2026-10-19 - City Council Work Session

00:28Okay, I think we're going to go ahead

00:29and get started. We have quite a bit to

00:31cover today, so I'm going to turn this

00:32over to our city manager, Scott Sanders,

00:35for to start our work session.

00:38>> Thank you, Mayor, members of council,

00:40general public.

00:42Thanks for meeting with us this morning.

00:43We have three topics, so we do need to

00:45move along as I know people need to get

00:47out of here shortly after 9:00.

00:50The first topic should not take too

00:52long,

00:53but this is definitely a worthwhile

00:55conversation.

00:57As the

00:58delay of fiscal year 29 budget is an

01:01option that we'll be discussing. As

01:03you're aware,

01:04everyone's work on the budget has

01:06produced 11 and 1/2 million in cuts and

01:09savings

01:11for the fiscal year 28 budget.

01:14Working with Nick and finance

01:16department, it has become apparent that

01:19the gap has narrowed.

01:21And therefore, we are comfortable that

01:24we can report a balanced budget for

01:26fiscal year 28.

01:29And fill out all the state forms and go

01:31through the normal processes in February

01:33and March.

01:35That then creates an opportunity for us

01:38to potentially pause and wait to solve

01:42the fiscal year 29 next summer under a

01:45more typical schedule.

01:48In discussions with council, I

01:49understand that many of you may actually

01:51prefer that option.

01:53And delay the resolution of the 29

01:56budget so that I wanted to ask this

01:59morning that we spend just a couple

02:01minutes discussing that to to confirm

02:03that uh, so that we're therefore we can

02:05let the public our staff know and

02:09move forward appropriately. But before

02:11you provide me that guidance, I do want

02:13to remind everyone

02:15uh, that the fiscal year 29 budget gap

02:17is still uh, projected to be very

02:20significant. Uh, and as such we will

02:23need to continue to scrutinize all

02:25vacancies

02:26uh, as we go forward and continue to

02:29consider reorganizations, [snorts]

02:31potential cutbacks as opportunities

02:33arise.

02:35Uh, we also still have work to do on our

02:37CIP over the next 2 months and it's

02:40quite possible that uh, reductions in

02:42the CIP might have uh, effects on our

02:45operating budget as well.

02:47Uh, we'll play that out and have

02:49conversations about that.

02:51I do not envision the need for

02:53additional public engagement as well we

02:55could potentially be waiting till uh, 20

02:58next summer

02:59uh, with any surveys or anything of that

03:01nature.

03:02I also want to sincerely thank our staff

03:05uh, who have continued their important

03:07work uh, through this difficult public

03:10and very transparent

03:12uh, discussion about cutting services

03:14that may affect their their jobs. So I

03:16appreciate all the work they've done

03:18with that and with that Mayor I think

03:19I'll turn it over.

03:20>> Okay. I guess we'll open it up for

03:22comment.

03:27>> Do we have a

03:29rough estimate of what the gap will be?

03:31I know you said it was significant. Do

03:33you Do you have a number in mind?

03:35>> Yeah, so it was about a half a million

03:36dollars less in both fiscal years and

03:40that put us right around 11 and a half

03:42for fiscal year 28 and then that leaves

03:44about a 4 and a half million gap for

03:47fiscal year 29 as projected today.

03:51>> [snorts]

03:51>> Uh, part of the advantage of waiting is

03:53we will know what legislative changes

03:56might occur next spring and at that

03:58point do uh a further analysis of the

04:01gap and and have a better number uh in

04:03probably April or May of next year.

04:06>> I think that's wise. Thank you.

04:09>> If people are in concurrence to uh

04:12we I mean, to get back to the normal

04:14cycle, we were much earlier this year.

04:16So, just remind everybody, normally we

04:18wouldn't even go out until what,

04:19November or October? So, we're already

04:23further ahead. So, this that was for 28,

04:26so this is for a whole another year out

04:28and I think looking based on what you

04:30said, legislative changes and things

04:33like that, I think it is good to take a

04:35pause so we can see how these cuts that

04:38we've taken or reduction

04:40it can how they impact.

04:43>> Mayor, I would

04:44uh recommend though that we still look

04:46at in the summer getting started.

04:48>> not saying we I think we are always

04:49looking at a budget, but I think that

04:51from a standpoint of we know we have

04:54more, but we can still answer

04:56we have more time.

04:58>> Can you uh

05:01Can the city manager clarify the timing

05:03for the public

05:05discussion of FY29 budget then? We

05:09talking You just said the summer. I

05:12think you said the typical

05:14If we're back on a typical time frame,

05:16it would have been

05:17fall and winter. So, what what's the

05:21time frame that you're thinking we'll be

05:23engaging the public?

05:25>> I I

05:26I would recommend that we get through

05:28the legislative cycle to make sure there

05:30isn't any more harm done, frankly.

05:33Uh and then if there is any advantages

05:35that we would we get out of the session,

05:38uh we spend uh May looking at the gap,

05:42explaining what the gap is, what the new

05:45circumstances, and make that decision at

05:47that point if we jump right into a June

05:51uh exercise and discussion

05:53uh or or quite frankly if things are

05:56better than that yet, a couple more

05:58months beyond that might make sense. But

06:00really I think we have to let that play

06:01out.

06:02>> Okay, so and then

06:04um

06:05when

06:08And

06:09I think

06:12when you came up with this plan, the

06:13idea was listen, we're going to try and

06:15do the next 2 years all at once.

06:17So that we don't put the the the

06:19community through this on an annual

06:21basis and and also I think so we don't

06:23put staff through this

06:25on a year-over-year basis.

06:27You're in closer touch with staff than

06:30we are.

06:31Uh is this

06:33do you think in your perception the best

06:35course forward for the folks that work

06:37in the city right now

06:39versus trying to do this the next

06:42several months and then not having to do

06:43it again for a couple years?

06:46>> Uh in all honesty, I think it's a close

06:48call. Um because uh I I don't anticipate

06:53that the gap's going to be a whole lot

06:54better uh next year for 29. Um and yet

06:59at the same time, there's a lot of

07:01fatigue.

07:02And so I I think the staff would

07:04appreciate uh the relief for for several

07:06months and I I think it settles in that

07:10again, without any changes um

07:14next year could be the first year that's

07:16more normal where

07:18and I say normal in that we we get used

07:22to the idea that we're going to have to

07:23make three, four, four and a half

07:24million dollar cuts every year.

07:27And that can become a somewhat of the

07:30standard at that point.

07:31>> So next year's an election year and

07:33there'll be four seats of this council

07:35will be on the ballot. Would it be would

07:38the timing if we start this conversation

07:40this spring, would it be this current

07:42council that would make those decisions

07:44or would it ultimately be a vote by

07:47a council that would be sworn in in

07:48January of 20

07:51eight that would be making those

07:53decisions?

07:54>> Again, my recommendation would be use

07:56the knowledge and understanding of the

07:58budget with this group here

08:01and have similar as we did this year

08:04a decision to direct myself and staff to

08:07make a set of cuts in that

08:10September-October range so that uh

08:14the final budget would be known at that

08:17point. I think you all have experienced

08:19this

08:20having to go back several years to your

08:22first year of of being an elected

08:24official and the system doesn't work to

08:25your advantage as a new council member

08:28uh coming in in January and frankly uh

08:32the final recommendations of budgets are

08:35put in front of you that you have to

08:37learn so much and we have close to a

08:39billion-dollar budget. So,

08:41if if you could avoid that by uh making

08:44the hard decisions uh yet next fall,

08:47that that would be my recommendation.

