanently affordable, or would this project as a 15 or 30 year lighttech project, satisfied the intent of that? Uh, that requirement.

The fee in lieu does not does not mandate, um, the, the code or any council policy does not mandate that we use fee in lieu for, um, permanent affordable housing, but I can tell you for at least the last, you know, since, since the councils have been working with this, that's always been a discussion is if we're getting that fee in lieu, um, how can we make sure we are going above and beyond that 10%, ten years and there's been no council that said it would be, you know, okay, let's target 10% for ten years on a different project. So how can we get more units? How can we get a longer affordability period? And ideally, how can we drive the deepest level of affordability, the most units and permanent affordable housing, right? All those three things are important. So, um, uh, it's really discretion for the council at the time the decision is made. There's no hard policy.

And the follow up to that is right now we're required to spend this money within Riverfront Crossing. However, if we get 15 or 30 years of affordability out of this fund, is it feasible or plausible for us than to reuse that money in the future for anywhere that we would assure a future council were to choose? >> You want to? I would be deeply hesitant to. Uh. >> Say that we would certainly want to research that. As I mentioned earlier, one of the rationale was we're taking away affordable housing in riverfront crossings by redeveloping the property. And so to use the money and then park it far on the west side or something like that, that would, um, make our argument more difficult. But a 30 year affordability. Would you? That's a.

That's on the other side of the argument. It's a good point. It's a fair argument. >> So the answer is it depends.

Yes. That's right. Okay. As as a lawyer, I'm sure they talked in the first day of law school. You should always answer every question with it depends. >> And I'm not proposing that. I'm just interested in the flexibility affordance of this proposal. So >> Um, I. When it comes to the, uh, the current tenants that live at the 24 properties that are, um, going to be demolished for this, um, I talked with a few of them and, uh, I didn't know this, but, um, and after reviewing some of the lease, some of the leases that they have, uh, there's a clause in the lease of a, not until August, but like a one month, uh, because they were informed that this could happen like two years ago, the tenants that currently live there, but when I talked with some of them that, you know, these conversations were gaining steam, they had not been made aware of that. So it's been two years and there's been this clause in there that, um, we could kick you out in a month at the drop of a hat if we want. So I that's a little bit concerning for me because, um, I originally thought, you know, at least they would have until like the next general cycle to find additional housing. But I think we all know that part of the problem is finding housing is sometimes hard in Iowa, and especially when it's not during a particular, not during a regular cycle. So I fear that if we, uh, do this, then we, um, again, I, you know, this isn't naysaying or anything. It's just bringing up, uh, if there's anything that we can do or we've done in the past for situations when it comes to relocating tenants, I know that there is certain maybe federal

or state guidelines, but I don't know if there's anything that we could do that could be extra to help people out. If they are all of a sudden, you know, they've lived at these, this this place for two years, and now they got a month to figure it out. Um, that's just a conversation I would want to have with the current tenants. Yeah, sure.

Yeah. Um, relocation assistance has been something the council has taken up from time to time. Uh, and in this case, um, my preference would be that, uh, we go back to the annex and ask them for what their plan is and, uh, see if we're satisfied with whatever plan they may have in place. And if they're not, either encourage them to do more or think about how we might supplement if we're not happy with that. But I haven't, I have not had those conversations with annex yet.

Okay. >> What is the time frame for this best case scenario? >> Um, I think, uh, that they would like to probably get started with some, uh, type of site work, either late fall or into the spring of next year. So that when I look, when I think about your chart number two, that shows a sad little bar for 2026. We, we may not. Yeah. >> We may not get the yes.

Uh, a project of this scale is, as you all know, and seeing, you know, these, these, these types of scale projects move up. You're, um, you're well over a year of construction. So, um, you know, it's hard, hard to say, but 2028, 2029 delivery in terms of when these units might be occupied would probably be a pretty, um, optimistic view.

Um, speaking of, I love the right of first refusal. I think that was a, a great thing for staff to work for and put in there. Um, I think about, uh, Washington d c s right of first refusal there. Topa law. Um, and how it has specific requirements in there that this needs to be like fair priced, you know, um, because they, you know, a landlord could just say, oh, yeah, we are offering it to you, but it's for $1 trillion, you know, and then, uh, they will sell it to somebody else, make it easier. I just didn't know if that's something that is, is or could be in the agreement that it needs to be, uh, some type of stipulation that it has to be fair. I know that's a very broad term. >> We can look at that we haven't got into those specifics generally first, right of refusal. Um, as I would as I would expect it to, to look in an agreement would be that at any time, if they have a buyer, submit to them an offer that they're ready to accept, they would have to bring that offer to us and we would have the ability to essentially match that and jump ahead there. So they would have to have a bona fide purchase offer from somebody for for that to trigger. But we could look at as kind of falls into the city attorney's office, they could look at, uh, different language and, um, to, to ensure that the city is in the best position possible when it comes to that first rate >> So this property has already been rezoned, right? So the, the, the item that we would eventually be voting on is what a loan agreement or how, what, what's it going to. >> Be a loan agreement or development agreement with? >> Um.

Yeah, something like that. >> Okay. But we'll see it. >> Before. Yeah. >> It depends. It depends. >> It depends.

And so what you're looking for from us today is essentially direction about to pursue. >> Yeah. I mean, there's been a lot of work put into this, um, in the last six months or more, I would say. And um, the annexes to the point where they're making decisions on whether to close on this property and if they're going to invest considerable amount of taking this to a final design. Um, and then from a staff standpoint, we're talking about a significant resource. Ask from the city attorney's office primarily, um, to, to structure this agreement and bring it to you in, in a few months. So, um, we don't want to spin those wheels if it's not something that you're, that you're interested in. Um, we're not asking for a formal vote tonight, but if, if there's a consensus that this framework is a positive way forward, then we'd be anxious to take it to the next step. >> Sure. Um.

Council, do we want to. Have some conversation? I really appreciate the conversation and the concerns that were brought up. And I'm still and I think those are all manageable concerns. I'm very much in support of this. I think of the sad little bar at the beginning and how we've got to do better. And this is seems like a great opportunity. It sounds like a lot of work has been done on this, that, um, indicates this is a fair deal for us. Um, and it translates that money that's currently sitting into a bank into housing in Iowa City that we can spend in the future, a future council. I hope none of us are up here in 30 years, but, um, I'm, I'm very supportive of this.

We've had a number of conversations in our meetings with Jeff Sears. I think we all have about this. And one of the things that came up this historical perspective especially was very, very helpful in terms of the council, since we've been engaging with these affordability requirements, we're always looking for more. And so, you know, one of the conversations that we had and, um, councilor, I don't mean to speak for you, so please jump in, but, you know, you brought up the idea of like, well, you know, using it on this project is not as deeply affordable or not as long term as we would typically wish. And so I really liked the idea of, let's use this money now for this. It's in riverfront crossings. It gets us what we need. But let's also accelerate the conversations. We're not waiting until year 16 when the money is repaid to be continuing to look for, you know, in those other areas, whether it's land acquisition or building acquisition, the things that you went through at the beginning of the presentation. So I just wanted to add that to the conversation just so that we can. And one thing I know the mayor's brought up, he's not here right now, but the having like a funded CIP item for affordable housing, I know is something he's mentioned a number of times. So I don't know if it would be in the form of that or some other policy, but. >> I've considered or I've thought about the, the idea of, um, um, I, I don't know. >> An item.

Or just like an RFP or something for a particular amount in riverfront crossings that matches this investment. So if someone comes forward with like, hey, I can make this amount of money go this far, and then we would jump on that or I know we went through a lot with our going through a lot with 22 South Linn. But um, so, um, but that's just something I was thinking about. >> Uh, yeah. Thank you Councilor Bergus for bringing that up. Yeah. You know, the more I calculate this, we're not talking here about affordable housing. Let's be clear. But we need all kinds of housing. That's why I'm excited about this project. But also at the same time, just like looking at 27,800 being given a loan per unit, uh, you know, sometimes I just like close my eyes and think if we give almost 30,000, if we give it to somebody who wants to buy two bedroom apartment, which is currently, uh, some of them listed for 112. And we, if we subsidize them with a loan of 28 or $30,000 and 1% interest for 16 years to return it back, that will make it like $1,741 per year. And if they're paying it monthly, they will pay only 145 to the city, and they get their own home, which is affordable and everything. And we will get 183 unit to. That's why using like the, you know, the, the fund from Riverfront Crossing, it's okay because we have to spend it there. That's fine. But if we're really aggressive like this, we need, we need also to be like more aggressive and match the same fund that we use it for all kind of housing to a very affordable housing.

That's why I really want the council and the council to think about, okay, can we take from the reserve at the same time, uh, like matching $5.1 million and name it, put it aside for affordable housing because I believe anyone who pay more than 30% from their income doesn't matter what kind of house they live at. This is not supposed to be. They supposed to be like 30% or below. So we can call things affordable for them. Uh, that's why, you know, the more I think about it, the more I said, okay, no problem. We can subsidize this. We can use this, give them this fund. But at the same time, let us like, name it from the reserve. That $5.1 million match to do something else about affordable housing

Yeah, I appreciate, uh, those comments. Um, and I think we are doing some things, um, in both those areas that councilors talked about the, the CIP item, this is the first time in my tenure that our CIP has included an affordable housing project with the Summit Street project being partially, uh, being in that CIP. So that's, uh, that's exciting. And then just today, it's, I'm glad you brought that up. Just today, Tracy and I were discussing the South District homeownership program, and we're about to put two units on the market. If they're not on the market already. But I think the list price is for those duplexes are 170,000 roughly. And then through our down payment program and forgiveness program, you know, ultimately they would be the future buyers would be financing about 100, 110,000 to get into those duplexes, which speaks exactly to the kind of the vision that you have for those those loans. So, um, I think we're doing some of those things and happy to try to accelerate them if that's kind of the direction that, uh, that we want to go to. And clearly, you all know that we've been given from the voters a great opportunity with loss to do some of those types of things. >> You know, and I just want to make sure that you also understand. Yes, let's keep doing all the things right now. I'm not suggesting like doing like certain kind of projects. I'm encouraging that we need to all of us to agree that we're going to take five, $5.1 million from the reserve to put it aside for affordable housing. That's exactly what I'm asking the council.

You and I talked about that. But which which reserve are you referring to? >> Yes, general reserve, because, you know, like we have money there and I talk a little bit about this to Jaffa. And he said, yeah, we can take it from like from there. There is no problem. But I want you guys to give that directions.

I'd be happy to give that some thought, but I don't know that. >> I think it's backwards thinking we should know what the project is and the thing we want to build and do, and then borrow them, come up with a project, right? >> I mean, like earmarked, you know, so. >> Just having money in reserve so that it doesn't get kicked down the road. In perpetuity to say, yes, we'll have money, but we're never actually going forth to it. I mean, I see your point as well, but there is something to be said about our commitment to know that we have money in reserve that will. Be signaling commitment. >> Yeah. Yes. And I think that that's. >> Yes. Exactly. Point.

Yeah. >> Before we go to sorry, I mean, I think that we've had a lot of head nods and I also agree, um, I've seen this project or heard it and, and have been thinking about it as, um, in previous councils tenures, there was a lot of conversation about the missing middle right. And I think if this is like the multiplex version of missing middle, it is not deeply affordable, but people at all stages. To your point, talking about 30% regardless of what your income is, is not easy for a lot of people here. And so I believe that this is at once incredibly important to get this amount for, to get over $4 back in return is insane and wonderful. Um, and then also that we will be able to, given the location and, um, and who the folks are who live in that area. I used to live in that area when I was a grad student. It's grad students, young professionals, young families. It, I think that this is a really good project for that. So I just wanted to sort of put my own $0.02 worth in before we sort of veered into talking about. Yes. And what else can we do? But I just, I, I, I know that there have been some conversations about that. The because the 4% has been secured, the city doesn't really need to contribute in this way. I would counter that perspective by saying that at once, we know how much we need housing and our reputation is lagging in relation to how the Council feels about development. Iowa City has a long time reputation of being quite difficult to work with from developers. Um, and I feel like this has been months of negotiation and of hard work and of collaboration. And if at this point, honestly, given the

benefits that we could be getting, as well as what the developer wants to garner from it, we really are talking about both sides of our mouths. If we go back on this, and I'm pleased that we're not.

Yeah, I think I would agree with that. And I think, too, that some of the stuff about the specific project that really jump out at me as strong positives, uh, leveraging our, our, our funds to actually get the building going. So if we were to buy a piece of property for this amount of money or for some considerable fraction of what we have, we'd still have to start the process of finding some other somebody else or come up with, you know, for this many what another $52 million? Um, you know, using this as a model, right? And so, you know, that would be another, you know, we wouldn't be talking about getting a loan in 15 years. We'd be talking about the apartments finally coming open in 15 years. So, um, and you know, I'm very aware too that this particular site could have a whole bunch more housing on it today. Uh, if some things had gone different. Um, uh, you know, in the past and actually, you know, I mean, it was the majority of the council was in favor of that earlier project. So that's a, that's history. But that actually, I remember that. And so having this, this property move forward and getting those, getting those into our community, you know, I think is good. The fact that there's a partnership already with the housing trust, I think that really speaks well for this. Um, yeah, so I think I also was one of the head nods and now I've put some words behind that. So. >> And I just really want to commend staff and you know, even just the kind of the culture of how we're talking about this, that with the depth of unit shortage that we have, which I agree, Josh, that that little side bar is sad. Um, that we're not pushing forward with like supply at any cost. So thank you for knowing that we're in a place where we're still getting this additional value. I think that's great. >> Cool So. >> Yeah, if there is consensus

with the council want to do the same thing. So it looks like consensus from the council for those conversations to move forward. >> And and the reserve. And and the reserve. Let's bring that up now I think there was I'm not sure of the head nods um. >> Are you talking about the emergency reserve? What reserve are you talking about? Just a general fund. >> The general fund. Okay >> Yeah, I mean.

That's and so in terms of next steps and direction, would this be something that we would ask staff to come up with something that would indicate that there would be, uh, a carve out for a future for affordable housing? What would that look like and what.

Bringing up the pending list here, because a couple meetings ago, I believe, um, yes, under other topics in your pending work session list, you have a review of financial reserve policies. Um, I think that's a good time to look at it. You've got your general fund reserve, which we have a policy to be between 25 and 35%. We're almost always at that 35%. Matter of fact, it's when we go over the 35% that it creates opportunities to fund the emergency reserve and the facility's reserve. So the council has complete discretion on reserve policies, right? You should you should set those reserves where you are comfortable with them being. Um, but I think it's I think it would be helpful to look at them holistically and how they interplay with each other, what those purposes are. Um, the emergency reserve, for example, was set up in 2013. And maybe that policy has been tweaked once or twice, but not in the last 8 or 9 years. So to look at that, to look at the general fund, 25 to 35%, is that still the right range? And if you want it to be 25 to 30%, you know, staff can advise you on what kind of money that frees up and what kind of risk you may see in reducing from a 35 to a 30. What that could mean for a credit rating or a crisis. We can we can provide you all that. But ultimately, yes, you have that full discretion.

In changing that policy. It's just a simple ordinance. We Resolution the resolution. Okay. But we would still discuss it, notice it, vote on it. Yeah, it yeah. >> I'd be open to the discussion. Sure. I'm not really in a position where I think that one course of action, like I'm not at a place to commit to a course of action, but to talk about it and go through that stuff. Uh, you know, I'm very much okay with that. And I really appreciate that approach because I think, you know, as a public body, I think, you know, making sure that our decisions are well reasoned, especially when it comes to financial responsibility. Um, and just all different kinds of ways. The climate we're in. I really appreciate that, that way of going about it.

I also like the timing of having this conversation after we know what's going on with property tax reform at the state level, because my understanding is that reserve and facilities fund was generated after a previous property tax reform. The emergency reserve was the facility's was kind of a separate issue unrelated to property tax reform. But emergency reserve was created in wake of the 2013 property tax reform. >> Right? Right, right. So it feels like this is the time to talk about it. We'll have a new property tax scheme. Whatever it is. And another week. >> Your guess is as good.

As mine. >> So while this is a return to agenda items, um, in terms of looking at the info packet, if we go back to the pending work topics, can we move that pending topic. >> The review of the financials, you can schedule it. >> We can talk about this sooner. You can, you know, once. You agree in this climate, and for everything that councilors have said, that an open conversation and also looking at what our possibilities are in relation to, um, sort of what's going on holistically makes a lot of sense. Um, and then also to recognize that we have that discretion. >> Can we, would the council be comfortable if we, if staff committed to providing you that information for one of the May meetings? I'd like to talk to staff before I say we can do it in the first meeting in May, but I'm comfortable in saying we can at least get to the second meeting in May. >> And that's two meetings from now. Is that acceptable? >> It's fine with.

Me. 19th to talk about reserves. After the budget, because. >> The budgets tonight. Yeah, I know, but, uh, I was hoping to create a line item and not only would it started with a 5.1 million for affordable housing and continue to add to it, I think the mayor is very interested on that too. And myself. And I think we have enough people to do that. How can we do it if we want to do that? How can we do that? >> Can't we do an amendment. An amendment during the budget conversation tonight? Yeah. Like, um, I'd want to I want to talk with the finance staff, maybe between meetings and get you that leading into the formal meeting, if that's okay.

If there's going to be a bunch of amendments for the budget, I guess I'd also like advice from you or our attorney on, um, what's ethical and legal for amendments. I mean, we've been talking about the budget for, for months and now having offering amendments at the last meeting, I feel uncomfortable, like proposing a budget. That's not what we've noticed to the public. >> We

I don't know. >> I just don't know if it's I just don't know if it's ethical to do that. I mean, we we have had four months to say, let's make this. I'm not saying I'm against your idea. I actually think I would support it. I'm against sort of the procedural element of, hey, this is what we're going to do. This is what we're going to do. Telling the public about it, giving them notice. And then at the meeting where we're supposed to adopt it, say, hey, wait, I'd like to change. I, I, it doesn't feel like the right way to do business to me. >> You know, if I'm going to talk about myself for my ask, if I'm asking you to reduce the budget from any kind of another department, that could be really interrupting. And I agree. But I'm asking to take money from the reserve and make it like money is sitting there and we are adding a new line item that's, you know, if we are doing something good, we can do it any time. And if we are not affecting any another kind of budget, I think, you know, it's not going to be like a big of a deal

That's what I would. And I'm sorry to interrupt. I guess what I would say is it seems like we have strayed pretty far from the work session agenda. Speaking of items that are noticed up, um, I would adopt, uh, Jeff's policy or just proposal that we, um, he and I and finance staff talk between meetings so that we can understand what's available as an option, both for. Well, I assume you're talking about the fiscal year 27 budget. So we are under some constraints. And I want to have a better understanding about what those are so that we can give you good answers. Um. >> During the formal meeting. Yes. >> Thank you. Perhaps even before if we have enough time. All right. Yeah. >> Thank you.