08:49>> That's uh that's where my head is at,

08:50too, for what it's worth. Um

08:53I want to be mindful of

08:55um

08:56the trauma that folks go through when

08:58they go through processes like this and

08:59I want to be I can't speak to

09:03you know, what the the mind's frame of

09:05all the folks that sit in the back of

09:07this room uh

09:08every 2 weeks. So, I I need to lean on

09:11you for that. Uh but I I also don't

09:15think it would be wise to necessarily

09:17hold this conversation over too long

09:21uh because it gets caught up in

09:23campaigns and elections and and I think

09:26that this is as distasteful and

09:29challenging as this is for all of us,

09:31it's it's what we're here to do and and

09:34it's our responsibility and and so I I'm

09:37fine with this. I'm fine with moving

09:38forward with it Uh

09:40and

09:42and and holding and waiting until after

09:43the legislative session.

09:47>> Any

09:48other comments?

09:50>> Yeah, I

09:52I would say I I'm kind of in that strong

09:54camp to hold this over.

09:56Um

09:59You know, the budget

10:01uh

10:02it is I think the manager described

10:06the

10:07deficit that we're going to be dealing

10:09with next year is closer to

10:13what may be a new normal.

10:14So, we may be facing

10:17that level of cuts just about every year

10:21uh as long as we are under that 2% cap.

10:25And I think it's appropriate to get back

10:27to

10:29a

10:30get back to maybe a a somewhat more

10:32normal budget cycle. I don't know that

10:34we need to preemptively

10:36cut. Um

10:39I do think getting public feedback

10:42starting in the summer when when you're

10:44regularly looking at this level of cuts

10:46is a good thing. I I I think

10:50the amount of public feedback that we

10:52collected for the process this year

10:55was better than previous budgets.

10:59That's not to say we can't still improve

11:01on that. I mean, my general philosophy

11:03is that we should always be looking at

11:04how we improve the things that we do.

11:08But getting more public input and doing

11:11a more thorough job from a budget

11:13perspective, I think is a benefit. I I

11:16think our residents are more engaged

11:18right now in the budget than they've

11:20ever been.

11:21And if we can

11:22use tools like the survey and think

11:25about how we do

11:27additional public forums, I think that

11:29would be

11:31that would be great.

11:32I I maybe disagree with Council member

11:35Baron on on timing.

11:37I I I actually think the decision should

11:40be made

11:42I

11:43should be made on the normal cycle as

11:45well.

11:47Philosophically, I don't like the idea

11:49of one Council

11:51tying the hands for the next Council in

11:54terms of budget and having to live with

11:56with those choices. And I do think

12:00uh

12:01I I actually think one of the ultimate

12:03ways for the public to get to weigh in

12:05is during a campaign cycle in an

12:07election.

12:08And so

12:09I I think getting this back on track so

12:12that we are in a normal cycle where the

12:15budgets are are decided

12:17uh

12:19starting, you know, the budgets are

12:21decided in

12:23March and April for the fiscal year that

12:25starts that summer.

12:27I think is is the best best way to

12:29operate. I actually would have preferred

12:31that uh although it's great that we got

12:33it done now

12:35and and got through a significant number

12:37of those cuts.

12:38uh

12:39I I think we should have started the

12:41public process and I would have actually

12:43preferred to wait to finalize the budget

12:47just because I think we could have

12:48collected more public feedback and and

12:51had a deeper understanding and done that

12:53during the the normal cycle.

12:56I I'm glad all the effort went in and it

12:58was a

13:00there was benefit to it, but I'm just

13:02sharing

13:04my preference for the way the way that

13:06we do things going forward. And I know I

13:08know there're probably seven different

13:09opinions up here, but but that's

13:12uh that's how I feel we get the best

13:15results.

13:18>> Okay, anyone else? I think the main

13:19thing is we will not stop probably

13:21getting you know, it's not a stop at

13:23getting public opinion. We were ongoing.

13:24We just saying we're not going to make

13:26the hard cuts

13:28earlier than what

13:31it it might the new normal might be what

13:33we had this year.

13:34But I think that I think it's a matter

13:36of let's see how some of these

13:39uh

13:39reductions play out. Hopefully, we'll

13:42get legislative changes and I think the

13:44public discussion also should

13:45incorporate the public to get more

13:47engaged with their legislators to say

13:49how this is impacting them. So, I think

13:51it's

13:52uh gives us that opportunity that there

13:54might be a opportunity to really change

13:57some of this uh cap. I know there's a

13:59lot of discussion about that because

14:00we're not the only community. I think

14:02that's important to remember, we're not

14:03the only community. We did come out. We

14:05might have the larger reduction, but

14:08every community is either not hiring or

14:10doing some reductions in some way.

14:12Uh so, that I've talked to anyway. So, I

14:15think

14:16taking a little bit of a pause is really

14:18more a pause, but that doesn't stop us

14:20from collecting information, going out

14:22to the public, and finding what their

14:23priorities are.

14:25That doesn't end. Uh

14:26so,

14:27anyone else have anything? If not,

14:30we'll proceed, I think,

14:32>> Yep.

14:32>> with your plan, and we'll keep us all

14:35updated as to what the schedules and

14:37where we see how we can try to be more

14:39impactful.

14:42Okay.

14:46Next up.

14:50>> We've had several different

14:52conversations with council and the

14:53public about different

14:55uh rental code chapter 60 and a desire

14:59to understand better the radon

15:02issues that we might have. So, I've

15:05asked uh

15:07Dalton and others to

15:08to make this presentation so that we can

15:11move forward with some changes.

15:14>> Mayor and members of the council, my

15:16name is Dalton Jacobus. I'm the

15:17neighborhood inspections division

15:18administrator, and I'm here to talk

15:19about the rental code updates that we've

15:21got proposed for this fall.

15:26Chapter 60, as it relates to the rental

15:28code, was last updated in the fall and

15:31winter of 2024.

15:34Um since then, a number of the council

15:37have requested updates to certain

15:39things, specifically on radon.

15:41So, what we're going to go through today

15:43are in detail some of the larger

15:44changes, not just housekeeping things.

15:47We hope to have this on the agenda on

15:49November 2nd with a go-live date of

15:52January 1st depending on like

15:53publication and all that stuff.

15:59We are going to go through uh radon

16:01testing and mitigation, rent abatement,

16:04housing appeals board and hearings, fee

16:06schedule updates,

16:08multifamily inspection collaboration

16:10with the fire department, and then we've

16:11got kind of a grab bag at the end where

16:13it's more miscellaneous items.

16:18Um so, over the last several years, the

16:20council's requested that we do something

16:21about radon as it relates as it relates

16:24to the rental code.

16:25Uh this last legislative session, the

16:27state passed a law saying that um you

16:30got to have radon on new builds. So,

16:32there's they're still finalizing what

16:33those rules and requirements are going

16:35to look like.

16:36Um but know that the state's legislation

16:38is as it relates to new construction

16:40only, nothing existing, nothing rental.

16:42So, this would be a Des Moines

16:43initiative.

16:46Um the EPA recommends that that uh

16:48testing is completed no less than every

16:505 years, even if a mitigation and system

16:53is installed.

16:55Um if the council does choose to adopt

16:57some kind of language into the rental

16:59code about radon,

17:01um it could be required in all habitable

17:03spaces that are partially or fully below

17:05grade. Our chapter 60 defines a

17:07habitable space as a space that's

17:08primarily used for one of four things:

17:11eating, sleeping, living, cooking.

17:15Um there's no reference in any of the

17:17technical documents or anything from the

17:19EPA that says this is only for partially

17:21or fully below grade living spaces or

17:23habitable spaces, but

17:25just as we go through this, keep in mind

17:27that I would recommend that if you want

17:29to do it, you do limit it to, you don't

17:31just say it's required in all rental

17:32units.

17:35Um,

17:37if the city does go forward with this

17:38and we limit it to dwelling units that

17:40have habitable spaces partially or fully

17:43below grade, it could impact

17:44approximately 8 to 10,000 rental units.

17:47Um, that's not buildings, that's

17:49individual units within those buildings.

17:51Uh, we don't have a great data set on on

17:55um,

17:55below grade dwelling units, so that's

17:57the best that we could pull out and then

17:59compare against um, county assessor

18:02data.

18:07So again, if the council wishes to adopt

18:09some kind of a radon policy or uh,

18:11requirement into the code, I would

18:12recommend that we pursue something

18:14similar to what the state of Maine did.

18:17Um,

18:18Iowa, Maine, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky

18:21are the four leaders in a bad way on

18:24radar radon in the nation. We have a lot

18:26of radon in the ground here, so

18:29um, they have language in their state

18:31code that says that tenants can request

18:33a landlord to install and made a radon

18:36mitigation system.

18:38Um, or to I'm sorry, they can request a

18:40landlord to do a test for radon.

18:43If the test comes back at or above a

18:46threshold, it's usually four picocuries

18:48per liter, it's like a concentration

18:50over a long-term average, usually seven

18:53days,

18:54um, the tenant can then request the

18:55landlord to install some kind of radon

18:57mitigation system. It can be active or

18:59passive.

19:00After the system is installed,

19:03uh, the landlord can conduct a test

19:06and see if the system is decreasing the

19:07concentrations in the dwelling unit.

19:10Um,

19:11if it is, they're good. If it's not, the

19:13landlord can either keep doing

19:15mitigation or the tenant can break their

19:17lease. Now, conversely, the tenant can

19:20request that the This is going back to

19:22square one. The tenant can request that

19:23the landlord install some kind of

19:25mitigation system. If the landlord

19:27doesn't want to, they can break their

19:28lease.

19:30So, this would be sort of unique in that

19:31the city is getting a bit into more

19:34um

19:35lease requirements. We don't and NNID,

19:38we don't look at leases. We're kind of

19:39blind to what the terms of the lease

19:41are. We're there for building

19:42maintenance, safety, um

19:47um

19:48I talked to the gentleman that runs the

19:50program in Maine

19:52and he said that there's fierce

19:53opposition to the program when when it

19:56started back in 2012.

19:58Uh by the time the code had been adopted

20:00in 2014, most of the enforcement

20:02language had been removed from the state

20:03code. And so, now it's it's still in

20:06place.

20:07Um he is not aware of a huge

20:10uh number of tenants that are breaking

20:11their lease. So, they are getting

20:12voluntary compliance out of this from

20:14the landlords.

20:19So, again, my recommendation is that if

20:20the council wishes to include radon in

20:23the rental ordinance, that we pursue

20:25something similar to the Maine model

20:27instead of a strict enforcement program

20:29wherein we would require testing and

20:31mitigation every time the license comes

20:33due. And that can be every 9 months to 3

20:35and 1/2 years. And I'll get into the

20:37kind of the why on that recommendation

20:39here in a moment.

20:44So, the first four of the challenges as

20:45it relates to radon are the timing, the

20:48cost, the testing and mitigation, and

20:51the unintended consequences.

20:54So, our rental licenses are issued for a

20:56duration between 9 months and 3 and 1/2

20:58years.

21:00If the EPA recommends testing no less or

21:03no more, I guess, than every 5 years,

21:05we're going to have a hard time syncing

21:07up when the most recent radon test was

21:09completed at a property and when the

21:11rate when the rental license is due for

21:13reinspection.

21:15So there will be administrative lifts

21:17across the 45,000,

21:1950,000 uh

21:21rentals that we have in the city where

21:23we have to track radon and rental

21:26license somewhat independently.

21:28We could also ask that the the landlord

21:30or the property managers submit their

21:32most recent test and it's on them to

21:33track it. I can tell you that that that

21:36probably won't go super well, but we can

21:38give it a shot if that's what you'd like

21:39to do.

21:43Uh the second is the cost.

21:46So if the test is completed by a

21:48professional certified by the state,

21:50state does have a program for that.

21:52The cost will be about 150 bucks.

21:56Um and there might be many tests that

21:58are required in one building.

22:01Uh

22:02We are also going to need to decide if

22:04tests and mitigation are done by a

22:06licensed or certified individual through

22:08the state or if we would allow a

22:11property owner to do their own or if we

22:13would allow some of the larger property

22:14owners to get their people certified to

22:16then do their own testing and

22:18mitigation.

22:20Um we would then have to track some kind

22:23of licensing to verify that people are

22:25doing it, are qualified to do it. And

22:27again, like that's already in place that

22:29the permit development center, they

22:31track trades permits and

22:33make sure that licensed individuals are

22:34doing work, but it'd just be another

22:36administrative layer that we have to

22:37consider.

22:39And then again with the unattended

22:40consequences, it is likely that property

22:43owners, and I mean not not all of them,

22:45but some property owners may decide to

22:46restrict access to spaces that could be

22:48used as a habitable space that are

22:50partially or fully below grade instead

22:53of opting to do radon testing and

22:55mitigation. For example, if there's a uh

22:57finished basement,

22:59um it's in

23:01moderate condition, it's not very big,

23:03and testing is going to cost $150 every

23:06few years,

23:07a mitigation system could cost $1,000,

23:09$2,000.

23:11Um

23:12it would be just as easy for the

23:13property owner to restrict access to

23:15that or to remove all finishes so it's

23:16no no longer a habitable space.

23:19Um we have seen that with the city's

23:21code on knockout panels and shared HVAC

23:24systems where we are decreasing the

23:26number and size of units in the city.

23:29Now, on those it is uh an acute

23:31immediate life life safety thing.

23:34Um this is more of an extended duration

23:37where the the life safety does come in.

23:44Uh the next next challenge is the

23:46applicability.

23:47If we adopt language into the code,

23:49we're going to need to clarify what it

23:51does apply to. And again, my

23:52recommendation would be that we limit it

23:55uh all building types. We We include all

23:57building types, so that's multis,

23:59duplexes, single families, townhouses,

24:02you name it.

24:04And any habitable space that is fully or

24:07partially below grade.

24:09And that's because typically the radon

24:11concentrations are highest at or below

24:13grade.

24:16And then the last challenge I see is

24:18that

24:19it does kind of commit us to doing radon

24:21enforcement long-term.

24:23I mean, we can always reverse the code

24:25or you guys can always decide to reverse

24:26the code, but if we adopt it, we need to

24:29be willing to stand by it.

24:30Um there've been initiatives, like I

24:32talked about, on knockout panels and

24:34shared HVAC systems. We've gone through

24:36The city's gone through and tried to

24:38retroactively enforce on existing

24:40buildings

24:41uh a higher standard of compliance.

24:44Um while they're unpopular among the

24:46landlord community, I think you've all

24:48heard from your constituents about it.

24:51Um we also used to have a provision in

24:54the code that required mechanical

24:56testing or testing and certification of

24:58all heat producing equipment.

25:01Um we enforced on that for just under a

25:03year and then it was quickly rescinded

25:05by the council. So,

25:08the goal on that one was to reduce the

25:09number of no heat complaints that we got

25:10every winter. Uh we didn't see any

25:12measurable impact on that. So,

25:16um again, if if we're going to commit to

25:18this, it could be

25:20it could be a long-term testing, um

25:23tracking the test results for the next

25:25decade plus.