Thank you very much. >> Is there anything else on this? Okay. Um, our last work session agenda is council updates on assigned boards, commissions and committees. >> Sean and I met with, um, our fire chief and our police chief. We both serve on the board. So it was from that. That's why it's an update on boards and committees. All right. Um, so, uh, the board voted last meeting to engage a consultant around replacing the CAD, which is computer aided dispatch system, which will be a very large undertaking. And so we wanted to talk with our chiefs about Iowa City's needs in that process. And I thought it was a really good conversation that we had. Um, and we'll make sure that, you know, Iowa City as well represented. In, you know, what needs to happen. And we, I think it was very educational just in terms of how cumbersome data migration is, which we all know probably from some aspects of our lives.

But yeah. Agreed. Thank you to staff and, uh, and to the chiefs for, uh, you know, meeting with us and giving us some, some insight that we wouldn't otherwise have. Um, one other thing is, uh, a big undertaking. Um, and Jack is, of course, we all, it's one of the entities that we all, uh, you know, pay into as taxpayers in this county. Uh, but it's also something that is sorely, sorely needed and it will improve the response to the public ultimately. And the way that our various different organizations, like 19 different. Something like that in the county that Jack handles, uh, between fire EMS and law enforcement agencies. So yeah, no, it's, it's an exciting thing to see happen >> Anyone else? Thank you. Okay. Now remind me, since we are done with work session, do we actually adjourn? >> Yes. If you've exhausted all of your topics for the work session, and I believe you have, if that's the consensus of the council, then we adjourn.

We are adjourned until the formal session at 6:00.. Bang the thing to make it official. I don't get to bang. >> Anything.

All right. >> Do we know who's accepting? Do we know who's accepting? >> Yeah. All right. Well, welcome to your city hall. It is 6 p.m. On April 21st, 2026. And I'm going to call the City of Iowa City meeting to order. Roll call, please. Alter here. >> Bergus here. Harmsen here Mo here. Here. >> Here.

Here. >> All right. Well, again, welcome to your city hall. To those of you that are here in council chambers and to those that are joining us virtually welcome as well. We're going to get started on item number two proclamations to A is our Arab American Heritage Month. And this will be read by, uh, Councilor Mazahir Salih >> Whereas Arab Americans have contributed to the cultural, economic and civic life for the United States for generations with impact across fields such as business, education, health care, public service, and the arts. And we are at the Arab American community reflects a rich range of culture, language and traditions that continue to shape the string communities across the nation. And whereas Iowa City is the home for fervent and growing Arab American populations whose leadership, entrepreneurship, and community engagement enrich the characters and the vitality of our city. And whereas Arab American Heritage Month provides an opportunity to recognize these contributions, celebrate cultural heritage, and honors the stories and experiences that have helped shape our shared community. And whereas this observance also encourage greater understanding and connections, while acknowledging the importance of fostering a city where all residents feel seen, valued and respected. And whereas the city of Iowa City remains remains committed to building a welcome and growing community that promote mutual respect among all people. Whereas they join all Americans in the desire to see a peaceful

and diverse society where every individual treated equally and feels safe, and well. And now, therefore, I Mazahir Salih behalf of our mayor Bruce Teague. Uh, do hereby Berkeley Mayor, April 2026 to be Arab American Heritage Month in Iowa City and encourage all residents to join me in learning about the history, culture and the contribution of Arab, American. And in celebrating this many Bruce Teague that strings our city. And here to accept is Vienna and Newman. Yeah

Thank you. Yes.

I want to thank Mazahir. She is an Arab American. She is one of us. We really appreciate her service to our community. It's awesome that we have hundreds of Arab American families in Iowa City and around the state of Iowa. We came to this state more than 100 years ago, and we've integrated in this community for a long, long time. We have the Mother Mosque in Cedar Rapids not too far from here, and we have our church, Saint George, Saint Raphael, Saint George Orthodox Church in Cedar Rapids, which is more than 100 years old. So our community has integrated and we live the Muslims and Christians together in this community and back home. We know that the American culture included Arabs for their contributions to humanity in the curriculum and in elsewhere. And Vienna was working with the city. School district to to adjust the the curriculum to represent us as much as they represent other groups as well. So the Arab American history is, is a very ancient. I come from Syria. I was just reading about Queens and Nubia 230 years before Christ, and she ruled the land from Tadmor, from Palmyra. And she. She was the ruler of of the land extended from Persia out west to Rome. So we have a heritage of respecting women, respecting science, respecting contribution to humanity. And we also represent now peace in this community. We've worked for the Palestinian conflict in this community for a long time, and we lobby for peaceful coexistence. Unlike AIPAC, who lobbied for the Iraq War and for the war on Palestine and now the war on Iran, and we are spend trillions of dollars on those wars for for nothing, basically, for getting our reputation muddied in the whole globe. And now we see it around the globe and our reputation in Europe and Asia and elsewhere in the country. So our community have a noble message for America, and

we hope that America will support us. And we thank the City Council for approving this resolution. Thank you very much. Thank you. >> Welcome.

Hi. My name is Karima and I am from Tiffin. I am, I am coming today from Tiffin to, uh, to thank you to thank every one of you for this, uh, recognition. Um, I came here like more than 30 years ago. I'm originally from Algeria, North Africa, and, uh, we, we built a our, our children are born here and raised here. We're part of this community. We are so blessed to be here. And we just this is our community and this is, uh, we're very happy to be here. We. And thank you so much. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Welcome. >> Well, I appreciate being here. Coming from Tiffin, she got so excited to hear that we're getting this tonight. So thank you. Karima. My name is Viana Qadoura. Um good evening, city Council members. We extend our sincere thanks tonight to Mayor Teague and the Iowa City Council for proclaiming April as an Arab American Heritage Month. At a time when many. Our. When many. In our local Arab community are experiencing adversity and loss. This recognition is deeply meaningful. It affirms our presence in here and our dignity and our belonging to the city. Iowa's own history reflects a long standing connection to Arab heritage. The city of Elkader, which is the seat of the seat of Clayton County, just located northeast of Iowa, was named after Emir Abd al-Qadir Al-jaza'iri, a 19th century figure admired for his courage and humanitarian values. I haven't known this. This is a city that's located here in Iowa. That legacy reminds us that Arab stories have been here and long been part of this state's fabric. Long ago.

And just a short distance from here in Cedar Rapids, as he mentioned, stands, um, the Mother Mosque of America, which is the oldest purpose built mosque in the United States, established by Arab Lebanese who came here hundreds of years ago. It is a powerful reminder that Arab American roots in Iowa are not recent, but deeply woven into the history of this state. We are grateful for all those who sees and celebrate our shared humanity, regardless of language, religion, skin color, or ethnicity. April is a National Arab American Heritage Month, a time to formally recognize the achievements and contributions of Arab Americans and to celebrate our rich heritage that continues to shape our world From advances in medicine to modern innovators such as Huda Zoghbi in neuroscience and Arab contributions spans centuries in literature and public thoughts. Voices like Edward Said have profoundly shaped how we understand culture, identity and representation, challenging stereotypes and advocating for truth and justice. Through his groundbreaking work, Orientalism said, reshaped the global discourse and founded the field of postcolonial studies, leaving a lasting impact on scholarship and public life. Today, Arab Americans continue to serve at the highest levels of public life. Leaders such Rashida Tlaib in Congress and many others demonstrate the growing presence and impact of Arab Americans in shaping national policy and civil lives. Civic life, building bridges between communities, and advocating for equity and representations. These contributions are not footnotes. They are part of the foundation of our global society. Today. We honor that legacy with pride and gratitude. We are grateful for this proclamation as it stands, as a reminder that we cannot erase the past to build our future. But we can celebrate it to help

guide and strengthen what lies ahead of us. Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Thank you

We're going to move on to proclamation two B, which is Arbor Day. And this is going to be read by Councilor Josh Moe. >> Whereas the coming of spring produces a renewal of interest in tree planting for beauty, shade, conservation and many other purposes beneficial to all people And whereas the observation of Arbor Day has long been characterized by the planting and preservation of trees, and whereas trees in Iowa City beautify our community, increase property values, reduce pollution, lower energy costs and enhance the economic vitality of businesses, areas. And whereas, because trees absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen, having a diverse and healthy tree population constitutes a major part of Iowa City's effort to mitigate against climate change. And whereas trees can provide natural air conditioning, the evaporation from a single tree can produce the cooling effect of ten room size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day. And whereas evergreen trees can be used to reduce wind speed and thus loss of heat from our homes in the winter by as much as 10 to 50%. Now therefore, I Josh Moe on behalf of Bruce Teague Mayor of Iowa City, do hereby proclaim April 24th, 2026 to be Arbor Day in the City of Iowa City and hereby urge all community members to participate in tree planting and preservation projects throughout the year. And accepting this award is Tyler Baird from our Parks and Forestry Department

Welcome. >> Thanks. Thank you. Councilor Moe and Mayor Teague and Council. We thank you for supporting um funding for trees throughout the year. Um, our forestry part of our parks and forestry division, um, and just in general, um, trees in our communities, um, we have, um, this proclamation is a key part of keeping our tree city USA designation. And just a couple of weeks ago, we, um, accepted our 46th year, um, concurrently as Tree City USA. We also received this year a growth award, which is a set of standards above the baseline of Tree City USA. Um, so we met those and met them again and again. Even we could have, um, we could have scored even higher on that, uh, than was required. And for the first year, we're also a tree city of the world. So that's a newer program. Um, and something that we're glad to join communities all throughout the world. Um, we recognize trees are very valuable to our communities. Um, if you think about your neighborhoods, you probably think about a special tree or a forest or when you grew up the forest, you played in things like that. So, um, really, a strong connection. Communities have to trees and their memories. Um, and, uh, we love to bring volunteers together, um, to help plant trees. And I have to confess, we previewed this proclamation this morning and as we had some volunteers helping us plant trees, shrubs, and also some prairie plugs, um, at the Ashton house. So we just today had community members out there helping us and our staff. And I want to also thank our forestry staff and our park staff. Um, we have what I would say has to be the most, uh, certified arborist of any community in the state. So across our city organization, we have 11 certified arborist, um, one of which is a master

certified arborist. Um, a few that also have their urban forest, uh, um, kind of specialty within that. And, uh, I believe for right now that have their tree risk assessment qualification as well. So staff really take forestry seriously and are always looking for ways to keep their education and things moving forward so we can serve the community. So thank you. >> Thank you. Too-c is National Apprenticeship Week and this will be read by Councilor Shawn Harmsen

Whereas National Apprenticeship Week is celebrating its 12th anniversary of raising awareness of the vital role registered apprenticeships provide in creating economic opportunities by allowing apprentices to earn while they learn and preparing a pathway to family supporting careers in Iowa City and across the nation. And Whereas, the city of Iowa City joins with local affiliates of North America's building trades unions, NABTU as part of this national event, to recognize the urgent need to prepare and maintain an inclusive, diverse and highly skilled workforce that is capable of meeting the needs of the local construction, construction industry. And whereas, the City of Iowa City recognizes that registered apprenticeship is an industry driven training model with a proven ability to improve job quality and skills, which will play a critical role in addressing our nation's most pressing workforce challenges as we rebuild our country's infrastructure, address critical supply chain demands, and support a clean energy future. And whereas our region is home to state of the art building trades, registered apprenticeship programs jointly administered by unions and contractors in which workers are paid family supporting wages with health care and retirement benefits while receiving debt free, comprehensive multi-year training in their craft. And whereas, the City of Iowa City is proud to partner with the University of Iowa Labor Center, the Cedar Rapids, Iowa City Building Trades Council, Dream City and New Creations International Church to advance equitable pathways into building trades. Registered apprenticeship programs for residents of our city, including individuals who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality, thus strengthening our local economy. Now, therefore, I Shawn Harmsen on behalf of Bruce Teague, Mayor of Iowa City, do hereby proclaim April 26th through May 2nd, 2026

to be National Apprenticeship Week and accepting is Bill Gearheart. >> Thank you very much. I want, uh, I want Jaime Soto, one of the new faces of our leadership at Labor's Local 43 of business rep to accept this. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. My name is Simon Soto, a business agent for Labor's local 43. I would I would like to ask for all the apprentice to please stand up. >> Right.

Yes >> As the labor that came through the labor, the apprenticeship program out west in Las Vegas, Nevada. I fully understand and appreciate the benefits of having this program. So for that I would like to say thank you to the council and to the Iowa City for recognizing the apprenticeship program and for recognizing everybody that's here present all of our apprentices. Thank you. Thank you, thank. >> You.

Hi, I'm Paul Iverson, the director of the University of Iowa Labor Center. And as Sean just read, we're proud to partner with the City of Iowa City and the Cedar Rapids, Iowa City Building Trades Dream City and New Creations International Church and equality Pre-apprenticeship program, helping to bring people from communities that haven't aren't reflected much in the skilled trades into skilled trades, apprenticeship programs to increase the economic well-being of the community as a whole. I talked to a lot of graduates of our program. Um, and the good news is most of them were working and couldn't make it here, but luckily, Herbert Wei.li, who is a graduate of our program and an ironworker apprentice, was able to come today. And I'd like him to say a few words.

Great. >> Hi, um, my name is Herbert Wei.li. Uh, I have been in the local since last year of May. I think maybe March. I don't even know. But still, this program has really brung like the impact that that it should have been, you know, uh, I really believe that everybody here that has finished, you know, the program is completely capable of going straight onto a job site, you know what I mean Uh, I, uh, I, I believe that if, if we keep on going with this program, it's, it's just going to keep on getting better. Uh, I. I believe that there is, uh, a little bit of a. Of a requirement to be in a, in a, in a labor or any, any type of, uh, union. Uh, sometimes you have to know people, you know what I mean? Sometimes you have to have family members to be in there. Sometimes you just get joined in because you're, you're the, you're the dad's, uh, son. You know, it's, it's, it's really hard to be not one of those people. You know what I mean? So this program really, really, really, uh, needs to keep on going. I really believe it. Yes. >> Dear.

I probably shouldn't do this, but I'm going to. Herbie. How old are you? >> I am 19. And what hourly wage are you making now? I'm making 35. >> Woo!

So. >> So excited for all of you to join and receive this proclamation to all of our apprentices. Really appreciate what you do. We're going to move on to 2-D National Library Week, and this is going to be read by Councilor Laura Bergus. >> Whereas libraries are foundational to a thriving community, advancing literacy, education and lifelong learning for people of all ages. And Whereas, libraries support the well-being of individuals and families by connecting people to critical resources, including mental health information, housing assistance, and economic opportunity, and whereas libraries serve as a trusted, as trusted community anchors, providing free and meaningful access to books, technology and services that empower individuals to navigate an increasingly complex world. And whereas libraries strengthen local economies by supporting job seekers, entrepreneurs, and small businesses with tools, training and access to information. And Whereas, libraries partner with schools, social service agencies and community organizations to expand access to essential supports and improve quality of life for all residents. And Whereas, libraries, foster informed and engaged communities by promoting civic participation, critical thinking, and access to varied perspectives. And whereas libraries play a vital role in civil society by upholding the freedom to read, learn and explore, ensuring that all people have access to knowledge without barriers or censorship. And whereas libraries create welcoming spaces where individuals can find connection, support and opportunity. And whereas dedicated librarians and library workers provide compassionate, knowledgeable service that strengthens both individuals and the broader

community. And whereas readers, students, learners, libraries across America are joining together to celebrate National Library Week. Now therefore, I, on behalf of Bruce Teague, Mayor of Iowa City, do hereby proclaim April 19th through 25th, 2026 to be National Library Week and encourage us to recognize and support our libraries as essential institutions that advance literacy, strengthen community well-being, and uphold the foundations of a healthy and vibrant civil society. Please visit the Iowa City Public Library regularly to contribute to and benefit from library joy and accepting this proclamation tonight is Manny Galvez in public relations for the Iowa City Library. >> Welcome.

Thank you so much. Well. Good evening, mayor. Council members and community members. On behalf of the Iowa City Public Library and all of our staff, I would like to thank you for your proclamation, recognizing the National Library Week 2026. We at the library are honored to celebrate with all of you this week and every day of the year. The library is a community place where people learn create, and discover new opportunities. This year, the theme is Find your Joy reminds everyone that the library has something for all of us. Whether it's a great book, a program, learning something new, visiting the bookmobile, or simply feeling welcome because libraries are for everyone. We invite everyone to visit us downtown on the bookmobile. We have more than 30 locations and stops and online at icgov.org. If you don't yet have a library card, this is the perfect time to sign up. Thank you again for this recognition, for your continued support of the Iowa City Public Library. Thank you so much.

Thank you. >> And thanks to everyone that came for proclamations today. Thank you so much for being here. All right. And we are going to move on in our agenda. With items.

Three. >> I'll just wait one second. All right. We'll move on with our agenda. Can I get a motion to approve consent calendar items three through six, please. >> So moved.

Second. Sorry. >> All right. Is there anyone from the public that would like to address this topic? If you are online, please raise your hand if you are present and council chambers, please come to the podium at this time. Seeing no one online or in person, Council discussion. Roll call please. >> Teague. Yes. >> Yes. Alter. >> Yes. Bergus. >> Yes. Harmsen. >> Yes. Mo. Yes. Yes.

Motion passes 7 to 0. We're on to item number seven, which is community comment. This is an opportunity for folks to come up and talk about items that are not on our agenda. Um, I just want to remind everyone that council cannot engage in discussion or debate due to open meeting laws. I want to see the hands of anyone that is present that would like to speak during this time on items that are not on our agenda This is community comment time Seeing no one. All right. >> I wonder if those kids.

So this is community comment time. Is there anyone that wants to speak on items that are not on our agenda? Seeing no one, we're going to move on to item number eight. Planning and zoning matters. Eight a rezoning west of Wetherby Park and north of Sand Prairie Preserve ordinance conditionally rezoning 56.35 acres of land located west of Wetherby Park and north of Sand Prairie Preserve from low density, single family residential zone with a plan development overlay zone to T three neighborhood edge zoned for 9.62 acres. T three neighborhood general zoned for 37.5 acres T4T4 neighborhood small zone for 8.04 acres and T four neighborhood small open zone for 1.8 acres. This is the second consideration and staff is requesting expedited action.

I move that the rule requiring that ordinances must be considered and voted on for passage of two Council meetings prior to the meeting, which is to be finally passed, be suspended that the second consideration be for vote be waived and that the ordinance be voted on for final passage at this time. >> Move by Mo. Second Second. Seconded by alter. Anyone from the public like to address this topic? If you're online, please raise your virtual hand. If you're in council chambers, please come forth. Seeing no one online or in person. Council discussion Roll call please. >> Online. Yes. >> Alter. Yes. >> Bergus. Yes. >> Harmsen. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Teague. >> Yes. Motion passes 7 to 0. Could I have a motion to pass and adopt? So moved. >> Second Bill Lane. Roll call, please. >> Alter. Yes. Bergus. >> Yes. Harmsen. >> Yes. Mo. Yes. >> Yes.

Teague. >> Yes. Yes. >> Motion passes 7 to 0 eight B zoning code. Text amendment. Parking and open space. Requirements for the conversion of guest rooms and hospitality oriented retail uses to residential ordinance amending title 14 zoning to exempt guest rooms and hospitality oriented retail uses that are converted to residential uses from the parking and open space. Requirements for multi-family, residential and the central business zone. And this is the second consideration. And staff is requesting expedited action. >> I move that the rule requiring the ordinances must be considered and voted on for passage of two council meetings prior to the meeting, which is to be finally passed, be suspended That the second consideration vote be waved and that the ordinance be voted on for final passage at this time. >> Move by Mo.

Second Second bergus. Seconded by Bergus. All right. Anyone from the public like to address this topic. If you're online, please raise your virtual hand. If you're in council chambers please come forth. Seeing no one council discussion Roll call please. >> Bergus. Yes. Harmsen. >> Yes. Mo. Yes. Saleh. >> Yes. Teague. Yes. Yes. Alter. Yes. Motion passes 7 to 0. Could I get a motion to pass and adopt.?

Second. >> Moved by Salih. Seconded by Alder. Uh, roll call, please. >> Harmsen. Yes. Yes. Yes. Teague. Yes. Yes. Alter. Yes. Bergus. Yes. Motion passes 7 to 0 eight C preliminary Platte. South Village resolution approving preliminary plat of South Village. A subdivision of land located west of Wetherby Park and north of Sand Prairie Preserve. Iowa City, Iowa. Can I get a motion to approve, >> So moved. Alter.

Second. Bergus. >> All right. And welcome, Danielle. >> Thank you. Mayor. Danielle Sitzman. Neighborhood and development services. This is the preliminary plat for South Village, which you saw the rezoning for at your last meeting. It's the area bounded here in the white outline. A preliminary plat is for the larger area. Um. It would be followed by final final plats probably in phases. Um this shows the existing or the previous zoning of the same area. This is that preliminary prelim plat that I'm talking about, which you had some questions about last meeting, about what's to be developed here. So I can tell you off of the preliminary plat, the housing type count this evening. Um they have a one-two, three, four, five, six different housing types in this um preliminary plat phase that includes a house size, large house size, small 25 of the large and 58 dwelling units of the house type small. They also have duplex side by side, 84 of those which are much higher count than a typical neighborhood. Um, they also have cottage courts, uh, for unit four of those, sorry. And then a two different styles of townhouse interspersed in here, a townhouse, which would be a house scale version of the townhouse and a block scale version of the townhouse. On this map, you can see them numbered. Um, you'll see that on each block of these 12 blocks, there's a mix of housing types throughout. That's a requirement of the form based code for a mix of housing types, not just in the overall preliminary plan, but on the, the scale of a block by block, uh, scale of mix of housing. So as far as house types go, these are images out of our form based code. These are not the images for navigate, but these would give you a flavor of what house large and how small is intended to look like as it is developed. These are not the architectural styles by any means that have to be adhered to, but are more representing the overall size of a house and kind of the features that would need to be included in a, in that that type of form of housing. This is the cottage court and duplex side by side. Again, images from our form based code not navigate, but the

cottage court being a cluster of houses on one lot where there are little cottages or bungalows and duplexes with a side by side alignment. And then, as I mentioned, the townhouse types, ones that are either more black scale, like the image on the left or the structure itself is takes up perhaps a whole block or most of a block, and then the one on the right, which is more house size, where the individual townhomes are kind of broken up into smaller units. When we review a preliminary plan, even in the form based code, we look at the comprehensive plan and the relevant subdivision codes apply. This is a compliance with our, uh, comprehensive plan by dwelling units per acre. I guess that was also a question from last time. So I will tell you the dwelling units by acre for density. Although as I cautioned you last time, that's not really the metric we use for form based coding. But with 267 dwelling units over about 56 acres, that comes to about 4.7 dwelling units per acre. Um, the form based code is encouraging 2 to 8 dwelling units per acre, 4.7 is on the high side of a typical residential development. Normally we expect those at about four dwelling units per acre, but they don't end up being that because you take away roads and other things like that. So really we are, um, still in a residential development, uh, density, which is appropriate for this neighborhood, but you're going to see a lot of different forms of that because it is form based code. So you're going to see the mixing, you're going to see a different road network. And that is all in compliance with our comprehensive plan. Um, looking at the subdivision standards for Larson lot design, like I said, 267 residential lots. Um, also, uh, the mix of housing, diversity of housing types, working within the flexibility of our existing code on the way those lots are laid out and their sizes, also incorporating open spaces, all of the things for stormwater drainage, um, and private alleys and pedestrian and bicycle connections throughout. So very walkable neighborhood. I'm looking at the other standards for streets and

blocks. They have complied with our standards and our form based code for the thoroughfares. They're incorporating traffic calming as required by that rezoning action. They've previously dedicated more than enough, uh, public park space in the Prairie Preserve land, but they are also providing private open space and accommodating sensitive areas with a little bit more of a prairie remnant remnant, um, dedication as they do their final plots. So as far as in the development steps, we are here at the prelim plat highlighted in blue following that rezoning that occurred last meeting. Um, they will need to then apply for final plats and commence building permits after that. So based on a review of the relevant criteria, staff did recommend approval of the subdivision preliminary plat. And at their February 18th, 2026 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission concurred with staff's opinion and voted 7 to 0 to recommend approval. Tonight, I'm happy to answer more questions.

Hearing none, thank you. Anyone from the public like to address this topic? If so, please come forth now. If you're online, please raise your virtual hand seeing no one council discussion. Roll call please. Mo. Yes. Yes. Teague. Yes. >> Yes. Alter. Yes. Bergus. Yes. Harmsen.

Yes. Motion passes 7 to 0. We're on to item nine, which is our regular formal agenda nine A as amended Vacation and conveyance resolution amending resolution nine, number 19 dash 162. Vacating and conveying approximately 4482ft. of right of way north of Benton Street, west of Orchard Court to M and W properties LLC, subject to a utility easement and authorizing the mayor to execute a corrective quitclaim deed for that same property. I'm going to open up the public hearing and we'll start with comments from our staff, and we'll go over to our city attorney.

Thank you. Mayor. Um, I'll be quick on this one. So in 2019, council vacated and conveyed some right of way that was no longer needed. And it sits amidst some other properties, uh, that are looking to be redeveloped. Uh, however, as part of that upcoming transaction, it was revealed that there was a scrivener's error in the legal description and we need to clean that up. And so that's what we're here to do today with this resolution. >> All right. Any questions for Eric from Council. All right. Hearing none, anyone from the public like to address this topic. If you're online, please raise your virtual hand And if you're in council chambers, please come forth. Seeing no one. I'm going to close the public hearing. Can I get a motion to approve, please?

So moved. Alter. >> Second. Harmsen. Council. Discussion Roll call please. Salah. >> Yes. Teague. >> Yes. Yes. >> Alter. Yes. Bergus. Yes. Harmsen. >> Yes. Mo. >> Yes. Motion passes 7 to 0 nine B Camp Cardinal Road Extension Project resolution approving project manual and estimate of cost for the construction of the camp Cardinal Road extension project. Establishing amount of bids. Security to accompany each bid. Directing city clerk to pose notice to bidders and fixing time and place for receipt of bids. I'm going to open up the public hearing and welcome.

Good evening, mayor Council. I'm Josh Slattery, senior engineer with the city's engineering division. Give a brief presentation on the Camp Cardinal Road Extension Project. The project's located on the west side of Iowa City. It's camp Cardinal road is off Camp Colonel Boulevard. It's near Saint Andrew Presbyterian Church and it's between the new Cardinal Heights subdivision on the west and the Gathering Place Lane Development subdivision on the east. Um, it's an upgrade project really to upgrade from the existing narrow gravel road. Um, there's currently there's no sidewalks, no storm sewer. And, uh, with the new subdivisions, they've both paved up to the, uh, project boundaries for, uh, for Deer creek road. So there's kind of a gap in, in the concrete pavement there. The improvements include extension of the 20 foot wide concrete roadway with curb and gutter, a traffic circle at the intersection of Deer Creek Road, five foot wide sidewalk along the west side of Camp Cardinal Road. Sidewalk around the traffic circle. Ada curb ramps at the intersection of Deer Creek Road and. Also also Ada curb ramps at the intersection of Gathering Place Lane at the south end. There and extension of storm sewer with intakes along Camp Cardinal Road The project will advance some of the strategic plan goals um by improving mobility and improving safety and well-being for residents. Uh, the mobility improvements include a new wider concrete street, which will provide an important secondary access for Cardinal Heights and Western home gathering place

development. So new sidewalk along the west side of the street and around the traffic circle to provide for the pedestrians. And then new Ada ramps. Um, at the intersection with Deer Creek Road and at the intersection with Gathering Place Lane to improve accessibility. Um, the traffic circle, at the intersection of Deer Creek Road will provide traffic calming. And so the sidewalks provide a safe place for pedestrians to walk outside of the roadway and concrete street, which will be less susceptible to potholes. The estimated construction cost is 785,000. Um, since the project was abutting both Cardinal Heights and Western Home Gathering Place development, both developers were required to contribute towards the cost of um, since the street wasn't up to current design standards, both the developers were required to contribute to the future costs, so each paid um 50% of the estimated construction cost for this project. So if approved, uh, issue bid documents tomorrow, the bid opening will be May 12th. Award date is May 19th. Start of construction is June 22nd and final completion date is August 28th. Any questions? >> Was, uh, the did you say that, uh, 50% for each of the developers?

Yes. Yeah, 50% for, uh, Cardinal Heights and yeah, 50% for Western. >> I just didn't, uh, remember this in like the CIP or anything or any other previous infrastructure stuff. So that makes a lot of sense why I wouldn't have seen it then. >> Yeah. All right. Hearing no more questions. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone from the public like to address this topic. If you're online, please raise your virtual hand. If you're in council chambers, please come forth. Seeing no one, I'm going to close the public hearing. Can I get a motion to approve, please? >> So moved.. Second Bergus. >> Council discussion. Roll call please. >> Teague.

Yes. >> Yes. Alter. Yes. Bergus. Yes. Harmsen. >> Yes. Mo. Yes. >> Yes.

Motion passes 7 to 0 nine C North Market square Park. Improvements. Project resolution. Approving project manual and estimate of cost for the construction of the North Market Square Park improvements project. Establishing amount of bids. Security to accompany each bid. Directing city Clerk to pose notice to bidders and fixing time and place for receipt of bids. I'm going to open up the public hearing and welcome Tyler. >> Thank you, Mayor and Council Tyler Baird Superintendent of Parks and Forestry. So I'm here to talk about North Market Square Park Improvements project with you tonight Um, location North Market Square, a little history fact. It's one of our two oldest parks in our whole system. So very well loved neighborhood, kind of four square kind of park, traditional layout to that. Um, most of our work will be in the quadrant with the playground currently with a few other updates of the amenities kind of throughout. Um, so you can see on the plan here, um, most of that is playground in that bottom right quadrant. Um, we are going to, um, put new sod in that, uh, northern, um, northeastern quadrant. It gets a lot of use from the school. Mann elementary is right there. They have recess out there, been a lot of compaction over the years. So improving that soil. Um, surface first and then putting new sod on top will really give us a lot better playing surface. Um, maybe won't fix the problem forever, but, but it'll create a, a lot better place. So we've tried multiple years to get that grass growing better with, uh, no, no luck so far. So this will be the project to do that. Other components of the project, uh, new basketball goals and resurfacing of the, um, kind of a acrylic layer on top of that, like you've seen us do in some other basketball

courts. Uh, lately, much loved place for, for basketball there, um, heavily used. And then the small, little, uh, area with kind of the inset kind of lines around it that is drinking fountain. So, um, updating the drinking fountain to our current standards of backflow prevention and, and such, and getting a new drinking fountain there and just moving it across the sidewalk there. It helps us with our utility connections and not creating as much of a disturbance of that, that path. When we replace that, um, also some concrete work around the playground where the existing one will be removed. It's, uh, well, uh, well loved playground, but, uh, parts and pieces are, um, showing a lot of wear and tear and we can no longer get replacement parts for that playground. So creating some accessible features with that. Um, we have worked with the school district, um, on the playground. Um, this is the, um, the playground that they are purchasing the playground as part of this project. So that's already been set in motion. Um, they put the, the funds forward with that, with our agreement for them as they use the park pretty regularly. Um, so throughout the public input process, we involve the school district heavily on this and they give gave their input all throughout trying to make things equitable across the whole school district and, uh, system. So you'll see things like the glider there that's fully accessible and other features that, uh, that they have in some of the other schools. They don't have much space on man's campus there. So it's a really good collaboration for us with them. And then, um, as school isn't in session during those hours, the public is welcome to use the features on the school too. So we really considered what they currently

had and what we could do to balance those, um, benefits by utilizing both of those for, for the public and for the school day as well. Uh, cost, estimated construction cost, um, $200,000. And that's without the, the school district's, uh, purchase of the playground, which was, um, somewhere in the $120,000 range. I don't know that exact number offhand, but that was kind of the, their contribution. Um, ballpark there. Um, bid opening set for May 12th, uh, a word of contract, um, proposed for May 19th. Construction really important on this one. Construction during the summer when school is out of session. Um, so construction in that June and August time frame, um, it would be, um, when that would occur. Um, and any questions you may have. >> Is the playground surface port, a port in place, rubber or wood chips.

It is wood chip and the school district recommended that as well. And what we've seen in previous projects and what they've seen, that tends to work pretty well. Um, I, I can go back to this, uh, plan quick. You'll see the little, um, dark gray, um, jutting into from the corner up there. That is a, um, concrete surface that leads right to the ramp onto the playground though. So there's, um, a hard surface accessibility right to that playground as well. So it combines the best of both of those things with that. So that was a consideration. >> Great. Thank you. And the other question I had was about the sod when they lay it. How long will people need to be off it with it after they lay the sod? I assume there's several weeks or months where no one can use it. >> Yes. So it'll depend on weather conditions. During that time, I'd say minimum of, um, a month typically, but that could be a couple of months in there. We want to get it established the best we can first off, so we don't end up with with problems And back to square one where we are. Um, and I will say this portion of the park was something that we heard a lot from the neighborhood on. Um, we had proposed a turf since that synthetic turf for better durability of that, but we heard that they really valued the natural, um, grass in this area. So we, uh, we took that input and that's what you see in the plan here. We'd also considered some additional paths to make a, a loop through the whole park, but got some feedback and listened to the community on, on that piece as well of, um, something that they didn't value as much and they valued the full, um, natural grass open space of that. So thank you.

Thanks. >> All right. Thank you. Anyone from the public like to address this topic. If you're online, please raise your virtual hand if you're in council chambers, please come forth. Seeing no one. I'm going to close the public hearing. Can I get a motion to approve, please? >> Move. Salih second Mo. >> Council discussion. My favorite park in town and I'm really excited about this. All right. >> Cool roll call please. White line. >> Yes. Alter. Yes. Bergus. Yes. Harmsen. Yes. Mo. Yes. Yes. >> Teague.

Yes. Motion passes 7 to 0 nine D transit funding. Application resolution authorizing the filing of an application with the Iowa Department of Transportation for fiscal year 2027. State transit assistance and Federal Transit Administration funding. I'm going to open up the public hearing and we'll welcome Darian

Good evening, mayor. Council. Darian Nagle-Gamm, Director of Transportation Services with the city each spring, I come before you about this time to present the Consolidated Transit funding application, which is an annual application with the Iowa Department of Transportation, where we list all of our capital and operating expenses for which the city seeks funding from the D o t and from the Federal Transit Administration. The projects contained in this application have been programed by Iowa City Transit for FTA, section 5000 307, 53, ten and 5339 funds in FY 27. So the projects will be included in the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County's or MPOJC. Um consolidated transit funding application that they submit on our behalf, but they will also be included in the FY 27 and FY through FY 30 MPOJC transportation Improvement program. So important to note that Iowa City Transit may not pursue funding for every project that's listed. However, all projects must appear in the application in order to remain eligible or become eligible for potential funding. So today we are requesting approximately 3.93 million in federal operating assistance, and that is approximately 3.67 million for 5307 funding, which helps support our fixed route transit operations. 256,000 in 5310 funding that helps support our paratransit operations. And then the largest request is for 36.9 million in federal capital funds. That includes funding requests for the replacement transit facility that we've been working on. 16 heavy duty busses, nine light duty busses, and assorted parts and equipment and tools, and which is a large request. And I'm very pleased to say that over 88% of that request is competitively awarded. Funds that have been, um, we've been

very successful in the last few years in terms of grant funding. Um, 2023 through 2025. So, um, those projects will be transformational for our system. They're going to help us continue to modernize and improve our system facilities and fleet. Um, last but not least, um, this request also includes a request for $871,000 in state support that's used to help support our operations. And I just want to highlight last note here. Following the March 10th public hearing announcement for this public hearing tonight, the Iowa Dot, as they often do, they will publish budget numbers and they will publish final numbers. So I have updated numbers in terms of that state transit assistance. We initially reported, um, the planning budget was 940,000. Um, and the final budget came in at 871,354. And similarly, the funding amounts for the federal 5310 funding was projected at 269,839. We received the revised version last week for $256,097, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have about this application for state and federal funding. >> I'm always curious where we're at with the transit facility. The 5339 funds are those, um, where are we? We've been getting multiple thumbs up, but there seems to always be one more thumb up needed is that. >> There seems to be always one more thumb up needed. No, we've received it in writing that that 5339 funding is secure. We've received that in writing from the Federal Transit Administration. So that was what we've been very patiently waiting for over the last year outside of the award notice that we received in 2023. Um, we have about, I would say another month, maybe until we get to actual obligation. And that's when we have a signed agreement with the federal government. Um, we did receive word last week that we, the parcel of land that we would

like to build the replacement transit facility on cleared Nepa process. So we received the environmental approvals. That was a huge hurdle that had been three years in the making to get to that point. So we have the letter from the FDA that we've cleared that hurdle. Um, now we just have to clean up some logistics in our grant formal grant application. And the Department of Labor is the last to weigh in. And once they weigh in, we can sign an agreement and have it signed on the dotted line. So yes, a few more small hurdles, but I think the major ones, um, have gone past now. So I feel pretty good about where we're sitting. >> That's great.