25:29Um Scott, did you have anything you want

25:30to add on radon?

25:36>> I think that sums it up pretty well. Um

25:39if if council wants to uh proceed with

25:42this, uh we can also add uh

25:45>> [clears throat]

25:46>> an amount of knowledge for the public

25:48and the landlords about the damage that

25:51radon does. Uh we thought that there was

25:54enough out there for council at least

25:56that understands that part, but clearly

25:58we we'd we probably have landlords out

26:01there that are not familiar with uh lung

26:04cancer and other uh issues that come

26:07about long-term with with radon

26:09exposure. So,

26:13turn it over to council.

26:16>> I have simple questions.

26:18When you talk about

26:20licensed professional

26:23I can go right down to the health

26:25department.

26:27Buy a radon test.

26:30Set it up at home and I send it away

26:33to

26:35wherever they send it to.

26:37And that person, I mean, that's a it's a

26:40qualified

26:42Thank you. It's a it's a qualified

26:44testing site. Are you going to allow

26:46that? Or do we have to have somebody

26:50that comes in for $150,

26:53who also installs systems,

26:57and it all depends on how their machine

27:00is calibrated.

27:02And you could set up three different

27:04machines if they're calibrated

27:06differently, you're going to get all

27:07different kinds of readings.

27:10I recently had the $150 test

27:15and got those results. I waited a few

27:18months, and then I went to the health

27:20department, where is where I always buy

27:23radon tests,

27:25and I got the exact same results.

27:28So, I I don't know why we would object.

27:32I mean, if it's good enough for the

27:34for the state health for the health

27:36department,

27:37why would it not be good enough for us?

27:40And when you talk about habitable

27:42spaces, if you go to radon.com, they

27:46also talk if if your laundry is in the

27:49basement, that's not really considered

27:52habitable. They don't They don't

27:54recommend testing that. Would we be okay

27:58with that? And when you say habitable, I

28:00mean, a lot of homes have basements, but

28:03they're not

28:04they're not finished. They're just you

28:07go down and do your laundry or, you

28:09know, whatever you do down there.

28:13Why would we

28:15I'm assuming that we wouldn't require

28:19testing to be done in that basement. Why

28:21couldn't they set it in the

28:23where the habitable space is?

28:26So, that's just a couple of the things

28:29that that I have concerns about. I also

28:32have concerns about a 100%

28:34[clears throat]

28:35security deposit.

28:38I would be much more comfortable if we

28:40put something like

28:43you're

28:44getting your

28:46security deposit back is not dependent

28:49upon the damages that are done in the

28:52house. I mean, if somebody's going to

28:54going to

28:55really mess up a house and you can ask

28:58any landlord and they're going to tell

28:59you that this happens with rentals.

29:02Um just like it happens in single-family

29:05homes, some people just don't take care

29:07of their of their homes that they live

29:09in.

29:10that we would

29:15have to return 100% of their deposit. If

29:18they've done damage, you know, and they

29:20just want to get out of their lease,

29:23I don't know why they should be exempt

29:26from

29:28having to pay any damages that they've

29:30done.

29:31So, it's a just a couple to begin with.

29:36>> Well, as before I get into them, I just

29:37want to point out that the council can

29:39set whatever it is that you want into

29:41this. So,

29:42100% 120% 0% on the security deposit or

29:47the habitable space in the basement,

29:48laundry in the basement. I mean, that's

29:50that's truly a council decision. We're

29:51talking policy here. So, I'm bringing

29:53you some recommendations and

29:55>> Yeah.

29:55>> I mean, I'm in the operations guy. So,

29:57I'll figure out how to do operations

29:59with whatever it is that you decide.

30:00Okay? So, I I I don't want it to be

30:02mistaken that I'm trying to force

30:03anything upon you, okay? So,

30:05>> get that.

30:06I mean, I'm going from the radon.com

30:08which is a government site, you know,

30:10and they're saying

30:11>> Mhm.

30:11>> if you just do it in laundry down there,

30:13that's not habitable.

30:15>> Right. So, it I'm I'll I'll start with

30:17the basement item. If it's truly just a

30:19laundry,

30:20um maybe an HVAC, a water heater, an

30:22electric panel, I wouldn't say that

30:24that's a space that's used for living,

30:25sleeping, eating, or cooking. So, and

30:28again, this is a council decision. I

30:30would not personally recommend requiring

30:32that a radon test be performed or a

30:34mitigation system installed in that

30:36basement. But again, this is a council

30:38decision. So, I mean, I kind of need to

30:40know where you guys want to go with it.

30:42Um the second the second item or the

30:44first thing you brought up was the

30:45health department report and their

30:46health department test.

30:49So,

30:50um if I if I bought a test for my house,

30:53I can buy them on Amazon. You can get a

30:55two-pack for like 20 bucks and then you

30:57mail it to a lab down in Florida and

30:58they'll give you your results.

31:00Um I would recommend that if you are

31:02going to do it, now we've got a very

31:04good landlord community, okay? And I'm

31:06not I'm not trying to disparage anything

31:07by what I'm about to say.

31:09There is going to be an incentive for a

31:11landlord to bring us a test that shows a

31:13concentration's at a safe level. And so,

31:15it's conceivable that the landlord would

31:17take that test,

31:19set it on their back porch for a week,

31:21mail it in, give us the results, and

31:23then it says, "Hey, they're safe." Well,

31:25it wasn't done properly. And so, if

31:27there was a requirement that it's done

31:28by a certified individual through the

31:30state, we can we can assume that there's

31:32a certain code of conduct that they're

31:33going to follow, training they've

31:34followed.

31:35Um we know there's consistency with how

31:37the tests are performed, but again,

31:39that's a council decision. So, if you

31:40want to allow property owners and

31:42managers to do it, I mean, that's that's

31:44truly up to the council.

31:46Uh and then the third thing is the

31:48security deposit.

31:50It's truly again, it's up to the

31:52council. If you want to say

31:53I mean, leave any code language out of

31:56the ordinance about what kind of

31:58security deposit the customer the tenant

31:59gets back,

32:01that that's up to you guys.

32:03>> And what the damage you could be subject

32:06to damage as normal.

32:07>> Yeah.

32:08>> You could have a percentage of return

32:09based on damages.

32:11>> Mhm.

32:12>> I do I do believe that the state of

32:14Maine and talking to them, they had the

32:16100% security deposit requirement in

32:17there because they're trying to

32:18encourage landlords to do it.

32:22Um so, I I I I believe that to be their

32:24intention. I'm not saying it's

32:25>> have a whole discussion on those details

32:27then.

32:27>> And And my And my rebuttal to

32:31the the test can be manipulated, a test

32:33can be manipulated, whoever does the

32:36testing. And if it truly is the tenant

32:40who's requesting it, they're going to

32:43make sure that the that the test is

32:46being com-

32:49all the rules are being complied by. I

32:51mean, they're the ones that are living

32:52there. Why would they try to set the

32:55test out on the back if they truly

32:57wanted to just know what their what

32:59their radon levels were?

33:01>> Mhm. Well, in in Maine, if I'm reading

33:03it correctly, in Maine the the tenant

33:06can request the landlord do the test.

33:08So, the tenant's not the one that's make

33:10that's doing the test in that instance.