Thank you. Yeah. >> While I was reading there was like 25% like one match or something like that. Can you speak a little bit about that? >> Sure. Typically our funding, um, our funding from the federal government is usually 85% covered federally and 50%, 15% covered by the municipality, which is really an exceptional level of support from the federal government. So the federal, um, and that's in terms of the competitive grants, there's a 50% match required for our 5307 funding. So that match is a little bit higher. So it depends on the federal funding source that we receive funding for. Most of them require a match. We did receive one congressionally designated award for 750,000 in 2024, and that was at 100% match. So that was that's a unicorn grant. We don't receive those very often, but we were very thrilled to use put that to good use to help fund the design of the transit facility.

Definitely. Yeah. >> Thank you. Yep. All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone from the public like to address this topic. If you're in person, please come forth. If you are online, please raise your virtual hand seeing no one. I'm going to close the public hearing. Can I get a motion to approve please? >> So move. Salih second alter. >> All right. Council discussion. Roll call please. >> Alter. Yes. >> Bergus. Yes. Harmsen. Yes. Mo. Yes. >> Yes. Teague. Yes. >> Yes.

Motion passes 7 to 0 nine E fiscal year 26 budget amendment. Public hearing. This is a resolution amending the current budget for fiscal year ending June 30th, 2026. I'm going to open up the public hearing and welcome Jeff.

All right. Mayor and Council, you've got the next several items related to your budget. So first we're going to tackle the fiscal year 26 amendment. That's the current year that we're in. Now. The next Stadium, which will also have a public hearing, will be your fiscal year 2017 budget. That's the year that starts July 1st. And then we have the utility rates as the third item and our three year financial plan and capital improvement plan as the final item. So we'll take these one by one. But just as a reminder, and for the public, our budget was released in January. You had several meetings, uh, related to the budget and heard from department directors about their respective budgets. Um, many work sessions. And that led us to where we're at tonight. So for the fiscal year 26 budget, this is the second Amendment that we'll be doing to this budget. What this incorporates is all of the changes that were presented to you in January. So whenever we put together a budget for the upcoming fiscal year, we also go through the exercise of amending the current fiscal year. If there's been no changes in project costs, for example, or expenses that weren't anticipated, revenues that weren't anticipated, we incorporate those in we present that to you in January as well. And that's largely what we have before you. So these are amendments that you would have reviewed over the last few months. Happy to answer any questions about those. They are noted in the staff reports, um, and listed in the state form that's attached to that. If you have questions, I'll be happy to tackle that

Okay. Hearing none. All right. Anyone from the public like to address this topic, please come forth. No. Raise your virtual hand if you're online. Seeing no one, I'm going to close the public hearing. Can I get a motion to approve, please? >> So moved.

Second Wyland. >> Council discussion. Roll call. >> Please. Um. One second. Yes. Um, uh, I, um, I try, I think I tried to flag for everybody the memo that I put in specifically regarding the, uh, 2026 budget amendment, um, and originally we were looking at, uh, including it in the fiscal year 27 budget, but because of where the proposed, uh, money is coming from, potentially it made more sense to do it for the 2026 amendment instead of the fiscal 2027 year. Um, and, uh, just to do a quick overview, um, uh, if perchance you hadn't seen it or for the public, uh, what, uh, I um, have proposed after working with staff, trying to get, uh, something uh, that makes the most sense. That fits. Um, uh, and move the needle forward when it comes to, uh, the strategic plan, um, uh, regarding public safety, uh, that includes nuanced public safety response from the city and our nonprofit partners to meet the best needs of the situation. Um, we, uh, I feel like maybe that conversation has stalled over the years. And so my intention with this proposal is to try to like, get some ground, you know, try to make something that, uh, sets us up in a good place. Um, especially considering that we have the field mediation, uh, program happening right now that we, um, applied with Johnson County jointly for so specifically what I am proposing and what this amendment would do is to create a separate third reserve fund, um, that would be specifically for,

um, the, to implement and expand innovative public safety models and facilities to improve outcomes and relationships within the community. So all the alternative response fund and what that means is, uh, alternatives to, uh, diversifying our public safety response. So when, uh, any type of, uh, call that sometimes will go to the police when it's not needed and takes up police resources, uh, we have right now, we have the community crisis program and they do those calls, but we know that they are not, um, at the capacity that we need to be to, um, reach our public safety, uh, goal as outlined in the strategic, as outlined in the strategic plan. So what this does is it creates a fund that at some point, I would like us to have a discussion on how much goes into the fund every year where that money comes from. But that's not what's being proposed right now. What's being proposed right now is we create the fund and we fluff or seed it. I, I like to say fluff, but I was told that that was a weird term to use when it comes to seeding a fund. So seeding the fund, not fluffing the fund, uh, with what was going to go from the 2026 budget amendment to the emergency fund, which is $162,400, that would be the initial seed. Um, and the reason the emergency reserve fund is, uh, after talks with, with staff was an initial, uh, what made the most sense was because, you know, over the years, we've had a steady balance in the emergency reserve fund. And I think, correct me if I'm wrong, uh, Jeff or Eric, but I think, um, over the years, we've only spent this on

property acquisitions in the floodplain. Is that correct? >> I believe that is correct, yes. >> Okay. So. After conversations with staff, it seems like we are comfortable where this is. And, uh, one thing when it comes to reserves funding is, uh, we don't want to put our facilities reserve in jeopardy, right? You know, that's very important because we don't, we want as much cash on hand for facilities, so we don't have to do a ballot initiative when we need to build a fire station per se. So This is something that will, uh, it says here in the memo, uh, because of that, it can meet the goal without, uh, committing any new resources or eroding support for our municipal operations and investments in our public infrastructure. So, um, I think that this would be a really cool step forward to, uh, you know, reaching for that, um, facility goal or for that public safety goal. And I would also like to say that I think. We sometimes have a chicken before the egg problem when it comes to projects, we think, well, we can't fund something if we don't have a project or, well, we can't do the project because we don't have funding. And I think that, um, this type of, you know, because a lot of times we have funds that just has money that sits there for years and we don't do anything with, I think the public interest in the possibilities, especially with, uh, the field mediation, uh, I think this money will be utilized quite quickly And to further paint that point, we actually, uh, have gotten a specific proposal from community crisis, uh, community mobile crisis about a pilot program. Um, and I think it's very topical right now that, uh, you

know, and this has been in, in the works for weeks or we got this proposal weeks ago is understanding that our downtown, uh, on the weekends is our highest call volume time. It's our highest, um, uh, instance of conflict time. And what this pilot project would do would be to put mobile crisis workers, um, downtown stationed down there and to be able to respond extremely quickly and help people out, de-escalate situations, uh, respond to those calls that a lot of times police are responding to where someone's just really drunk and belligerent and needs a ride home. Uh, and taking up their resources when, you know, um, uh, their time could be better spent, uh, uh, responding to, you know, things of a violent nature. Um, so I, yeah, I've been talking long enough. Um, thank you all for hearing me out and reading the memo. And thank you to staff for all your very constructive conversations leading up to this and all your help. Um, yeah, I'm happy to chat with it about it with any of y'all.

I just two. >> Sorry, we will need a second before we chat. >> Okay. Second. Sorry. >> All right. So I just have two. >> Questions before I really dive. Number one is where exactly does the $162,400? Um, where does that figure come from? And number two, you mentioned some proposal that we have for some services. >> Um. That I guess I didn't understand.

Yes. So it, it doesn't give, uh, the outlines of the proposal in my memo, it just states that we have that proposal and that we've already had people reach out. Um, for a proposal that would be. >> I'm not following like, do we did somebody say to the council, we would like to provide this service. This is the cost or what I guess. How are you using the word proposal? >> Yeah. Um, I believe, uh, and this was something very recent as well, uh, community did send out a, outline of what a pilot program like this would actually look like. Um, it hasn't been, this would be a work session topic in the future. I'm just. >> Is there an IP?

Uh, no, not in this packet. >> Is there a previous one? I just missed it. Or. >> Uh. I guess the question is, has it been circulated among was this sent to all of council or was this simply. Not yet? No, because it, uh, it will be a conversation in the future about, you know, I'm just simply stating that it exists. And, um, that it's an example of, um, what some of this money could go towards. It's a very broad, uh, thing. Um, and I think Jeff could answer your question about where that money, where that figure comes from.

And so in the, in the budget that we presented to you in January, again, that included fiscal year 26 amendments and the fiscal year 27 budgets, one of those fiscal year 26 amendments was to direct surplus funds to our various reserves. So we had recommended the 162,400 to go to the emergency reserve and 5 million to go to the facility reserve. So the 162 is the exact amount that was transferred. That was recommended in January to be transferred to the emergency reserve fund. >> The transfer value.

Right. So essentially the motion is to redirect a transfer from an existing that's headed to one reserve, redirect it to a newly created reserve. >> Do you.

I have actually before I just I have a question. Um, so as I understood the memo, um, moving forward, not only the seating, but then future funding would be coming as an amendment, um, like a late spring amendment to the existing budget once we understood or January, when we understand what we have in surplus in the existing. We're not taking from this is why we're having this conversation right now to the. 26 what I'm to the current budget. So what I'm wondering is that in the future years, to add to that fund, it would be my understanding, my hope, I don't know, is that it would be in a like fashion that we are not looking forward to say, let's see this, let's build this into the coming year's budget, but rather we're looking at money that we're like, oh, we actually have this money already in reserve, and we can take it and direct it to this new fund. Is that the idea that it would be taking from as an. >> Amendment to this proposal? >> So he'd have to clarify that. But the I just let me I can clarify how we are moving around funds or the timing of that. So if you look at our fiscal year 27 budget, again, that will be your next item. We are not budgeting for transfers in 27 into those reserve funds. What we what we will do is when we start working on the following year's budget and the books close on this current year, we'll see if we ended up with a surplus. And if we end up with a surplus, then we work that into the amendment. So we're always working a little bit behind um, on, on how to direct those reserve funds. >> I guess that thank you for that concise and clear answer. That was what I was looking for was that last part that we're, it's always it's going to be lagging. Yes. >> And, uh, just to further make

it clear, the only thing that this the amendment would do would be to create the fund and seed it with this money. And then at a future date, we would discuss what the rules around the fund would be. >> Right. And that we also, just to be clear, because like the others, I haven't seen the the outline from community. We're not voting on this pilot or, or that that would be the direction or the intention of what this fund is. >> Even that is an example of something that could would fall under the purview of this money. In this proposal, I was just bringing it up as a potential example. The other examples could include, um, street medicine, uh, nurse practitioners on the beat. Um, more crisis responders, um, um, I think, uh, if you could speak a little bit to the, um, uh, homeless outreach, homeless.

Outreach talked about. Yeah, yeah. That, um, you know, as we've identified the scope of. >> The number of people in our community who are unhoused increasing and all of the things that we're trying to do to get to net zero homelessness, that if we wanted to invest in additional street outreach, that seems like a very reasonable fit for a fund like this. What would be the name? The proposed name?

It's just the alternative. The alternative Response Reserve fund. That's the proposed name. Yeah. And it's funny when it comes to the field of alternative response, one of the biggest debates in the field of alternative response is what to call the field of alternative response. So, um, it's a, you know, uh, that is the proposed name, I suppose.

Let me just offer some clarity around future council approvals that would be needed. So when you're creating a new reserve fund, first of all, there's, there's no direction on how that's used. So we would encourage you to develop policies. You can look in the current budget document and read about the emergency reserve fund and what the intended uses are for that. And then you want to consider who has the authority to spend is that staff have discretion to spend out of it. Does it require council approval? All those things you'll need to to talk about if you decide to go forward with this. Um, and the other thing is there's not a budgeted expenditure out of this fund that you're creating. So at a future date, you're going to have to amend the budget to say, now we want to spend this dollars for this purpose. So, um, I would describe what the motion is as parking funds and signaling and intended use, but you're not going to be in a position to spend these dollars after tonight.

So the current emergency reserve fund has restrictions on it for items that we can spend on. That's correct. And it currently doesn't involve, um, civilian response. Is that correct? >> Correct. Yeah. But we could just change that. You could, you could amend the emergency reserve.

The same policy. We could set this aside to fund in US or future council could undo this silo of money also. So that's what I'm trying to understand. Like what the benefit we get out of parking money as opposed to just you said one thing. First of all, thank you for writing a memo. So you have something to respond to ahead of time. You did say that our alternative responses have stalled out, and I wanted to take a second to say we have invested more money every year in it. And since I've been on council, we continue to do more and more. But we had a huge increase in direct aid agency funding that very much touches these things. So we, we, we are doing more every year. And I think we've all signaled that we're interested in continuing to do more. And I did watch the, uh, I believe it was the April 20th meeting of 2025 where Chief Liston and Sarah came and presented. And we talked about some of our goals that we had. And they kind of said, well, maybe some of your goals actually aren't in alignment with our actual needs. And I would love to revisit that conversation. I would love to get a proposal on what exactly it is they want. And it sounds like you might have information that I don't have about what, because there's some proposal out here that I've not seen that that I'm curious to learn about. And to me, that seems like the right order of operations is to figure out what do we what are we doing next? And what money do we need for it? And then we can just amend our current reserve funds to take that money rather than create a silo that anybody, any of we can just undo immediately. Um, I so I guess that's I'm not against what you're proposing. I want to be clear about that. I think that we should continue to, to, to beef up these other options, but I just the mechanism to me, it's just not I'm not sold yet on that. >> When I, when I say, um, it has stalled out, I say not that we are looking at different. Things like co-response. Right. And we have done the field mediation application. But when it comes to the, the call

responses, right. The actual number of community crisis, mobile crisis, um, that and transfers from 911 and stuff like that. That's what I mean. That's what I meant when I say it has not, we have not moved the needle in getting, uh, increasing the call volume of mobile crisis. That is what I meant by that. Not that we are not doing anything. Clearly we're doing stuff. Thank you. And I really appreciate the, um uh, you know, everybody's work in trying to make this happen and why I think, uh, specific fund rather than just changing language for the emergency fund is to, uh, more concretely have a stated purpose and a fund specifically for something and have rules specifically around it. So when we talk about, uh, how we are seeding this fund that is, um, uh, when we talk about how we're seeding the fund, when we talk about how we are, um, spending the fund, uh, it is coming from a singular place, which makes it easier for, uh, people like, you know, any anybody that would be receiving these funds, uh, to have some continuity, right? To be able to know that funding is happening on, you know, the hardest thing, you know, it's easy to throw money one time at something, but when you create a fund and you create a policy on giving money to that fund, um, that is the hardest part of like continuing these operations. And I like having it separate. I think it's, I think it's cleaner. I think it, uh, has, I think it's easier to understand for the public and for the, um, the nonprofit partners and that we'd be working with, uh, I think it's a clear communication to the public to, um, and yeah, like I said, how this money gets used and

what this, uh, the rules are around this, uh, this fund that's got to be talked about and agreed about, agreed from all of us. You know, I have ideas, but I think tonight, you know, we're not going to hash that out. Um, but I think it would be a great work session topic. Maybe a couple. >> Yeah. So, you know, this is not a new conversation to this council. Um, when we're talking about mental health, um. >> Respond

Proposals or thoughts or dreams that we've had, I think, um, oftentimes, um, we haven't moved towards just identifying or approving by this council a dollar amount. We know that Councilor Bergus has actually, um, you know, talked about mental health, uh, for quite some time, um, and have asked us to kind of have some conversations surrounding it. Um, and we have had conversations, but I don't think that we ever got to a point where we've said yes to a number. Um, I know that there has been conversations on throughout a number Councilor Bergus. Um, and the number, um, to my memory wasn't exactly there in, you know, it wasn't that we were asking for a specific project as well, because that can still be, um, determine what the project will be. So I'm all right with $162,000 earmark funds for, um, you know, the mental health, um, kind of, uh, response dollars, the alternative response, um, I think if, if we're going to give it a title, we want to make sure that the, the title is broad enough where whatever that definition or policy surrounding just kind of makes sense. Um, now the alternative response probably makes sense. Um, even if something within that fund that was approved didn't quite make it, but I, I mean, I understand the intent here. I'm not fully sold on the term, especially given, um, you know, that you just mentioned Councilor Bergus that we could increase kind of our

outreach for our unhoused population. Um, I'm not sure that that is an alternative response, but, um, I think that title just doesn't fully get it for me. Um, but I do understand the intent of what the, what the funds would be. And I think it's really something that this council will have to think about because at that point, we're putting ourselves in positions of directly receiving proposals and directly approving them. Um, is what I see. And it could be initiatives from this council. Um, which would be, I think, fantastic as well. But um, just know that we maybe changing some of the normal protocols of, you know, who is initially reviewing applications of proposals. Um, that will be recommended to the council for approval. Um, and that's again, something that we'll need to work out. >> Um, in my day job, we talk a lot about wordsmithing and changing language to get it just so, um, and I think that talking about the, the naming of the fund perhaps might be an instance of that, although I was actually at the same point that you were talking about that doing homelessness outreach might be outside of the venue. I was just reminded of something that I read very recently about a city down south that is completely criminalized homelessness, and so that it would be the police's job to actually, uh, roust people who are unhoused. Um, so this might have the expansiveness of the term might well end up being useful, but either way, um, I appreciate that we are having this

conversation. Um, and for, for, for from where I'm sitting, I'm much more comfortable with it coming. Um, that the funds would be coming after we have gone through most of the budget year and to say, how are we doing and do we have the reserves to be able to transfer? So I, I appreciate, um, Councilor Weilein that you've been working with staff to see, you know, what, what are the ways in which we can do this? Um, that, that moving forward? I mean, there may be some up years, some down, what have you, but the one thing that actually is constant about our, um, city is that we're incredibly good stewards of money. And so, um, I think that it's a, this is a smart move moving forward and one that actually will be consistent. Um, so it's not a kind of a bait and switch of like, sure, you can have a fund, right? And then it won't go anywhere. Yeah. Um, I do want to, to pause and say, I, I am in favor of this mechanism. I do think that we not think I know that we need to put parameters around it. Um, as the city manager mentioned, um, but I absolutely that's, that's as far as I go tonight, as far as whatever else we end up doing with that money, that has to be a full throated conversation. And I know that you said, you know, a work topic or what have you. Um, but this is something that we have to know and I heartily agree that, um, you know, having community and, or, um, community along with the police or whomever comes before us to say, here's truly what we're seeing as needs and here's what would be useful. That is definitely something that would be great to, to here. Um, so that we can make best use of these funds.

Yeah. >> So I would like to echo, thank you for the, for the memo bringing this up. I have a, you know, I think that's helpful to give us a few days at least to kind of kick this around, think it over, kind of mull on it. Um, I, you know, I always appreciate that, uh, a couple of things. Just, um, just to kind of, we talked about, I think you mentioned about mediation being, uh, program sort of going. And I don't think that's exactly. I mean, there's some people, there's some consultants that are working on some proposals right now, but there's nothing actually happening. Um, and decisions still have to be made about which direction that would take. I just, I was lucky enough to have a meeting with the consultant just Friday, I think, um, Thursday or Friday of last week. So, you know, different things that it might entail. Um, which is great, but I think, you know, when you talk about chickens and eggs and carts and horses, you know, where we are in that process. I'm not sure. Um, I think also, you know, one of the things that the consultant was talking about was an up training, uh, mobile crisis responders. Now that's coming from the consultant that's not coming from community. And so, um, you know, I'm really leery of, you know, trying to until, you know, we've heard from that group directly, um, to put words in their mouth or aspirational kinds of things. But actually having, you know, sort of a hard proposal in front of us. I mean, community crisis, that service is, you know, we are so incredibly fortunate. It is outstanding. And I, I could spend 20 minutes and I wouldn't say all the good things I think it deserves. Um, so I really want to make sure that yeah, I mean, if they want to do that and we can support that, I think that's great. But I also want to hear that that's what they want and that won't, you know, be biting off more than they can chew. I mean, I don't know the answers to those questions, but those are answers that I absolutely want to have. Um, so I think that's, I mean, I think that's all if they come, you know, to us, I just want, you know, that's again, coming from them and what they can do

because the last thing I'd want to see is, is us sort of, you know, getting in this case, I'm going to use another C the tail wagging the dog. Um, you know, we might have great ideas, but you know, are we really all on the same page with that? So I'd want to look that over and have that to look at. Um, the other thing too, and I kind of, uh, kind of kind of same thing with Mr. Mayor. Uh, Mr. Mayor announced the, uh, about the name and, uh, and kind of, I know we have the, we would do the rules again, uh, you know, at a later time, but, you know, is it alternative response? Is it, uh, public safety enhancement? Is it, you know, something that gives us the flexibility? So if the mediation thing, say it doesn't come to fruition, um, decide, no, that's not the right time. Right place for whatever reason. Um, you know, I don't want to have a fund that's locked up somewhere that now it's sitting dormant. Um, you know, we can't get to it. And I'm thinking, you know, right now the first thing that comes to my mind is like the Black Lives Matter funds, which are, you know, money that's been sitting dormant because it with the parameters maybe weren't there when it was created that allowed it to have that flexibility or implementation. And I know that's a whole other conversation, but, but that kind of sticks in my mind. Um, yeah, I mean, I think, I think this is a, this is a good start. I don't know if I'm completely comfortable with creating a new fund. Um, at this moment, although I definitely see some value in some of the possible things that could do. I'm also a little, little hesitant, like we talk about creating a new fund or a new thing and then we throw out like, uh, you know, ten possible things. Well, obviously they can't do ten possible things, not with this amount of money. Um, and so then it becomes a little bit like, you know, at a certain point, if we don't have a clear vision, you know, so on one hand, you know, I like the idea of flexibility. On the other hand, if we don't start off with a clear enough vision of what it's going to be used for, then we always run the risk, even if well intentioned, of doing a bait and switch.

Like we say we're going to do. You know, we, we let people know, hey, we're going to do this mediation program. The mediation program falls through. Well, do we have the flexibility to switch something else? And did we sell this on, you know, well intentioned, but ultimately, you know, false premises. So again, which is absolutely not saying that you're saying anything false. I don't want to give that impression, but I just I'm still sort of grappling with this. Is this the right mechanism? Is this chicken and egg? Is it a carton horse? Um, you know, uh, and for those reasons, not that any of the particular ideas that I, you know, I could see us any of those being something that we want to support and do in the future.

So this could I, I'm really confused about the name stuff because we could call this the, the duck fund and then define the parameters of what it does later. You know, I mean, this is like a, a alternative response, community crisis response. I guess I just really don't, um, alternative response. I think that gives to, I mean, to me like that, that, that gives like a complete, uh, starting point, right? And then it will be up to us to create the parameters in which we will define what that means. Right? And so I'm a little bit confused about that. And also when it comes to, uh, this is just an initial seeding of the fund to create the fund to say, yes, we want to have a fund that at some point will be regularly, uh, seated. Right. And we can come, we can say what that means, how much wear from that is a discussion we will have. But if we want to do things like this, we need a fund that will be seated and that will be continually funded. Otherwise, we're going to constantly be in the discussion of, well, we can't do this because we don't have the funds, have the money. Oh, well, we can't, uh, get the money because we don't have anything to do. The only reason I brought up the community crisis thing, even though it's in early stages, is because that's just already something new that has happened. And the mediation program, uh, when it comes to. All right, our people have this staff all, all they need is money in order to hire new staff and to expand capacity, you know, so it's, we don't even need to reinvent the wheel to spend this money. Um, but there are there, there, there are so many things. And whether it be us, like you said, whether it be us or whether it be, um, the, uh, nonprofit partners, community partners, like there's just, I mean, just like so much opportunity and we just need to

create that opportunity and the fund just makes the, the most sense to me. And I don't know, you were going to say something.

So because this, what we're discussing is a, um, strategic plan initiative by this council, something that we have highlighted as being important. And when I go to the title, it is safety and well-being. And again, I want to emphasize that this is not a new discussion by this council. Councilor Bergus has edged us on continuously on this as well as, um, you know, there has been some, you know, a lot of discussions on how do we do it? Do we, you know, throw out a number and just have it sit there until we have a plan? Um, so if we're, if we're going to earmark this, I really think that it, it can be a term directly from our strategic plan. Um, safety and well-being plan, because that to me seems to really be what we're discussing. Um, and, you know, the interesting piece that I hadn't thought about, but I'll say it now since, um, just because some of the things that you just mentioned Councilor Weilein. Because we don't have money, um, when we're wanting to do something as a council, sometimes we're trying to figure out, you know, where the money is coming from. Again, we always, if we have a need, you know, one of us will say, well, let's talk about what our need is and then we send it to our staff and then, you know, have them figure out the funding source. If the council wanted to, maybe reconsider, um, labeling this fund safety and well-being and maybe just saying that, you know, at the end of every, um, when we're amending the budget, if there are some, uh, surplus dollars that council can just earmark those funds for

what I'll call council initiatives because it can be a number of things that might be on the table at that moment, that might be important for this council to kind of discuss. Now, that puts us in a a predicament where, yes, if there's a need before us, which there's always needs. I've been on the council since 2018. There's always a need and there could be a need that the council want to focus on. And that may give us the opportunity to just say, hey, what is it that you're hearing from constituents? What is the what seems to have an opportunity before us in the moment that we want to go towards, and then the council can make a decision on whatever that proposal might be? I'm not trying to derail this, but when you mention that, I did think that if we're wanting to earmark funds, because again, these are going to be funds that the council has put in ourselves in a position to, um, listen to proposals and to fund them. Um, that's what we're doing right now and we're not going through our traditional Cdbg. I'm sorry. Um Hcdc or our HR uh, you know, processes where we have those commissioners, uh, assessing right now, this is saying that the council is putting ourselves in those roles. >> I just think from what I'm hearing, there's a lot of, um, I really appreciate the conversation and thank you, mayor, for hearkening back to other conversations that we've had. I think the if I understand correctly, and I had was in on a couple of the conversations with staff about it. It's like, there's, I think it's a little more narrow than what you're talking about, mayor. Right. And the

intent, I don't believe, would be to put council in a position of, you know, administering grants or something like that. I think it really is like we understand that we have these strategic plan goals that are articulated well enough, right. And can we then say, all right, if we want to fulfill this goal, talking with community partners about how we best go about that. And I would imagine that it would be more like, you know, staff negotiating contracts with service providers to be able to say, this is what we can do for this amount of money, and you understand what you're getting rather than like, we sit as grant makers, that's at least based on the conversations that we've had to date, because I don't I personally don't think it's a good idea for us to wade into the, you know, more like discretionary. You tell us what you want and then we decide, you know, who we think is cool enough. Like I, I just, I mean, I'm being a little flip about it, but I just don't want to, you know, wade into that. So that's how I'm seeing it. If you know, more like this is to create a pot of money for this more specific purpose. So it's not totally wide open for just what councilors want. But like, we know this is something that we have been talking about because we've been stuck on the chicken and egg part. This would give us a mechanism to move forward. >> I mean, maybe a recent example, you know, thinking back to when it first came into fruition was the winter was the emergency shelter, right? Because it was something and it was like, okay, well, we can do we can find the money here and we can do it. But then we saw and we heard that the need was so great that it was, you know, and I know both the mayor pro tem at the time and you as well, or like we need to

expand this. How do we do this? And how do we do this in a way that's sustainable? And so if I'm understanding what you're saying, Laura, as well as sort of the intent of the fund, it would be that type of a thing rather than the grant making. Mhm. >> I just don't think we want to put ourselves in that position. >> Yes. What you said is I very much agree with that. >> And that's not the intention.

Um, yeah. >> I guess that the piece that I continue to struggle with is that, that it just takes a simple majority to create this fund. It just takes a simple majority to change the fund to dissolve it. It also just takes a simple majority to change our current reserve fund and say to include, um, well-being or whatever the terminology. And so that's the piece, the hurdle that I have not yet gotten over is what do we get out of this? Other than more complexity? >> I think transparency is what it is. It's about signaling where we intend to spend the money. Because you're right, like any of these things, at any moment, we could, with four of us, change. Yeah. So I think it really is about the direction of showing and saying that's what we would be looking to allocate funds for if nothing panned out and we weren't spending that money. Absolutely. We have the authority to change it, right, and move it to somewhere else. But that's my feeling anyway, is that it's really transparency.

Last comment for me, um, is going to be just the naming. So I'm looking at, you know, the safety and well-being, but I'm also looking at community safety. Um, I'm not sure that the, because I know we want to narrow the, the terminology to be specific. Um, I'm not sure that alternative response is the terminology that, um. >> That's about backup response or secondary respond. I think community response is a pretty common. Term in like in the field of what we're talking about. I think that's another name that's often used. If that's an option people like.

So that for me, and of course, I'm a comms professor, right? Teach it. Think classes like rhetoric. So the so the words do matter. Uh, and so the, you know, I'm thinking too, like, again, cart horse, are we predetermining, you know, when we're really talking about, I think very much to the mayor's point about, you know, our community well-being, you know, uh, you know, community safety enhancement reserve, something like that, that gives us some flexibility. And, you know, for me, and maybe it's, I know this is on everybody's mind, but the 800 pound gorilla in the room is what we just had happen in our city this past weekend. And so I'd hate to predetermine as we take a look at public safety needs, predetermine what that's going to look like. Now, I say that being that I actually like the idea of mediation. And, you know, if we can find a way to make that work, I have no problem with that. But in terms of creating a reserve fund that puts two type of a parameter, um, you know, and then, you know, we still have, and we, it's just the timing is unfortunate because I think we're so close to what happened. We don't have enough information to start making policy decisions that aren't knee jerk. But I also, if we're going to do something like this, I also want to sort of, you know, again, it's about signaling, but signaling that, you know, hey, we'll give everything a fair consideration. Um, you know, I think our community deserves that. And I think that these are things like the mediation have value of their own and on their own merits could be, you know, valuable in that way. So I think kind of, I think we're kind of in agreement. I think the name matters to me. And because it does sort of this feels like less tail wagging the dog. If we're trying to talk about a, you know, a community safety enhancement reserve fund or something like that, that would absolutely include everything that, that, that you have, you know, as a possibility that you have in your proposal. But it doesn't limit it to that. And I know that that's, that's somewhat probably is not your intent completely, but that's also part of what I still struggling to,

to agree with is because if the intent is sort of predetermined, uh, you know, as opposed to like an emergency reserve or something like that, which has parameters, but also has some flexibility. So just kind of my, my two cents on what I'm struggling with with that. >> So I think I alternative response is Unarmed community responders going to conflict. That is what that means. So and for I don't know what you're getting at when you say this will not be broad enough to include. Because we already have the police budget. You know, this is just not that. And so I, I guess I just really don't understand, you know, like the fact that this wouldn't potentially include the police is that what is the problem?

I mean, again, you know, uh, I don't know, uh, let's just I hate to throw out hypotheticals again, based on what just happened in our community because it's too soon and I don't want people to latch on to things, but let's just say, and I absolutely, this is not a proposal I'm making, nor have I heard this particular thing, because again, we're talking about 48 hours ago, better cameras, more cameras. Like if that was an issue. And again, just as an example of something that if we're talking about public safety enhancement, that that would be on the table. Now, it might be that we look at that and we say, no, we don't need that. Um, you know, and, you know, just for the record, I am not talking at all about flock cameras, right? So that's, uh, you know, we're on the same page there, but if we're talking about and again, I actually don't have a problem with alternative response, I just not sure that I'm comfortable with making a fund that is limited to just that rather as opposed to a fund that looks at public safety and wellness more holistically. If we're going to do a reserve fund mechanism, um, so that we can keep things on the table, which would include the things you have, but maybe other things as well that we haven't thought of. And so I just, I guess I'm not comfortable locking in at this point with especially, you know, again, processing this while simultaneously processing everything else in our community over the last couple of days. Um, I just, I just am not there. >> Does this does establishing this fund that is just for a certain type of response mean that we cannot spend money on other, other things that are not germane on this? Like, I mean, I just. Sorry. >> Go ahead.

Go ahead. >> Yeah, I guess, uh, I feel like, uh you give me a feeling like is this means you said if we we already have the police fund for safety and everything, right? And this is the police end, right? This is not in a of right right now. Uh, we and we know all of us talking about only like certain things that we think we can have a community response. I'm not going to say respond community respond to it, which is make it like much better. But I think right now we are not really talking about what we're going to use the fund for later because we can't talk about it right now. We just would like to have a certain line item there. And I think all of us agree that for the 100, we have a majority, 160 something is not. All of us agree to it. So if we can just now, for the sake of time, create the reserve and we can all of us, it take for people to say, don't use it for that. If later somebody come and like you don't agree, for example, of the used. Uh, but right now I think we just need to create that fund. If, if like the people agree and later on, we also are the ones who have the power to say, use it for this and you use it for that. And regarding the name, I think any name community response is fine.

It's fine by me. >> Yeah. So, uh, let's create the fund and we can talk about the used later case by case >> How do we feel about commute community response fund? Uh. >> That's it. Come in. Like with, um, 162, 400, uh, coming from seated from the space that we initially talked about.. >> Um, community response fund. Yeah. >> Reserve fund, uh. Community response reserve fund. Yes

Reserve. Yes. >> Reserve fund at 162,000. And this would just be amending where the staff had proposed the for the 162 to go to the emergency fund. Um wanted to know if staff if council is ready to vote on this proposal. >> So as to not need a vote on the amendment to the amendment to the amendment was that a. Is your own motion to change it? As I understand it, from the Alternative Response Reserve Fund to the Community Response Reserve Fund, you. Seconded. Uh, councilor, you're okay with that? So it's a friendly amendment?

Yes. >> Okay, great. So that's that. >> Thank you, thank you. Okay, so. >> Now we're to the, uh, motion Councilor Weilein motion to amend the amendment. Yeah. >> All right. So he. Has he made the motion. >> The original item got so many. >> Amendments here. Okay, so now we're. >> At. The original item is the fiscal year 26 budget amendment, public hearing, and Councilor Weilein has proposed an amendment to that. So that's where we are now.

Right. >> So before we move on, because of the because we had a a motion by William and a seconded by um Salah for the name of community Response Reserve fund. Yeah. Why do we need to vote on that. >> We don't because it's considered a friendly amendment. It was a two people who made it.

All right. So we are at the um the voting part. If there are no more conversation. Yes. By council on the 162. Um amendment 162,000 amendment. That was Councilor Weilein proposed.. >> Just to clarify, I think the motion was for 162,400. >> Okay, great. Okay. Thank you. Two. For staff. Yes. Thank you. All right. >> Roll call please. Bergus. >> Yes. Harmsen. >> Yes. Mo. >> No. Salah. >> Yes. Teague. >> Yes. Wilson. >> Yes. Alter. >> Yes.

Motion passes 6 to 1. We are. On back to the original. Um, item before us, which is just the fiscal year budget amendment, public hearing. Any other discussion on this item? >> I yeah, I was trying to ask for also amendment for FY 26 budget during between the meetings. I like have a conversation with city attorney, city manager and I found out that you can only amend money coming out from the facility or from the emergency, but the facility reserve, we have only $5 million. And I, I, I am looking for $5.1 million that we can have from the reserve. The reserve to be for the affordable housing fund, like creating another reserve called Affordable Housing Reserve Fund. But since this is not going to happen, I think I just wanted to put it on your radar that we can talk about it more after we pass the FY 27 budget in July.

Well, you'll pass it presumably at the next item. No, no. We. After. After it. Banned it. Yeah. We can come and amend it because the only time that we can amend it is after July 1st. >> You are correct.