33:12>> there. The tenant is the one that The

33:14landlord doesn't live there. The tenant

33:16The landlord's just going to hire

33:17somebody or go get a test, put it in the

33:20house where it's supposed to be, but the

33:22tenant is the one who lives in the

33:24house, not the landlord.

33:26>> Right, but the tenant is not the one

33:27that's doing the test. What you're

33:29implying is that the tenant could is has

33:32some obligation to do the test

33:33correctly, but

33:35>> That's the easy thing to do, but you

33:36just can't You can't put it in a closet

33:39or set it outside.

33:40>> Okay, I think I think the deal is that

33:42it could possibly happen if they didn't

33:44want to have to do a mitigation system.

33:45So, [clears throat] it's a concern on

33:47any of policy, how do you make sure

33:49ensure that the test is done properly,

33:52no matter who's doing it, and that we

33:54get the right results, and there's

33:56incentives not if you have to put a

33:57$2,000 system in, possibly not to do it.

34:00So, I think it's how we would write it

34:02and how we can clarify.

34:05>> So,

34:07Yeah, I ch-

34:08I was just going to follow up. And Maine

34:11recommends it's a certified

34:14uh or a licensed

34:16someone who's licensed or certified that

34:18that does the testing. Is that

34:20>> Yes. Yep. Uh and the test have to report

34:22be reported to the state um instead of

34:25to the landlord and to the state. So,

34:26the tester sends the certified results

34:28to the state.

34:29>> Right. A- And the Maine system was a

34:3110-year compliance window. Is that

34:34>> And it's a statewide program?

34:36>> Yeah.

34:37But 10-year compliance is a very healthy

34:40window for compliance on something like

34:42>> So in the case of like you brought up

34:45people like multi-family they usually

34:47have their own maintenance crew, right?

34:49That they could get certified. Do you

34:51know what the certification process is

34:53it difficult?

34:55>> I don't I don't want to disparage it but

34:56no I don't think it's I don't think it's

34:57super hard.

34:58>> Okay. Anyway, there's opportunity.

35:01Okay.

35:02So I think we need a more detail. Go

35:05ahead man.

35:05>> One quick couple quick questions. Dalton

35:07remind us how often our inspectors are

35:10in every unit.

35:13>> Uh if it's a property in need of

35:15enforcement, uh they get a 9-month

35:17rental license. So the length of the

35:19rent rental license depends on the

35:21quality of inspection and the number of

35:23units in the building. It's in a table

35:25in chapter 60. I believe in chapter

35:2660-30 but don't quote me on that.

35:30So if it's a large building, there's a

35:31ton of violations found, they'll get a

35:339-month rental license. That means that

35:35we're probably going to be out there

35:37within 6 or 7 months of that rental

35:39license being issued. So conceivably we

35:42can be through every rental unit in a

35:44larger building every 6 months. That's

35:46not the norm

35:47>> And if there aren't violations, how

35:49often?

35:49>> 3 and 1/2 years.

35:50>> Yeah. It seems to me since we have staff

35:53going into every rental property at some

35:56point in time, maybe there's a way to

35:59incorporate this testing, add the cost

36:03to the rental inspection,

36:05um we're going to require or we're going

36:08to take advantage of our inspectors

36:10being there to make the determination, I

36:12assume, what they consider to be

36:15habitable space.

36:16Um I know just as an architect in the

36:19'60s and '70s we built a lot of

36:21apartment buildings that are half

36:22buried. And that's because they were

36:24less expensive to build. But again,

36:27they're half buried. So, I I can believe

36:30that there are a lot of units, but let's

36:32take advantage of our inspectors being

36:33there.

36:35>> So, we we'd actually considered that. I

36:37was trying to find a way that we could

36:39Um so, you know like when firefighters

36:40go through a building, they have the

36:41little alarm on their harness and it

36:43beeps if there's low oxygen. I was

36:45hoping there was something in the radon

36:46world similar to that. There's not. So,

36:49I bought a little handheld device. It's

36:51sitting on my desk right now and it's

36:52been collecting data for the last like 6

36:53months.

36:55Um it requires a long-term exposure to

36:58get a good test.

36:59So, even turning it on and the like the

37:01short-term average is usually a day on

37:03the digital readouts. Usually, you need

37:057 days.

37:07Um I think in the and Ms. Westergard,

37:09you can probably correct me in the land

37:10in the uh real estate community, I think

37:12they go for three to five.

37:13>> The seven is what is what the government

37:16recommends. Not more than 7 days.

37:18>> So, we would have to go we'd have to

37:20have the test, probably get our people

37:22certified, which again is not a huge

37:23deal, place them, assume that the

37:26tenants aren't going to tamper with

37:27them, and then have the landlord provide

37:29notice to the tenants so that we can go

37:31back out there and collect all tests,

37:33and then mail those tests in, and then

37:35track them all.

37:36So, I was hoping there was a way we

37:37could do it easy and unfortunately,

37:38there's not.

37:40>> Okay.

37:41>> And the digital even if we didn't want

37:42to mail it in for the test, the digital

37:44one is like $140 and we would need

37:46thousands of them.

37:49>> Okay.

37:50>> So, what's

37:52I know we talked about if there's

37:53bedrooms and things downstairs or if

37:55there's laundry rooms. Isn't if it has

37:57radon in the house, everyone's exposed

37:59no matter

38:01no matter what and it should be

38:02corrected or is that not the case if

38:05you're not like living and breathing it

38:08every single day down there, but you are

38:09if you're going down there to do laundry

38:11if we're sitting in your house.

38:12>> This is a

38:13>> I I guess if Yeah, can you explain that

38:15to me a little bit?

38:16>> Yeah, and that's a great point and

38:18again, that's where the council I think

38:20if it's any below space that could be

38:21occupied, whether or not it's used for,

38:23again, living, sleeping, eating, or

38:25cooking. So, those are the four like the

38:28four living activities that you spend

38:30time in a spot, right? Um so, if you're

38:33just going down there for 10 minutes to

38:34do laundry and going back upstairs, I'd

38:36say the long-term risk is pretty low. If

38:39you're going to spend significant time

38:40down there, you have a family room or a

38:42bedroom or a kitchen or the whole unit's

38:44below grade, obviously you're going to

38:46be spending much more time to it.

38:48It's not It's not necessarily like uh

38:50you're exposed to radon and the risk of

38:52lung cancer immediately goes up. It's

38:54long-term accumulated exposure that

38:56causes the issues.

38:57>> Thank you.

38:58>> Yeah. And there's also the dissipation

39:01on the first floor with with air

39:03movement more frequently that dissipates

39:05and gets it out. So, it's typically a

39:08far lower number as you go away from the

39:09ground.

39:10>> Okay.

39:11>> Okay. So, it sounds like we have quite a

39:13bit of things to consider

39:15and work as some more work through. Um

39:19and what is the best way do you think to

39:23move

39:24First, is everybody willing to move it

39:25forward?

39:27That's first. And then second would be

39:29what criteria do we want to add?

39:34>> So,

39:36I feel like the main example that he

39:38gave is a

39:40a good compromise. Um I think Council

39:44Member Westergaard's point about the

39:46security deposit and maybe adjusting

39:50based on damage is a is reasonable.

39:54Um but that you can get a security

39:56deposit back based on

39:59>> Right. What level

40:00>> What What Whatever you would get back on

40:02your security deposit

40:04uh otherwise unless Although, I know

40:06some landlords maybe

40:08write in that you don't return

40:11Well,

40:11whatever you Whatever you were entitled

40:14based on damage and just leaving it at

40:16that.

40:17I

40:18>> And then move forward with what?