Okay. >> Yeah. And as part of as a just catching you up, mayor, um, we were talking during work session about pending work topics, and one of them had to do with sort of a holistic view of our reserve policies and that this would be something that we were hoping to, um, move up so that we could talk about it in May to have a better understanding of the reserves and policies so that then we're in better situation for any, whether it's an amendment putting forth um, the new, um, proposal by, by councilors.

Yeah. But I have one question for you. Maybe this is have nothing to do with this conversation, but if we would like to create a new line item for the CIP, how or when can we do that >> Uh, the the best time to to do that would be, um, when you're reviewing the budget in early January, when we present that, um, and if, you know, you want to create it, even giving staff direction before. So when in August, usually or sometimes early September will come and say any budget priorities that you have. And if there's a majority that say we'd like to create a, you know, we'd like to resurface this road this year, for example, then we would work that into the CIP and present it to you in January. Um, you can, you can do budget amendments, but when you get into the CIP, um, if you're talking about bond funds, right, you're going to be looking at our bonds here in a few additional items. We're only bonding for those dollars once a year. So it depends on the revenue source because CIP uses the capital improvement plan, utilizes numerous revenue sources to fund various projects. So, um, back to the short answer. September. August. Budget prep. January. Preliminary budget review are the two best times. >> Okay. Sounds good.

Thank you. >> So for clarification.

For clarification, if did you want to make a proposal in this moment or this you were just kind of alluding to a topic that we'll be discussing at a future work session in May. >> No, I don't want to make proposal because if I made the proposal to take from the facility, we have only 5 million in the facility. But we I think we need also to buy the, you know, the the school district's for the new station. And that's not going to work. So I'm just going to wait. >> Okay. All right. Sounds good. All right. Any other item for discussion at this time? Hearing none, roll call please. >> Harmsen.

Yes. Mo. >> Salah. Yes. >> Teague. Yes. >> Yes. Alter. Yes. Bergus.

Yes. >> Motion passes 7 to 0. We're on to nine. F public hearing for fiscal year 2027. Budget resolution. Adopting the annual budget for fiscal year ending June 30th, 2027. I'm going to open up the public hearing and welcome Jeff. >> Okay. On to the next fiscal year. So again, this fiscal year would start in July and go through the following June. This is the budget that was presented to you in January. Again, you had numerous meetings to talk through that. There's only been minor changes and changes in the budget since we first presented that to you in January. Those are articulated in the um in the staff memo. Um, I do have the full presentation from January available to us tonight. So if there's any aspects of the budget you wanted to dive back into, I'm happy to guide those discussions. But in the interest of time and recognizing that you've already spent hours and hours looking at this budget, we do not have a formal presentation >> Okay.

Any questions for Jeff from Council Hearing none, we're going to go to the public. Anyone want to discuss this topic? If you're online, please raise your virtual hand and council chambers. Please come forward Seeing no one, I'm going to close the public hearing. Can I get a motion to approve, please? So moved. >> Alter second Mo.

Council discussion >> I just want to give huge appreciation to the extraordinary hard work it is to put together the budget, let alone with the shifting sands of the state and of this council. No, I mean, we're this has just been immense. And, um, as always, you have come out with a budget that we can work with and really appreciate it. And, um, you know, the fact that our essential services are not cut, that this is taking into account the long vision so that we will be able to ride the waves, even if they're really scary. Um, you know, that has been year after year, we've had that forecast and year after year we've done well. And that's because of the work that you guys have put into it. And then also all the departments, um, really being disciplined and smart and, um, thank you. >> Ditto.

Ditto. >> Yes.

Absolutely. Agree with all the comments. Thank you so much for staff. Thank you for the policies that you surface for us to consider and reconsider and talk about. Um, I just want to be transparent with all of you and with the public. Uh, I think voting on the budget is one of the most important, um, things that a councilor has to do. I take it very, very seriously. I think you all know that the past several years, um, I voted against the budget because of increasing investment in, um, what I believe are known to be systems that are not optimizing safety and care in our community. And I have tremendous, tremendous respect for our police department, for all of the officers, for the city employees who serve the public every day and do the jobs that they are tasked with doing very, very well. And that being said, I maintain that we should not be increasing that investment. So I will again be voting against this budget. >> I I mirror everything that um Councilor Bergus says, and it, uh, what does make me feel good about, especially what we just, just did. I feel like, uh, you know, as a council, we agree on so much. So, so much. And, um, I think that, uh, when it comes to like diversifying public safety, um, trying to get the best outcomes for the community, um, create the safest community we can. There's, uh, there's some disagreement on strategy on how to get there. But I think when it comes to, uh, I believe in our ability to get there to a point. Um, and, uh, hashing out the intricacies of what the fund

could do, uh, that we established, um, we haven't been able to do that yet. So I think I'm in the same, in the same position, uh, as Councilor Bergus And I just, I, but I cannot imagine having to put together this budget. So thank you so much again. Um, I enjoyed reading it, believe it or not. So, um, yeah, thank you.

So I want to understand that both Councilor Bergus and Councilor Weilein will not be voting for this current budget because of the police budget. >> Because of the increase. Yes. >> Because of the increase in years past, you have made a proposal to, um, redirect a portion of the funds. Is that something you're doing this year? No. >> Your honor.

I don't. Yeah, I don't think that um, I think the, the mechanism for getting there, uh, to that point can't be hashed out right now in this moment. You know, I think trying to get to a point was through that amendment earlier. Um, but because of like the timing and everything. Um, I am, uh, trying, you know, for days and days and days trying to figure out how to vote on it. But I think that, um, uh, although I'm extremely grateful, um, for staff's help for, uh, council's willingness to, um, be collaborative. That's just a, um, you know, we haven't invested enough in our community response. And I just think that it needs to be, uh, this is a way to just communicate that, um, it is still an extremely important part of this part of the budget process for us. And so that's where I landed. >> So normally I wouldn't make a comment, but as Councilor Bergus stated, the budget, the city's budget is the most important, one of the most important things that this council gets to do throughout the entire year. And I do not believe that respectfully, um, that you are not doing your job right now where you should be advocating either for a reduction of of the police budget, if that's what it should be or you should be, you know, making a statement and saying you don't agree with that increase. But at the end of the day, the entire community, if it was left up to you to

right now, I am very sorry. But if it was left up to you two right now, we wouldn't have any, budget to do the things that we would need to do in 2027. We have a bunch of road things to do. We have, uh, social services agencies that are dependent on us. And right now you're saying that you will not, and we've gone through this year after year, but I do not think that it's appropriate. I do not think that it's right. Again, if you want to not, um, vote, that's your prerogative. But at the end of the day, I do believe that it is not doing your job. And, and because the community rely on us to come and approve a budget, at the end of the day, if you don't agree with items in it, I don't agree with everything in the budget myself, but either I can make a statement about it and still, you know, approve it. I'm not saying that that's what you need to do, but I just want to say that I do not think that in this moment, there has not been an alternative proposal to this council, except you're not going to vote. And I do think it's worth the time for you to make a proposal for this council to consider. >> Not on the last day

And I'm sorry, I'm a little, um, emotional only because this is, um, as stated, one of the critical parts of this council role is to, um, consider the budget and of course, make a, make a vote. Understood >> Can I ask question about how much any spent money from the police budget was last year >> Or months

To see if I have that in my fingertips I didn't I didn't bring that particular report. The I can share the where the where the police budget is. If you don't have that, um, pulled up. But the general fund summary that you'd want to look at is on page 273, the original um, police budget for the current year that we were in is um 18,000,000.6. Um, and, uh, the, the fiscal year 27 recommendation is 18.6 as well. It's about a quarter percent decrease. That's largely because we moved auto auto purchases out of the, um, operational budget and into the capital budget. Um, but overall, this budget reflects a quarter percent decrease in the police budget in the general fund.

You mean this year we're not increasing it. It is, it should increase from decrease from last. Year, decreasing from the original budget that you adopted in this current year. However, we've pulled the vehicles out. We usually spend several hundred thousand dollars on patrol vehicle replacement every year. So what's different this year is that we pulled those vehicles out into the capital, um, which lowers the overall increase. We're still purchasing those, but it's coming out of a different fund. >> Do you know how much is those? >> Uh, it's usually up to about half a million. Uh, a little bit lower.

Okay. >> I'm getting, I'm getting 300,000 or so. So even if you put those vehicles back in, it would be a, a very small increase this year, probably less than a percent. >> I guess, because every year when I look at it, I see like there is, there is kind of surplus for the police, but yet >> Correct.

And do you just like in the top of your head, could you like remember roughly how much is it? >> I think in a given year, we would, if I look back at the last few years and I'm going to look for just kind of head nod, fact check here if I'm in the right ballpark, I think anywhere from, uh, 4 or 500,000, up to a million, 1.1, 1.2 million something somewhere in that range. Is it typically what the police department would not spend out of their budget in a given year?

And this has been for how many years we've been seeing that. >> Um, it's probably been a little higher, since, um, 2020. Um, and that's just because police staffing is a lot harder since 2020. So we have more vacancies that we aren't able to fill. So when we don't have, uh, positions filled, we have budgeted dollars for those positions, but we're spending less because they're not filled. So, um, I couldn't tell you without doing the, the research, what those numbers were pre-COVID, but my guess is those surpluses or those, the unspent dollars in police budgets were a lot less before 2020. And they've increased since then simply because of staffing challenges.

Yeah >> I guess thinking if we have like 1.5 million unexpended every year for the past. I wouldn't say 1.5 every year, I don't have those numbers. If I had to guess an average And it's true, it's truly an educated guess. I would say 750 800,000.

Sure. Then, you know, I feel like there is money sitting there. It's not going to be expended all the time. We we being told all the time when we want to do something, there is no money. And at this point, I would like to propose, uh, like 5,000,005, uh, hundred thousand to be transferred from the police budget to the reserve. >> AM I not? Doesn't this work also that not every. >> Department like the way budgets work and the way reconciliation works. Before. >> You continue. Maybe there is a motion, but I think our city attorney has a.

Yes, exactly. >> Exactly right. I'm sorry. That would be illegal at this point. You could reduce it. Just reduce it down, but. >> Not transfer it to anywhere. Right? >> Yeah. You okay? Uh, since we're not using that, can we reduce it by 500 or just make it like 80 million? >> Why are we doing this on the last night we've had for months. I don't know how many meetings we've had. >> This this can be yes. Or has never been raised before. Not once. And the question has been asked, does anybody have any questions? Does anybody have any comments that they want to bring? And we know that the police has been a point of contention for years, and no one has said anything until now. >> Yeah.

I think. >> I allow the motion to go forth. >> I respect everybody like here in the council, and I think I can bring anything anytime, and it is up to you guys to say yes or no. Is it do I have a right to do that? >> Yes you do. Or there is a certain time I have to do that, or I can do it anytime. >> I want.

You can do it now within those parameters that we discussed. >> Exactly. Zen, I guess like with like a lot of respect to you, Councilor Alter, I just, I was thinking about it and I really don't know when I supposed to bring it, but now I asked my questions and I would like to bring it. You have the right to say no to it. So move. By., move by Um. I'm sorry. I don't know what the motion was. I'm sorry. Motion was to reduce the police budget by $500,000. Geoff Fruin something. Could I get a second? We need a second before we discuss

I'll second it. >> All right. Seconded by Bergus. Discussion. >> Um, can you explain part of the formula? Because we talked a lot about when it came to reserve funds and stuff like that. Um, that, uh, me understanding, um, my understanding of that whole process and calculation, like really went up after all of those conversations. So can you explain because as far as I know, when, when the money isn't unspent, it goes into like specific reserves rather than just, uh, sitting, going into the general fund, um, there's like a calculation where it goes some to emergency, some to facilities, some to general fund. Is that correct? >> Would be.

Um. >> There's not a specific calculation. It becomes a staff recommendation. So one thing to keep in mind is that um, your, your, your budget consists of numerous expenditure lines and revenue lines. So, um, you may have a budget that comes in, let's say $500,000 under budget. You could have, um, building permits that come in under budget. You could have hotel, motel taxes, maybe a good example to use. We had two hotels closed this past fiscal year. We're not going to hit those numbers. So at the end of the year we have to take dozens of revenue sources and probably thousands of expenditure lines and see where the total budget ends up. Um, and then let's say we have a surplus of $1 million at the end of the fiscal year. What we would do, um, is recommend to you how to use those surpluses. So first, we generally look to the general fund reserve. Is it at the top of our policy range, which is 35%? And then if it is, we take those and we say we're either going to place them in the emergency reserve or the facilities reserve, and that becomes a recommendation to council

Oh, you mean we've been we've been doing that. We've been tracking. >> So when we talk about the transfer, if you go back to your last item, the $162,000 and the. And also the $5 million that's being transferred into the reserve fund, um, that's basically unspent dollars from all your departments. Um, net of the revenues that the general fund relies on to. So, um, if we don't have, if we have departments spending all their dollars and our revenues come in where they are, there is no money for whatever reserve funds you want to create. I guess what. >> Our.

Current policy also encourages all of our departments to be fiscally responsible, because if we have a policy where we defund them, if they don't spend every penny that's been allocated, we end up wasting money. So it is a very bad policy to tell city departments, spend all your money, you're going to lose it. So I will absolutely not be supporting this. >> I don't think we. That's what I meant. I asked many questions before that. I found out the police department. They have a lot of like most of the time they have money left. The last thing I want to do is like cut funding from the like the workers of the city, whether they are from the police department or from anywhere. But for me, like I always care about affordable housing and there is no money. And like money sitting on a budget that is not going to be used and is not being used for years. That's like today, if we want to buy houses, next year will be expensive and this money will be sitting there until next year after their budget, like finished, and we can transfer this money to something else where we can now allocate it to something else and we can do it. So that's what I really mean by like the money sitting there. I was not asking to like cut down services or do something or reduce something. I'm just talking about like after many questions, I ask, this has been sitting there all the time. That's just want you to understand exactly where I'm coming from. Yeah Motion on the floor.

So I think. The when the every department budget they budget for um, what their needs are essentially. And then realizing that all of those needs won't happen for various reasons, whether, whether it's, um, goods and services or staffing uh, positions feel we know that staff come and go throughout the year and there'll be a couple of months where, you know, there's no staff in that role. So there's no, uh, payroll being paid. So there's a lot of, um, parts that go into this. Um, I don't believe that. Um, one isolating one department in this moment from the diocese is appropriate Um, and especially not at this stage. And I also, um, I guess I'll just leave it at, I won't be supporting that. Um, and the majority of the, uh, increase that we see in all departments is really staff pay is just their annual, um, things that.

Are separate votes. >> Yeah. Things that are due to, due to them. And I know you are a huge proponent for supporting the staff pay and stuff like that. So, um, yeah, I'll leave it at that. >> Insurance rates have skyrocketed.. >> Any other comments on this? Um, amendment proposal? Hearing none roll call please. No, no. >> Salah. Yes. >> Teague. No. >> Willing. Yes. Alter. No. >> Bergus. Yes. >> Harmsen.

No. >> Motion fails five. Um. Five. 4 to 3. 4 to 3. All right. We're going to move on. Um continuing with the original item which is the public hearing for fiscal year 2027 budget. Uh we already had a motion and uh, it was moved and seconded. And so continue with council discussion at this time. I'm ready to. >> Vote hearing no more discussion. Roll call please. >> Mo. Yes. Yes. >> Teague. Yes. Online. No. Alter. >> Yes. Bergus. No. Harmsen. >> Yes.

Motion passes seven. Uh, 5 to 2. All right. We are on to item number nine. G fiscal year 2027. Utility rates, public hearing ordinance amending title three entitled finances, finance, taxation and fees. Chapter four entitled Schedule of Fees, rates, charges, bonds, fines and Penalties. I'm going to open up the public hearing and welcome Jeff back again. >> Okay. Item three of four related to the budget approval. This is the beginning of the utility adjustments that are incorporated into the budgets. We have two recommended increase that was presented to you back in January. The first is a 3% increase in the water charge. That 3% increase in our water rates is estimated to generate just shy of $340,000 annually. And that's to help, meet increased cost of the water division, including staffing, material costs, construction costs, et cetera.. The second and final is the wastewater charge that shows up on your same utility bill. If you receive one from the city, that 5% will generate an estimated $650,000 annually, and that is both for operations and to help with the debt service payments for the large digester and natural gas, uh, project renewal, excuse me, a renewable natural gas project that's currently underway that you've awarded.

Any questions for Jeff from Council Hearing none, anyone from the public like to discuss this topic. Seeing no one in person or online, I'm going to close the public hearing. Can I get a motion to approve, please? So alter. Second mo. >> All right. Council discussion. Roll call please. >> Salah. Yes. >> Teague. Yes. >> Yes. Alter. Yes. Bergus. Yes. Harmsen. >> Yes. Mo. Yes.

Motion passes 7 to 0. Item number 9H3 year financial plan and five year capital improvement plan resolution approving the three year financial plan for City of Iowa City, Iowa, and the five year capital improvement plan. Can I get a motion to approve, please? >> So moved Mo.. Second. Salih. >> All right. And Geoff Fruin.

Okay. This one does not require a public hearing. It's a resolution. You have approved the fiscal year 26 amendment, the 27 budget. This one in capital encapsulates the entire planning period for our budget, which is the 26 to 28 financial plan and the 26 to 30 CIP plan. And again, this was all presented to you as part of that January budget proposal. >> Any questions for Jeff? Hearing none, anyone from the public like to address this topic. Seeing no one online or in person, Council discussion. Roll call please. >> Teague. Yes. >> Yes. Alter. Yes. Bergus. Yes. Harmsen. >> Yes.

Mo. Yes. >> Yes. Motion passes 7 to 0 nine. I 2026 C Goban resolution g o bond resolution directing sale of $15,370,000 of general obligation bonds. Series 2026 C. Can I get a motion to approve, please? So moved. >> Second, alter.

All right. And then we're going to have some financial staff come before us. Welcome. >> Jacqueline Jacklyn Fleagle, assistant finance Director. Um, so we're going to be covering the next three items. So 9I9J9K. Um we had our bond sale earlier today. We had two issues. The 2026 C and 2026 D. Um Maggie Berger is online from Speer Financial. She's our municipal advisor. She'll kind of walk you through some more details from the bond sale. But before I pass it off to her, I just wanted to mention that item nine K is a resolution authorizing the redemption of the 2016 E bonds. Um, they were revenue bonds being paid back by TIF and refunding them, calling them early and refunding with the 2026 D. Um, and it will also be paid by um TIF and debt service. So I'll pass it off to, to Maggie at this time. >> All right. Thank you everyone. I'm Maggie Berger with Speer Financial um, in front of you or in your packets this evening. Uh, we did have two bond sales as Jacqueline referred to the 2026 C bond sale was for 15,370,000. We did receive nine bids. That is a record for Iowa City and the most recent 9 to 10 years. I think that shows us a little insight into the economy, but the bigger part is you did maintain your AAA rating, um, from the rating agency. That is the highest rating in the United States. So we're very happy about that. That does bring bidders to the table that does buy and sort of bring down that interest rate based on competition. Uh, we are recommending that you would award this evening to our C list

and company out of New Jersey at a true interest rate of 2.9970. This is a ten year bond for your capital improvements projects. This bond is tax exempt. As we've discussed before, meaning that the um investors, the people that are lending you the money when they get their interest payments, they will not pay federal income tax on that. That is the structure of a tax exempt bond situation. Again, your rating was upheld at that AAA rating. They talk heavily. Um, all rating agencies like cash. So they're very excited that you have cash on hand that could have some flexibility to it. Although some cash funds are restricted, there is some cash funds that you have that would have some flexibility in case of emergency situations. Uh, one thing that they always talk about is if you're available, fund balances dropped pretty dramatically, dramatically. Um, or your cash ratio materially dropped as well. Uh, that could lead to a possible downgrade. So we always just pull and, and bring that to everyone's attention. The bonds today, um, did have a premium on them. Uh, so that premium is, is pretty significant. You will the price instead of the 1 million, 15 million, 370,000, it is $16,557,357.30. As you've seen in the past, the premium means the difference between the interest rates that they are bidding, which are 5% and 4% interest rates. And then what they are giving you in premium dollars to buy that interest rate down to that 2.99, that true interest rate, which is what we award off of those extra dollars. As you've seen those dollars in the past can be used on your projects. That is how they've been used in the past. I believe that's

likely how they will be used this year as well. The final debt service schedule for 15,370,000 over that ten year period. These bonds would be callable after the payment of June 1st, 2023. They would be callable on that date or any date after that date. And that just means the last three principal amounts would be callable. That really means the call date is at your option only. That means if the city does not want to call the bonds in, they do not have to call the bonds in. They can just continue to make those payments. Those final three principal and interest payments. You could pay off at that time. You could pay down at that time. So if you had partial dollars to pay on those bonds, or again, you could just keep them as they are. If we do a refunding because of lower interest rates, we usually are only refunding out to the original maturity date of that existing bond. So that is the 2026 C proposal. Uh, if you would like, I would, I'd like to walk through the 2026 D proposal and then take any questions on either of them that you have.

All right. You can go through the next one and welcome by the. >> Way.

The second proposal, um, that we have in front of you tonight is for the refunding bonds, as Jacqueline referred to them. It's been quite a number of years before we've seen since we've seen refunding. As you'll recall, there were many refunds done. Um when we were in one and 2% interest rates, uh, at the, you know, at the federal level, we've not been seeing those interest rates. But as mentioned, what we are doing here is we are taking a tax increment financing revenue bond. We are it was a taxable bond to begin with. In 2016. We are refunding it out with general obligation bonds. Um, the it is the intent that the majority of that debt will continue to be paid with TIF revenues. The reason that we are conducting this, refunding that original 2016 E bond issue had a rate interest rate reset date as of June 1st of 2026. Uh, today's interest rate, if it were to reset today, it's a Treasury yield. It's a ten year Treasury yield plus a percentage is what the agreement called for in 2016. That interest rate today would be a 5.92% interest rate versus the interest rate that you had on existing debt of around 3% or 3.5%. So there would be quite a large increase, which is what we took in figuring out the refunding. We would recommend that we would award to Robert W Baird of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. There was a small premium of about $96,000 on this issuance. The true interest rate is a 4.30% interest rate, higher than the other interest rate that we just talked about. These are taxable bonds. So the interest paid to the investors will those

investors will pay federal income tax. Your gross savings today is 397,000. By doing the refunding $397,513. But we have net present value savings, which kind of takes into consideration, um we'll call it the aging of money over the next ten years that these bonds are outstanding, that net present value savings is $571,654, which is a pretty significant savings. That's about 7.03% of those refunded notes that we're talking about here. Uh, we did have, um, right in this, we did have five bids received, some of the same bidders, some different bidders from the first issuance, again, due to the taxability, these bonds would carry the same AAA rating because they are general obligation bonds. And just as we stated, um, this call date, because it has a little bit, um, it is paid with TIF revenues. We made this call date one year shorter on June 1st of 2032. That just means that at that time, if there are revenues ahead, again, this debt could be paid off, could be paid in full or in part could be refunded. Um, but the interest rates at that time are a little lower than, than the first part of the interest rate. So with that, I'd answer any questions that you have on either of the issuances today, but we would recommend you move forward with both resolutions. Uh nine I and nine J as well as nine K, which is really the redemption notice that is required to be passed after nine J. >> Great. Thank you. Maggie, are there any questions for Jacqueline or Maggie by council? Hearing none, um, anyone from the public like to address this

topic? Seeing no one online or in person. Council discussion. Thank God for the AAA rating. All right. Roll call please. Yes. Alter. Yes. Bergus. Yes. Harmsen. Yes. Mo. Yes. Yes. >> Teague. Yes. Motion passes 7 to 0. We're on to nine J, which is 2026 D gold bond resolution resolution directing sale of $8,130,000 for the general Obligation bonds series 2026 D. Motion to approve please.

So moved Mo second. >> All right. And staff already gave comments on this so we won't have them come back. Um, is there anyone from the public that would like to, uh, speak to this item? Seeing no one online with their virtual hand raised or in person council discussion Roll call please. >> Alter. Yes. >> Bergus. Yes. Harmsen. Yes. >> Mo. Yes. Yes. >> Teague. Yes. >> Yes. I don't know why I said yes when. >> I know. You did. >> You did.

Was out there last time. >> Uh, motion passes 7 to 0. All right. Nine K early call of the 2016 E taxable urban renewal revenue bond resolution authorizing the redemption of the outstanding taxable urban renewal revenue. Capital loan Notes Series 2016, E of the City of Iowa City. State of Iowa, dated September 15th, 20 20 2016, and Direct notice be given. Can I get a motion to approve? Please? So moved. Bergus. >> Second alter.

All right. And no additional comments from the staff on this item either. And so anyone from the public like to address this. Seeing no one online or in person council discussion. Roll call please. >> Bergus. Yes. Harmsen. Yes. Mo. Yes. >> Yes. Teague. Yes. Yes. Alter. Yes. >> Motion passes 7 to 0. We're at nine L alcohol license renewal and premises update

Mr. Mayor. Yes. Once again, I am going to be recusing myself from this item because it was alleged that I have a conflict of interest in consulting with our council. I'm not required to recuse myself, but to avoid the appearance of impropriety, I will be sitting this one out. >> All right, so we are having Councilor Bergus recuse herself on this item, and we are adjusting a little bit. Um, we're going to welcome, uh, a different attorney with us today. Um. Mohammed. >> Yes Mohammed Schmadeke. >> That's very good. All right. >> Please pronounce it. And if it'll, if it's easier for you, just say mo mo. Sharon.

Sharon. >> And I'm happy to be here. Yes. >> Thank you. Welcome. Uh, Mo. Sharon. Um, so we're at item number nine L, which is alcohol license renewal and premises update. Union Bar& Grill resolution disapproving the issuance of an alcohol license to 118 South Clinton LLC. D b a Union Bar& Grill. And can I get a motion to first accept correspondence. >> So moved.

Second alter. >> All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes 6 to 0, and we're going to get started with item number one, which is the hearing. Um, and so we're going to bring up our first assistant city attorney at this time to do, um, um, a presentation. Welcome. >> Thank you. Good evening, mayor and council. Jennifer Schwickerath first Assistant City attorney. 118 South Clinton LLC has filed to renew the class C alcohol license for the Union Bar and Grill, located at 118 South Clinton Street, 118 South Clinton LLC has also filed a premises update to change the premises covered by the alcohol license. The current license covers the second floor in the basement and the premises update is requesting the inclusion of the first floor Iowa City ordinance 4-2-3 provides for the local review of applications, which includes review by the Fire Chief, Police Chief and building official. The ordinance requires that if there is a recommendation to disapprove the renewal application, it must be set forth by memo from one of the officials no later than seven days prior to the expiration of the current license. The Union bar and grill's current license expires on April 30th, 2026, and the building officials memo recommending disapproval is dated April 14th, 2026, which is more than seven days prior to the expiration of the license. After a timely memo recommending disapproval, Iowa City Ordinance 4-2-4 requires that the licensee be given notice and an opportunity to be heard on the disapproval. 118 South Clinton, LLC received the notice of

Hearing on disapproval of applications for renewal and premises update with the building officials memo and attachments by email on April 14th, 2026. These materials are included in your Council packet and they were also sent by First Class Mail on April 14th, 2026, which is at least six days prior to tonight's hearing, as required by Iowa City Ordinance 4-2-4. The memo and notice for the memo and the notice and opportunity for hearing in this matter are timely. If after the hearing this evening Council disapproves the renewal of the alcohol license and the premises update, the licensee can appeal the Disapprovals to the Iowa Department of Revenue. If appealed. The license for the second floor and basement remains valid. However, the first floor will not be licensed because it was not included in the initial license. The building official for this purpose is Development Services Coordinator Danielle Sitzman coordinator. Sitzman will now present the memo and recommendation for disapproval because the Union Bar and Grill is in violation of the city Zoning code that restricts the location of drinking establishments.

Good evening, Mayor and Council Danielle Sitzman. In summary of my memo, just to state the Union Bar and Grill at 118 South Clinton Street is located in the C b ten central business zone within the University Impact area. Although it was initially classified as an eating establishment use based on a verified statement submitted with the liquor license application, which stated that it would close by midnight, it has not operated in accordance with that statement based on its actual operations, including holding a class C liquor license and regularly remaining open between midnight and 2 a.m.. The business meets the zoning definition of a drinking establishment use under the current Iowa City zoning code. Drinking establishments in the C, B ten zone within the University Impact area must be located at least 500ft from another drinking establishment, the Union Bar and Grill is located within 500ft of other existing drinking establishments and therefore does not meet the required separation standard because the current use is not permitted at this location. Under the zoning code, the liquor license should not be renewed, in my opinion. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Any other comments at this time from our staff? Okay. All right. So we're going to invite up the licensee. Um comments and presentation at this time >> Welcome Mr. Mayor and City Council members. I'm Richard Davidson. I'm an attorney representing, uh, the liquor license applicant in this case. Um, I have a few comments. First of all, this is a little bit deja vu. Uh, this is the exact same issue that we had two months ago with the field house. The matter is now in front of the district court. Uh, it is been appealed to the district court. The district court has established a schedule and will make a ruling sometime toward the end of May or early June. Uh, therefore, this process is a little bit like beating your head against the wall because it feels good when you stop, um, this decision that you make tonight will have no impact. Um, because the court will decide this issue in the field house case. Um, and until it is decided, uh, I don't know why we're here. Uh, apparently staff and the council are mad at Mr. Barcelo and his business partner, but that is not a good reason. We have a disagreement about what the ordinance says in comparison to what state law allows. The court will decide that issue. There's nothing illegal or immoral about disagreeing. What? On the legal consequences of statutory provisions? And it is

a little bit disheartening to think that, um, that people would present that as some kind of immoral or illegal action. Uh, it's a legal disagreement. This is why we have judges and courthouses and that's where we are. We've been in front of a judge. We're now going in front of another judge at the courthouse. If either of us don't like the outcome, we'll probably be in Des Moines at the Court of Appeals or the Iowa Supreme Court. But that's the way the process works. That is how the legal system works. Um, we're not trying to gain an unfair advantage. Uh, we are trying to follow the law. The city is of course, not trying to gain an unfair advantage. It's trying to follow the law. We disagree about what the law says. Um, again, as I said, that's why we have judges and courthouses. There are three branches of government. And the third branch, the judicial branch, will decide the outcome of this matter. So, uh, as I said, this is this is a little bit premature. Um, there isn't any reason for us to be here tonight. Uh, other than the city is mad at Mr. Barcalow. As far as I can tell. Secondly, I don't understand the provision that the city has included in the memo about the premises update. Um, of course, no evidence was presented here at the hearing on behalf of the city that the facility cannot operate on the first floor. The reason the facility was not operating on the first floor was because the assistant city attorney sent a letter in your packet

dated August 1st, 2025, quoting an ordinance 4-2-2B, which was repealed. Is that correct? Is that ordinance you. Can speak to us up here. Thank you. Well, there's a hearing. I can ask questions. If you can speak to us. Thank you.

This is the same issue that we had on the field house. Um, so the building, the the the certificate of occupancy permit has been granted for the whole building. Um, there is no reason that the premises cannot be operated on the first floor other than the, the assistant city attorney sent a letter dated August 1st, 2025, claiming that the premises could not be operated on more than one floor. Um, because of the ordinance 4-2-2B, which no longer exists. So that's the only reason that the premises are not being operated on the first floor. So no matter what you do with the license and the 500ft, uh, in the first instance, you should really break out the issue of what they characterized as the premises update. Uh, in that the council is not, there is nothing before the council that would allow the council to determine that the premises cannot be operated on the first floor. The as I said earlier, the only reason it is not being operated on the first floor is because of the action of the city staff in the process of obtaining the liquor license earlier in the process. That's now changed. This is the same exact issue that we had on the field house. Uh, so that matter should be separated out and removed from the resolution. And I know what you're going to do on the 500ft. You're going to support your ordinance. I, I understand that, and it's going to go to the State Liquor Commission in Des Moines, and it's going to be stayed until the district court decides the issue. And the field

House case. And that's all fine. Again, that's that's part of the legal process. Um, but I think lumping the the first floor issue in with the 500 foot issue, those aren't the same thing. There is no provision in the Iowa City zoning code that says you cannot operate a bar or restaurant on the first floor. The only reason it wasn't included was because of the correspondence that had taken place earlier, before the premises were opened. Um, that has that has been updated. The building plans have been submitted to the city, the building permit has been closed. The certificate, the certificate of occupancy has been granted so that there is no reason to for the City Council to even address that portion of this matter. So then that leaves you with the issue of is the premises being operated as under your definitions in your ordinance, as a drinking establishment or as a restaurant establishment? We've talked about that in the field House case, and I won't belabor it. Uh, the the issue is, does the state code supersede the provisions of the, uh, local ordinance, uh, or does the local ordinance, uh, control that's the issue that the district court and ultimately the, the court in Des Moines is going to answer for us, uh, and we're all going to live with the result. So those are our thoughts. I appreciate your time. Thank you very much.

Thank you All right. Any questions from the council to either our city staff or to the licensee that just presented. >> I'd like to hear from the officer just about what they witnessed and how many times they saw. Okay. >> Welcome Thank you. Specifically related to times

Good evening, Rob Castillo, City Police Department. I'm the lieutenant for the late night watch. Um, primarily hours from 11 p.m. To 7 a.m., uh, I've been assisting with the observation of the closing times. Um, in addition to the memo that's in your packet over this last weekend, uh, the union was observed being operated until, uh, two in the morning as a closing time. Uh, that's usually regular, uh, observation of Thursday, Friday, Saturdays, which are typically heavier bar times in the downtown district. Um, they are open past the midnight and usually closing down between 130 and 2 a.m. Depending on crowd size. Okay. >> Multiple times. What's that? Multiple times. You saw it?

Yes. >> Okay. All right. Thanks. Great. Thank you. Any other questions by council? Uh. Say something. >> Um, only if the council, uh, calls you up. Yeah. Any other questions by council?

Yeah, I just wanted to. I'm looking at the language of the resolution and, um. Mr. Barcelos attorney mentioned that there is a reference to the first floor ordinance in our resolution, and I don't see that. Yeah. Um, I'm. I'm the, our, the resolution that I see before me specifically discusses the 500 foot rule. Um, I don't see any reference to the first floor use is, is that something that. Uh, somebody can point out to me because I don't see it. I heard it. >> Yeah, yeah. >> And I'm only interested in where in our resolution that is. >> I don't, I don't know where.

That is supposedly. >> I think what they're saying is on the first floor, the premise has been denied. The premise permit is separate from the um, alcohol license renewal. >> So it's. Our resolution is only concerned. With. 500 concerned. The 500 foot. >> No it's both. It's not in the resolution. >> Yes it is. Where where. >> That's the question at the end of section two where it says and disapproves the premises update to add the first floor. >> Note and the first floor was on the original building permit

So that the second clause of item two says the Council hereby disapproves the issuance of the class C alcohol license to 118 South Clinton LLC DBA Union Bar& Grill and disapproves. The premises update to add the first floor, which that's the part I'm indicating is not before you and should be removed. The premise update is a separate matter. What it does is it in effectively the. If you look at the building permit that we have, and I'd be happy to share that with you because I brought it tonight. Um, if I could hand this out to the council, I'd be happy to share this with you. Um. Could I get a motion to accept correspondence? So moved. >> Second.

Moved by. Seconded by Mo. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes 6 to 0.

I've got a packet of information there. Just again, the ordinances, the laws, the state laws, the certificate of occupancy. But if you go back to the last two pages, the building permit labeled A was issued on March 24th, 2025. So that was last year. And in the description, it includes the first floor, the second floor at the cactus space. Everything is included. Yet just this afternoon I pulled the same permit up and you'll see the same permits in B. Somebody went in from the city and removed all that information from the city permit. So but there's the original permit is part A and part B is somebody from the city removing the information, including the first floor on the city's website, um, which is a little bit odd, but you'll see the certificate of occupancy, which means they deleted the information that was there. The building plan itself that was submitted on July 22nd, 2025 included the first floor. Uh, we had a memo come from the city stating that we did not file that with the online premise permit update, which there's two steps with the alcohol licensing. When you change your floor plan or do anything with your floor plan, you submit a premise update. You should actually be voting on two things tonight, not one. We tried to get this on the March 10th meeting last month. The city staff refused to put it on there for the premise update. We tried to get it on the April 7th agenda. The city staff refused to put it on the agenda. And then tonight they lumped them together to confuse you. There's two different situations here. One is the approval of the floor plan, which they knew as of July 22nd, 2025, that we were going to use the first floor. What they're saying is the upstairs is only approved, not the first floor, which is nonsense. Our kitchens on the first floor. So you're telling us we don't have to cook food now or not a restaurant? We don't have to use that space. I mean, staff is making this so confusing and doing everything they can to hurt, harm our financially harm our business.