40:19>> I I think the main example is a is a

40:22great starting point. It's

40:25uh

40:26you know, I I know when I talked with

40:29with Dalton, I know he's done a lot of

40:30legwork and

40:32uh

40:33I've learned from him in this process

40:36uh and the challenges.

40:39Uh I think starting with a template that

40:42someone else has done, although I think

40:44we've

40:45we've learned and maybe there's a

40:46certain amount of urgency on this issue

40:48right now.

40:49I mean, we know that radon is one of the

40:53environmental factors that contribute to

40:55cancer rates and we are unique in in

40:58this state, not not necessarily unique

41:01as you as you mentioned, but one of a

41:03small handful of places in this country

41:05that have particularly high radon rates.

41:09Uh and so we know it has an impact on

41:11our residents over the long term. So I I

41:15think I think it's reasonable if there

41:17are

41:18options on habitability or I think my

41:22guess is whatever Maine has defined as

41:24habitability, there there going to be

41:27definitions there and and that's the

41:29thing that we

41:31maybe just seeing that language will

41:32answer the questions that we have.

41:34>> I think it's a starting point, too,

41:35because we all know, I think we there's

41:38enough information out there about

41:39radon. So if people are comfortable with

41:42it, we can tweak some of the you know, I

41:44think on the deposits

41:46>> Going to be tweaked for media.

41:47>> Okay, so

41:49uh

41:50do you have enough information, Dalton,

41:51to move forward?

41:53>> Generally, we're going for the main

41:54model.

41:55>> Main model.

41:56>> To start with, since it is already

41:58something that's been there.

42:00Uh

42:02>> Only if there are changes, am I

42:04supportive of it. I still have a problem

42:07with the testing. I mean, if it's good

42:08enough for the government, if good

42:10enough for the state of Iowa, if it's

42:12good enough for Polk County, why would

42:14it not be good enough for us?

42:17And I mean, if the tenant's concerned,

42:19the tenant's going to make sure that the

42:21test is placed in a proper location.

42:25They're the ones that are requesting it.

42:27>> So, Mayor, we can provide a side-by-side

42:29comparison of how the testing could be

42:31done by city staff, third party, or the

42:33individual landlords. Bring that

42:35forward.

42:36>> And I'm also concerned about cost for

42:38the city.

42:39>> Including the cost.

42:39>> This huge budget crisis

42:42and

42:43now we're we're adding additional work

42:46on for our inspectors

42:48and we're concerned about affordability

42:51of apartments. If [clears throat] we

42:53made somebody who's got, you know,

42:56100 units and we would actually make

43:00them test every single apartment, that

43:03doesn't seem reasonable. You know, if

43:05you want to go down in the basement,

43:07take a test or on the main level and

43:09take a test, but if I've got a

43:11five-story unit,

43:13I we're just asking the landlords to do

43:16an awful lot.

43:18>> It'd be only the ones below and I think

43:20I think based on safety, I think

43:23and the well-being of our citizens, I

43:24think this is a

43:26an appropriate

43:28>> What we're going for is like a

43:29pragmatic, reasonable approach if this

43:31is what the council council does want.

43:34Um so, if if the council wants to allow

43:37for landlords or tenants to do their own

43:39tests, I mean

43:41um

43:42>> Bring back your proposal.

43:43>> Yeah, bring it back on that. Okay?

43:45>> All right.

43:46So,

43:46>> next item.

43:47>> All right.

43:49That was the hard one.

43:51Well, not hard. There's there's a lot

43:52more to that one than the others. So,

43:56uh the next change that that we're

43:58proposing is adding language to the city

44:01code that allows for the city to order

44:04for rent abatement on a rental property

44:06if there is no valid rental license on

44:08file.

44:10The Iowa code specifically allows for us

44:12to do this.

44:13Um the cities of Iowa City and Dubuque

44:17currently have code language just like

44:18this on the books.

44:20They said that they get much higher

44:22rates of voluntary compliance and that

44:24they have to file much less lawsuits to

44:26get that compliance, which I'm sure

44:28Jeff's team would much appreciate.

44:29[clears throat]

44:34This would This would be adding another

44:36um

44:37escalation into our escalation of force

44:39or escalation of enforcement. So, we

44:42would start it out on the left, you see

44:44our current process.

44:46Um what we want to avoid is legal action

44:49and writ of removal.

44:51Um that is not that is not a pretty

44:53situation.

44:55Um

44:56And so, if we can get landlords to

44:57comply voluntarily prior to getting to

44:59the legal action and the writ of

45:00removal, that'd be preferred.

45:03The way it works is we'd send out a

45:04letter saying need to fix these items.

45:05You got 30, 35 days to fix it.

45:08Um if that doesn't work, we can send a

45:10letter threatening them starting posing

45:12fines.

45:13If that doesn't work, we would tape a

45:15letter to the door of each dwelling unit

45:17within a building saying this property

45:18does not have a valid rental license per

45:20city code section

45:22X

45:23and state code section what I just

45:25referenced um where the city is hereby

45:27ordering for rent abatement to be in

45:29pro- in effect, no rent can or shall be

45:32collected during this period.

45:35Um

45:37From what I understand from Iowa City

45:38and Dubuque both is this is extremely

45:40effective. As soon as that letter goes

45:42up on the door, whatever it is that they

45:43needed fixed gets fixed.

45:46Um again, this is kind of getting us

45:48into the the lease negotiations. I

45:51when people call and say like oh I'm I'm

45:54getting evicted or whatever else like

45:55woah woah, that is that is not what we

45:57do.

45:58Um but it seems like this is a tool

46:00we're missing out on the state

46:01explicitly gives us authority to use in

46:03state code.

46:14So, we do recommend including language

46:17for rent abatement in the next ordinance

46:19update.

46:22Um

46:23primarily to get increased rates of

46:25compliance.

46:28Any discussion?

46:31>> Any discussion? I think whatever we can

46:33do to make our

46:35dwellings safer or our residents, I

46:37think if this is a tool that's been used

46:40already and we know it's been impactful,

46:42then

46:44anybody have a disagreement with moving

46:46forward with that?

46:47>> Uh makes sense to me. I'm just curious

46:48how how many cases a year historically

46:50do you think would come to this?

46:53>> Uh Jeff, right now we're sending maybe

46:5530 to 50 cases a year to legal.

46:58Um

46:58>> Okay.

47:00>> Hopefully hopefully less than that.

47:02>> Okay. Yeah, I mean it again, it's a

47:05ways to try and reduce

47:07um

47:08staff time and city expenditures, too.

47:11So, seems practical.

47:14Controversial, but you know.

47:16>> Yeah.

47:16>> What isn't?

47:17>> Mayor Rey, I don't have a solution to

47:19this, but one observation

47:20[clears throat]

47:21is there are times when the tenants are

47:23the problem.

47:25And the the time that it takes to evict

47:27a tenant uh

47:29is is there something we could look at

47:31that if it's an unsafe apartment because

47:34of the condition of that apartment,

47:35because of the tenant, is there a way

47:38that they would be forced to evict

47:40sooner than going through this whole

47:43legal process because it's unsafe or

47:45it's

47:47completely unsanitary. I'm sure we've

47:49seen seen the gamut.

47:52>> [clears throat]

47:53>> Absolutely. Um so, we formalize the

47:56rental complaint process and as in the

47:58enforcement that escalates out of that

48:00process back in 2024.

48:02Um that's all in the code now.