It's not even funny. And not follow the state law, but it is two separate matters. I would suggest that council separate it to a premise, permit, update and approve that tonight, saying that we can use the floor plan that was submitted on approved by city staff all the way through all the way up to city Attorney's office knows that this was all approved Building Department issued the certificate of occupancy for the whole entire space right here for that plan that's being asked to be updated tonight, just because it was technically not put in at the right time. And city staff knew that and didn't didn't come to us. They filed a complaint with the Iowa Department of Revenue trying to harm our business. Again, instead of talking to us about it. Um, and just so you know, you sit here and say that the enforcement of this ordinance is against our two businesses. Since this ordinance was placed in business reunion bar and Grill, Reunion Brewery, whatever you want to call it, and business is a drinking establishment within 500ft of other drinking establishments that was implemented after this ordinance went into effect. So he's being treated differently than we are. The view rooftop is within 500ft of other 500 foot distances. Double tap has been allowed to stay open past midnight on several occasions, with city permission. So that's a violation of the city ordinance. You're not treating all the businesses fairly or applying the code fairly either or across the board efficiently. You can see on the certificate of occupancy, it says restaurants and nightclubs. It says 118 South Clinton Street, which is the entire building. And it also has that same building permit number on it that miraculously now doesn't have on the city's website, the first floor listed that was originally on the first floor. So there's a lot of stuff going on at City Hall that I'd be questioning if I were you guys, because we're sure going to and we're going to find out what's going on through the courts. We will be in court, unfortunately. Thank you.

Thank you. >> Mayor, may I approach?

Yes, you may. >> To provide some clarifications to the statements that have been made. So there are two different. There is both the renewal and the premises update. And the recommendation is to disapprove both of both of those. Based on the 500 foot ordinance, the resolution does not include any cites to that restaurant ordinance because it does not apply. So the recommendation is to disapprove both of them based on the 500 foot ordinance. Um, the renewal was filed with the state on March 11th of 2026. It stayed in the state's Dram shop review, which is a stage at which the city does not cannot do anything. And that's between the state and the licensee and their insurer to take care of what they need to take care of to get Dram shop insurance on file. So the renewal was not actually in local authority review status until April 2nd of 2026. And then the premises update was filed on April 3rd of 2026. And that went into local review status on April 3rd of 2026, which that would have been the Thursday and Friday before the last meeting, which is why they did not go on that agenda. Um, in regards to I think there's a little bit of confusion regarding that. August 1st, 2025 letter. So at that time, the city, um, so this the Union Bar and grill got their license before they actually started operating. And so they had their alcohol license before August 1st of 2025. They were not operating, but they had submitted to the city, to the building department that

they were going to also renovate the first floor. The although obviously the building piece and the alcohol license piece are both handled by the city. Um, there's an alcohol, there's alcohol ordinances, and there's also a zoning code. This letter was sent to notify the licensee at the time. It's the same licensee. Um, that just submitting that to the building department was not sufficient for updating the premises with the state for the liquor license. That was not done in August. It wasn't done until it was filed in April of 2026, which is why the original license only includes the second floor and the basement. The city wouldn't have the ability to amend with the state. Somebodies premises. That would be up to the licensee, because they have to show that they have control of the premises. They also have to be able to show that they have the appropriate dram shop insurance. There's any other clarifications I can provide? I'm happy to do so.

Can you talk a little bit about his statement about other bars that we allow them to go? Is that statement is true or what do you think? >> Um, are you referring to the reunion brewery? >> No, he said like other businesses. >> That's one of them he mentioned. >> Yeah, one of them. Yeah.

Okay. So I believe that that falls under, uh, one of the exceptions to the 500 foot ordinance. And I'm not going to remember exactly, but it has to do if it's. Um If it's a building that has been empty and it has a historical designation, I might not have those words exactly correct, but then you are allowed to have a drinking establishment. So that is not that is falling within one of the exceptions to the 500 foot ordinance Uh, my understanding of the view is I believe that that falls as a accessory use because it's in the hotel. So it's a different, um, so that complies with the zoning code and the different way the other establishment double tap there. As you know, our language in the ordinance says that businesses are drinking, establishments are regularly open from midnight to 2 a.m. So there is some flexibility. That's my understanding, was intended to allow with city permission, some businesses to be open, for example, like for New Year's Eve. So they would be requesting permission. And there is a policy that, um, if they request the permission, they can be open. I think it's limited to ten times a year and it can't be more than two consecutive days and it can't be more than three times a month.

Uh sorry. Did you. See the view is considered a accessory. >> I think that's the term in the zoning code. >> Okay, I was confused. I thought maybe the 500 foot rule didn't apply vertically or something. >> No, it has to do with the use. The fact that it's the hotel is the main use. All right. Thank you, thank. >> You, thank you. All right. Any other questions by council All right. We're going to move on to item two which is considered the resolution. Could I get a motion to approve, please? >> So moved.

Harmsen second while. >> Council discussion. I think, you know the why we are here. Just so everybody understands this is because the 500 foot setback is one of a raft of laws, ordinances and policies the city has to look after the health and safety and well-being of people, especially in the downtown. And this clearly violates that. And so this, um, you know, it's, it's very clear cut. And so I will be voting for this resolution.

Piece of information that sticks out in my mind is the verified statement that says, I understand that this will be used by the city to determine whether my business is an eating establishment or drinking establishment. And it says I'm only open until midnight. And that's never been what's happened. So, um, it's been a drinking establishment since the beginning with. >> Yeah.

And I'll just say, if there's one thing I know about, um uh, when it comes to these types of situations in my year of being on council and working with our staff, it's, there's no, there's no picking, uh, on certain people that that happens in that regard, uh, for the sake of picking on them. Just wanted to put that out there. Everybody is following the same rules >> Um.

And I will just say that this is a part of that legal process that, um, to answer the question of why are we here? Um, and this is a part of the process that this council goes through when there is such a, um, a situation as that's like this before us right now. So violation of our ordinances. Yeah. >> The order that we create. Exactly. >> Yeah. Yeah. Even though if the state later it's. >> Still our. Ordinance because yeah, that's what make me like. Yeah. Things we need to follow, what we create.

Yeah. >> Any other comments Roll call please. >> Harmsen. Yes. >> Mo. Yes. >> Salah. Yes. >> Teague. Yes. >> William. Yes. >> Alter. Yes. >> Motion passes 6 to 0. All right. And we'll bring in Councilor Bergus back And our city attorney >> Feel free to go ahead. Good job. >> Okay Unless I say the better. >> , you all can both go. Took me a second when you guys said yes, because I had to. Very quickly say resolution to disapprove. Right? Right. I did the same thing. I triple checked negative. I answered, just because.

You said yes. And I immediately looked up the to make sure I had the right. >> I feel you. I said. It just happened to be You know. >> I understand. We're going to run out of the alphabet Once we get to the letter nine Z, we have to quit. Amen. Brother >> Are we taking a break? How long night. >> Perhaps Do you? Are we taking a break or is this just an impromptu. >> Meeting I have no opinion. Just asking.

We're going to do a five minute recess. We'll be back.

You're being vicious. >> But this is such a good item. Okay, anything now? That's true. Housing Authority. >> All right, we are going to continue with our meeting. We're moving on to item number nine M article of incorporation for a housing nonprofit resolution authorizing the filing of articles of Incorporation to establish a nonprofit entity to advance the purposes of the Housing Authority of the City of Iowa City. Can I get a motion to approve, please?

So moved. Mo. >> Welcome. Good evening. Council. Oh, I'm sorry. >> Move by Mo. Seconded by alter. Welcome, Tracy.

Tracy. Neighborhood development services director. So at your last work session, if you remember, we had Dave Bright from the University of Iowa Nonprofit Resource Center talked to us about what it would be involved in creating a nonprofit that supports our housing authority. So I wanted to take you. This is two years ago, just to remind you about why we're why we're pursuing this path. So why we're repositioning. So we simply were not collecting enough revenue to hand to maintain our public housing program, which has 86 units in it. Over the last five years, we've averaged an annual loss of approximately 245,000 over five years. That's almost a million. It's over $1 million. The reason why we've been able to support this amount of loss every year is because decades ago, probably in the 1990s, like the few things that were before me, we sold public housing units. And so we have a very healthy reserves, but it's not sustainable to keep going into reserves every year to maintain our properties and public housing. It's not a good trend. Naomi, from our Harvard fellow, she she provided this chart. So basically, over the last 20 years, HUD has supported the section eight programs. We've seen continual increases in section eight. But for public housing, we are not collecting enough revenue to sustainably operate our program. So the benefits of repositioning is to get us out of the public housing program so that we can generate more revenue to basically sustain our our portfolio. And actually by creating a nonprofit, which is a requirement of the repositioning options we're looking at, we're eligible as we go into develop new properties to take advantage of other additional federal state programs like the Federal Home Loan Bank, Lighttech workforce, housing tax credits, because they either require they strongly prefer that you're working through an LLC or a nonprofit. We are going to use kind of like under a time crunch because to apply for the workforce housing tax credits for the million dollar benefit for the North Summit Street project, we have to at least have a co developer and that's at nonprofit. So we're kind of seeing if we can get to that by

the deadline. Um, the benefits of moving to a section eight platform, um, you're all familiar with housing choice vouchers. It increases our project revenue significantly. So when Cordell looked at what this would mean to us, it was about an increase of 569,000. So not only would we cover our operating expenses, we have more money to invest and to maintain our our housing programs. It's also instead of having a public housing program and a housing choice voucher program, we basically have a housing choice voucher program and it simplifies our program administration. And right now, under the repositioning options that we're we're targeting, you get a certain number of tenant protection vouchers. And so in addition, we have our units. We'd have tenant protection vouchers. And just a little bit about revenue sources between the programs. So with public housing, you get rent collection. And so for 30% of our tenants income is 50 bucks. We get 50 bucks for rent. And we rely on the HUD capital funds and HUD operating subsidy to make up how much we can. That's our budget for the year, and we are spending a lot of. It's a huge dependance on unstable source of income because it's federal aid and it's not sufficient. It keeps going down. Whereas with the section eight program, we get rent collection. That same tenant pays us $50, but we take the payment standard of a voucher and we're getting that every month. It's a it's a huge difference in reliable income. Let's say someone takes after a year, they take their tenant protection voucher and move away. Then we're renting that unit at probably the fair market rent or the payment standard where we're diversifying our income source, but we're still getting the full amount of rent. So it's a huge difference. And then with those tenant protection vouchers, we also get paid administrative fee. So we're having different revenues coming in from different different points. So our public housing repositioning path, we thought at the very beginning of this would be streamlined conversion through HUD. HUD took that one away. So then we had to go back and look at what repositioning path were still available to us. So it is looking like we will either do a section 18 disposition, a rad project, or kind of a blended approach. So either of those two, we have to create an LLC or nonprofit.

We felt a nonprofit represented what we wanted to do the best, because a nonprofit that's dedicated to the housing authority ensures long term, mission based ownership. It satisfies HUD's requirement for how we operate our affordable housing, and we actually have to create that nonprofit before we apply to the HUD Special Application Center, which we call the SAC office. So the concern is and the concern shared by legal Staff Council is how do we optimize control? Because we want it as Housing Authority affiliate that just serves the interests of the housing authority. Basically the city. So in the corporation and the bylaws, it states that we are operating exclusively for the benefit of support of, and assist in carrying out the purposes of the housing authority. After taking some of your comments from the last meeting, we amended the bylaws to five board members. Three are city, Iowa City Housing Authority related um director may be removed at any time by a vote. Of the three out of the five. And then we're also we had Eric and I had a meeting today with attorney out of Chicago that specializes in repositioning tax credits, affordable housing, finance. It alleviated a lot of my concerns. I don't know what it did for Eric, but a lot of the concerns about control, um, were assistant. We'll look for different ways. We'll explore different ways about how we control the property, how the housing authority manages that property at the time of property sale, all those things come back to you. The application comes back to you before we can apply to the SAC office, before we can dispose of any property or sell it to the nonprofit, it has to come back for you for approval. Um, so the articles of incorporation, that is what you're reviewing tonight. If you give us the approval to file those, we'll file those. And then the bylaws come later. AM I missing anything, Eric? >> No, you've got it all.

All right. >> And then if you have any questions, there's only six slides. That's my whole presentation. >> The one thing I would mention that came out of our meeting earlier today with the attorney who brought some expertise to bear expertise that I will make clear I lack, um, was that he thought it would be likely that we would want the nonprofit to pursue 501(c)(3) status and that we would likely want to add the word charitable to the purpose that is to assist in carrying out the charitable purposes of the housing authority and so forth. So certainly, we think of that as a non-substantive change, but we want to alert you that we would be adding that language to, um, to the articles of incorporation. And as Tracy already implied or made reference to, it would be the board itself that adopts the bylaws later on. But given the council's comments, we did want to propose those changes about going from two thirds to 3/5. >> Good. Thank you.

That's great. Thank you. Any more? Any questions for staff from council? Just to clarify, you don't need us to make a motion for those changes that you just mentioned. No, because the resolution indicated that it would be something, um, similar and substance. I think I gave myself a little bit of wiggle room. And I think that adding the word charitable is within that room. >> Groovy. Thanks. >> Great. Thank you. I have. >> A question that I think is for Eric. Is now the time for that?

Absolutely. >> Okay. So within the purpose and for for you as well, Tracy. And for you, Meagan, as one of the board members, um, if we approve this, the within the purpose, the very last part, the facilities and services for low income persons and families, because of how we've been talking about what like the development arm of the housing authority might be and that like, are we limiting our ability to have market rate housing in our portfolio? If we say that? It's just a, you know, a question, I don't I don't. >> Know.

It's a good question. Um, yeah, I don't know. I mean, what I would say in response is two things. One, that's a good question for us to pose to the attorney with whom we spoke earlier today to see if that causes any problems. Two worse comes to worse. If he says, good heavens, yeah, you'll need to, you know, change that purpose language in order to accommodate that kind of development. We can incorporate we can do an amended articles of incorporation and fix that pretty quickly. >> I think I would see it as, um, even the market rate units or the higher income units contribute to the charitable cause. That is our, our housing like. >> That is supporting low income, that. >> Is supporting local people. That's how I interpret it. But yeah, I'm not a lawyer.

I'll go with that. >> Yeah. All right. Any other questions by council hearing none. Anyone from the public like to address this topic. If you're online, please raise your virtual hand All right. Seeing no one council discussion. This is great. >> Thank you. Yeah. Really. >> Really exciting. Thank you for changing it. Like the board and the. City control. >> Yeah. Makes sense. Control. >> Roll call please. Yes. >> Yes. Teague. >> Yes. Yes. >> Alter. Yes. Bergus. Yes. Harmsen. >> Yes.

Motion passes 7 to 0 nine in assessment schedule. Resolution adopted an assessment schedule of unpaid mowing. Cleanup of property. Snow removal. Sidewalk repair and stop box repair charges, and directing the city clerk to certify the same to the Johns County Treasurer for collection in the same manner as property taxes. Can I get a motion to approve, please? >> So moved.

Second. Salih.. >> Moved by. Seconded by Salih. Anyone from the public like to address this topic? If you're online, please raise your virtual hand Seeing no one online or in person Council discussion. Roll call please. Salah. >> Yes. Teague. >> Yes. Online. >> Yes. Alter. >> Yes. Bergus. Yes. Harmsen. Yes. Mo.

Yes. >> Motion passes 7 to 0. We're on to item number ten, which is announcement of vacancies. Previous ten. A Airport Commission two vacancies to fill four year terms. Historic preservation Commission two vacancies for an at large for an at large representative to fill three year terms. Historic Preservation Commission. One vacancy for a Longfellow representative to fill a three year term. Historic Preservation Commission one vacancy for North Side representative to fill three year term. Housing and Community Development Commission two vacancies to fill three year terms. Parks and Recreation Commission one vacancy to fill an unexpired term. Planning and Zoning Commission two vacancies to fill five year terms. Public Art Advisory Committee one. Vacancy for an at large representative to fill a three year term. Applications must be received by 5 p.m. Tuesday, May 12th, 2026. Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment one vacancy to fill a five year term. Airport zoning. Board of adjustment. One vacancy to fill a five year term. Board of appeals. One vacancy for a licensed electrician to fill a five year term Board of appeals. One vacancy for Hvac professional to fill an unexpired term. Historic preservation Commission. One vacancy for a Brown Street representative to fill a three year term. Historic Preservation Commission. One vacancy for Jefferson Street. Representative to fill a three year term. Historic preservation Commission one vacancy for a Woodlawn Avenue representative to fill a three year term. Vacancies will remain open until filled. Item number 11 is City Council information. >> Would like to say thank you to the various community organizations who have stepped up to do things like hold vigils and meetings for people affected

by this weekend shooting. Um, you know, we just learned of another one tonight from our university representative, um, about that going on. So thank you. And a recognition to those people. Um, and just a recognition and thank you to the various agencies we have here locally who are available as our community tries to deal with this, whether it's the community violence intervention program, community crisis, all of those kinds of organizations, um, and letting people know that, uh, you know, as a, as a parent of college students, I definitely feel for what, um, what this means for people that are both in our community and around our community. I would also like to thank our first responders, uh, certainly our EMS, but you know, our police officers who were quickly on the scene the other night and were pulling up and running towards when, when they heard the sound of gunshots and immediately had an all hands on deck response and the many hours of overtime that I know that are happening behind the scenes right now. Um, as they try to track down what happened and, um, and deal with this situation and keep our community safe. So, um, they also have my gratitude. Uh, I do want to apologize for if they come away from watching tonight's meeting thinking that this council does not have gratitude for them. Just I hope they remember the majority of the people that sit up here. Um, vote based on ideas, not dogmatic ideology. And we deal with the facts as we have in front of us, not some predisposed, uh, idea that we need to punish our local police. And so, um, I just hope that I just wanted to say that, um, and have that on the record.

All right. We're going to move on to item number 12, which is report on items from our city staff, city manager's office, city attorney. >> No, thank you. City clerk. We're going to move to item number 13. Can I get a motion to adjourn, please? >> So moved. Second. >> All in favor, say aye. Aye. >> Any opposed? Motion passes 7 to 0. We're adjourned. Have a good night. All right Yes.