48:05Um

48:06and again, I'm not trying to disparage

48:08either landlords or tenants, but we do

48:09see a lot of issues come in that are

48:11primarily tenant caused. And so this is

48:14clearly

48:15um

48:16a tenant ripped a hole in a drywall and

48:19has their cat making a mess all over the

48:20carpet. We're not going to hold the the

48:22landlord accountable for that if they're

48:23working on

48:25on other means with the tenant. And I'm

48:26not saying get them out of there. We

48:27don't again, we don't get into that, but

48:30we certainly don't want to penalize

48:31landlords for for damages intentionally

48:34or egregiously accidentally caused by

48:36the tenants. So I I do have like we've

48:39talked about this and I think we've got

48:41decent language

48:43that could address that.

48:43>> Thank you.

48:45Okay.

48:46Thank you.

48:49>> [gasps]

48:51>> Our next item is the Housing Appeals

48:53Board.

48:55So back in the '80s, and I can't find an

48:57exact date that the board was created,

48:59but back in the '80s the City Council

49:01created the Housing Appeals Board.

49:04And from what I can understand, um I

49:06found a newspaper clipping from 1991,

49:09but from what I can understand, the city

49:11created that board to keep appeals of

49:13the housing code from being heard at the

49:14City Council meeting.

49:16Um you're handling business and um you

49:19know, someone wants to appeal

49:21um that we are requiring them to paint

49:24or whatever else. So there was a

49:26separate entity created to hear those

49:28appeals.

49:30Since it was created in the '80s, the

49:32city added on to the board authority and

49:35requirement for staff to request

49:37permission from the board to impose

49:40fines and to pursue legal action.

49:43Back in 2024, we removed that authority

49:46from the code and so the board, again,

49:48back to how it was originally created,

49:50the board only hears requests for

49:52relief. Um

49:54administrative penalties and legal

49:56action are brought um

49:58by staff to legal.

50:01So,

50:03since 2024, about half of our board

50:05meetings have been canceled because

50:06there's just not any requests to be

50:08heard.

50:13So, the city manager's office has

50:15directed staff that manage boards and

50:17commissions to provide recommendations

50:19on opportunity to operate more

50:20efficiently.

50:22Um and because this board isn't isn't

50:25meeting nearly as often as it used to,

50:27we're recommending that through the

50:29chapter 60 code updates, we eliminate

50:31the board.

50:33In lieu of the Housing Appeals Board

50:34hearing these requests for relief, we

50:36could send the requests to the State

50:38Department of Inspections, Appeals, and

50:39Licensing.

50:41Uh we have hearings with them on all of

50:43our other code case types, uh weeds and

50:45grass, health and sanitation,

50:47encroachments,

50:49um snow removal, ambulance billing.

50:52Those aren't mine, obviously, but like

50:53the city works with them

50:55>> [laughter]

50:56>> regularly.

50:57So, the request relief could go through

50:59the state. The state said that they do

51:01have capacity to handle it, and the

51:02clerk's office said that they would help

51:04us get it through that process like they

51:06do on all other case types. So,

51:07actually, our rental code cases are

51:09different from everything else that

51:10we're currently doing.

51:16>> I have one question. What is the typical

51:18time frame for the state? My only

51:21concern is that if it takes months,

51:23that's not

51:24fair to the tenants.

51:26>> We're about a month out.

51:28Yep.

51:30About 1 month.

51:31>> Those are scheduled and oftentimes held

51:33here.

51:34Is that correct? Or what at our

51:36locations?

51:37>> Uh they're held over the phone two times

51:40a month. Uh the first and third

51:42Wednesdays of the month, we can um ask

51:45for a different dates if they're are

51:47from the ALJs for an emergency hearing.

51:50>> Okay. Good. Thank you.

51:52>> Okay.

51:54>> Neither I would keep going along.

51:59>> Uh we're recommending an update to the

52:01fee schedule as it relates to the rental

52:02code.

52:04Um

52:05so back in 2024

52:07we removed the language from the code

52:09that says the board has the authority to

52:10impose fines. The language in the fee

52:13schedule itself wasn't updated at the

52:14same time.

52:16And so

52:17um the language in the fee schedule says

52:20maximum penalty fine imposed by the

52:22housing appeals board is $5,000.

52:24Um

52:26we're going to change it to say the

52:27maximum penalty fine. So we're just

52:29taking out cuz it's not even a fine that

52:31they impose anymore.

52:33Um

52:35the second component to this is that the

52:37current $5,000 maximum fine does not

52:39seem to be enough of a deterrent to get

52:41compliance on properties

52:43especially for some of the larger

52:44neglected

52:46um multi-family properties. So

52:50we are

52:52um we're recommending that the maximum

52:54penalty fine of $5,000 still apply to

52:56single-family properties and that

52:58penalty fines of $5,000 per unit apply

53:00to all other properties up to a max of

53:02$15,000.

53:04Um again a $5,000 fine on a building

53:07that's

53:0832 units, thousand bucks a month, $5,000

53:11fine is nothing.

53:14And you know those numbers are

53:17kind of up for discussion if however the

53:20council like to have it.

53:24>> It Sorry, it's the 15,000 a maximum per

53:27building or per unit?

53:29>> It'd be per rental license and most of

53:31the licenses are issued per building.

53:34>> Okay.

53:39>> I think whatever we can

53:41we all know there's some buildings that

53:44need some major work and to again to

53:47make sure we're getting compliance.

53:49I would be supportive of

53:52to make sure that

53:54the residents have a clean safe place to

53:56live.

53:58>> And so a couple of this with the rent

54:00abatement, what we're trying to do is

54:01get voluntary compliance.

54:04I say voluntary like we're forcing them

54:05into it, but compliance without having

54:06to sue them and then remove the tenants

54:08with the sheriff's office.

54:10That's what we're going for.

54:13>> Okay.

54:15>> Uh we are going to be We already do

54:17collaborate pretty closely with the fire

54:19department. Um we're adding some various

54:21fire department specific items into our

54:23inspection.

54:25Uh a lot of these things we're already

54:26checking, but we're just putting it

54:27directly into the codes so we don't have

54:29to fire like cite it under general fire

54:31issues.

54:33So fire department connections, exterior

54:35horn strobes, hydrants, Knox boxes, and

54:37emergency exit lighting, we're putting

54:40we're including or clarifying

54:42requirements for each of those items

54:44into the code.

54:45The standards are going to be lifted. I

54:47mean I list listed them right there, but

54:48they're directly out of the

54:49International Fire Code. And we worked

54:51pretty closely with the fire department

54:52on getting these drafted.

54:56>> Okay.

55:00>> And then uh miscellaneous code stuff is

55:03we're going to clarify uh legal

55:05nonconforming rights as it relates to

55:06rental inspections, clarify the

55:08allowable use and maintenance of

55:09accessory structures, and the

55:11requirement for fireplace inspections.

55:16So.

55:18>> Okay.

55:19>> Thank you all.

55:22>> Thanks for all the work you put in for

55:23all of these different items.

55:25>> Thank you.

55:26>> Mayor, I

55:27again [clears throat] have one quick

55:28comment. I appreciate

55:31uh Dalton coming back after 2 years

55:33after making modifications to continue

55:36to make our codes

55:39reflective of where we are. I really

55:41Yeah, I appreciate

55:42>> Things change and

55:44it does take a lot of work, but being on

55:46top of all these things [clears throat]

55:47again is important for our all of our

55:50residents.

55:51So, thank you, Dalton, and

55:54next item is

55:56I guess it looks like Steve Neighbors is

55:58coming up.

56:01There's been a lot of discussion of this

56:04topic throughout this community, and

56:06people are doing different things, and

56:08um

56:10we'd hope to maybe all have one uniform

56:12um code, but we'll be working on Des

56:15Moines.

56:16I think we're we'll have a good

56:18presentation on all the variables.

56:21Thanks.

56:23>> Uh thank you, honorable mayor, members

56:24of city council. Uh my name is Steve

56:25Neighbor, uh city engineer, Des Moines

56:27resident. Uh I'm proud and appreciate

56:30Jeff Wiggins, our transportation

56:32planner, who's put a lot of work into

56:33this.

56:34Uh you're going to hear uh what I see in

56:37this presentation, two things.

56:39Uh one,

56:41uh what's new around here is high-speed

56:45pedestrian conveyances.

56:47Uh so, that's that's you know, when we

56:49talk about that, things you know, people

56:51riding devices that go I've seen up to

56:5555 54 miles an hour. And so, that's

56:58that's what's new, and what uh

57:01and we bring that up, I say why it's new

57:03is unfortunately some of the discussions

57:05around the metro, I think sometimes the

57:08high-speed pedestrian conveyances, which

57:10are not regulated as a code, get muddled

57:13with other things, like low-speed

57:15electric bicycles and uh bicycles. I

57:18mean, bicycle people have been riding

57:19bicycles for 200 years. And so, we don't

57:22want that to get muddled. So, Jeff's

57:23going to talk about that and show the

57:25differences here.

57:26He's done a lot of work with the state

57:28code, and he's also bringing forth

57:30recommendations, updates, and we're

57:32looking for council's direction to move

57:35forward and work with our legal team to

57:37make updates to our ordinances. Uh some

57:40of these are catching up with the times,

57:42you know, from using my left hand to

57:44make a turn signal as a bicyclist

57:47uh to making some safety uh

57:50recommendations on how vehicles,

57:53motorists pass bicycles. And so, we're

57:55looking for direction on on on making

57:58improvements and updating our

57:59ordinances. So, it's two things. What

58:01you know, what what's new and what's

58:03what's you know, on the hot wood related

58:05to the high-speed pedestrian

58:06conveyances. And two, looking for

58:08council's recommendation to move forward

58:10with and work with our legal team to

58:11bring forward to updates to our bicycle

58:13pedestrian conveyance ordinances. So,

58:16Jeff, I appreciate all the time you put

58:18into this and I know you've worked with

58:19a lot of teams around the you know, from

58:21Bike Iowa, Street Collective, Iowa

58:22Bicycle Coalition to uh you know, to get

58:25this information. So, Jeff, I'll turn

58:27over to you.

58:32>> Thanks, Steve.

58:33Uh Jeff Wiggins, transportation traffic

58:36transportation transportation planner uh

58:38engineering department.

58:40So,

58:42uh

58:43going to talk to you today about

58:44bicycles, pedestrian conveyances, and

58:46related micro-mobility devices.

58:49Uh

58:50from a planning framework, uh a lot of

58:52what I'm going to talk to you about

58:54today is uh relating to complete streets

58:57in terms of multimodal options and in

58:59terms of Vision Zero in terms of

59:01transportation safety. Uh one fact that

59:03really jumps out that makes this point

59:05is that on an annual basis, 4 to 5% of

59:08the crashes that occur in the city of

59:09Des Moines involve vulnerable roadway

59:10users, people walking, biking, etc.

59:13Those also represent 50% of the people

59:16who are killed or seriously injured on

59:17an annual basis.

59:19So, it's a disproportionate impact on

59:21these vulnerable road users.

59:24So, many of you have probably seen this

59:26variety of devices that are being ridden

59:29on the streets of Des Moines today and

59:31how it's just absolutely exploded in the

59:32last 5 to 10 years.

59:34Um

59:35with that, unfortunately, we've seen a

59:37commensurate increase in crashes

59:40and severity of crashes. So, uh for

59:42example, from 2017 to 2022, we saw a

59:4649-fold increase nationally in head

59:48trauma uh cases resulting from e-bike

59:51crashes. In Des Moines, from 2022 to

59:542025, we saw a 1,000% increase in ER

59:57visits resulting from e-bike crashes.

1:00:00Now, mind you,

1:00:01the hospitals do not currently have a

1:00:03way to distinguish e-bike from e-moto.

1:00:06Yet, this remains a pretty troubling

1:00:08trend and one that we should pay

1:00:10attention to.

1:00:12>> [clears throat]

1:00:13>> So, as Steve mentioned, the concern is

1:00:15that uh bikes and other things are being

1:00:18muddled, getting caught up in this

1:00:20discussion, and perhaps confused.

1:00:23So, uh Des Moines' code what exists

1:00:25today uh dates back to 2012, and that's

1:00:28pretty consistent with what we see

1:00:29across the metro area um

1:00:31with the exception of what's occurred in

1:00:33the last 6 to 12 months here. And so, a

1:00:36lot of jurisdictions in our neighboring

1:00:37communities have been considering

1:00:39updates to their codes, and this is the

1:00:42update that uh we're bringing to the

1:00:44city of Des Moines, and we feel like

1:00:45it's pretty well researched um and based

1:00:48on solid grounding and uh best practices

1:00:52across the country.

1:00:54So,

1:00:55um

1:00:56the existing state code as uh has been

1:01:00updated a number of times in the past

1:01:01several years, and we're uh obviously

1:01:04capturing those elements as well.

1:01:09So, what's the currently uh the

1:01:10regulatory framework that we're working

1:01:12with here?

1:01:13Um most importantly, we're trying to

1:01:15ground ourselves very solidly in state

1:01:18code. We're not trying to create

1:01:19anything new if we do not have to. So,

1:01:22this ordinance intends to comply with

1:01:24various regulations at the state and

1:01:26references various sections of state

1:01:28code. Importantly, that state state code

1:01:30says that we are permitted to adopt

1:01:33additional regulations which are not in

1:01:34conflict with the chapter. And so,

1:01:36that's the space in which the code

1:01:38that's before you is presented.

1:01:41Starting with some of those definitions,

1:01:43a bicycle is what you probably all

1:01:45remember growing up, the conventional

1:01:47bicycle, but a bicycle also includes

1:01:50e-bikes. And so, those have three

1:01:52classes.

1:01:53Uh classes one and two go up to 20 mph

1:01:56uh with simply pedal assist or with the

1:01:58assistance of a throttle, respectively.

1:02:00And class three goes up to 28 mph with

1:02:03pedal assistance alone.

1:02:08Uh pedestrian is a person afoot. That

1:02:11makes sense. But, a person using a

1:02:13pedestrian conveyance is also considered

1:02:16a pedestrian per state code. So again,

1:02:18we're trying to stay as close as

1:02:20possible to those state definitions.

1:02:22Um a pedestrian conveyance has a maximum

1:02:25power of 750 W.

1:02:28A personal electric personal assistive

1:02:31mobility device, aka Segway, is also

1:02:34defined in state code.

1:02:37And considered a pedestrian.

1:02:39So,

1:02:40uh this ordinance addresses concerns

1:02:42related to e-motos and high-speed

1:02:44pedestrian conveyances by clarifying

1:02:46existing terms and definitions and

1:02:48adding one new one.

1:02:51So, as I mentioned, state code already

1:02:53defines bicycle, low-speed electric

1:02:56bicycle, pedestrian conveyance, and

1:02:58personal assistive mobility device,

1:03:00along with motorized bicycles and

1:03:03motorcycles.

1:03:04Uh motorized bicycles, which are

1:03:06commonly called mopeds,

1:03:08um and motorcycles are types of motor

1:03:11vehicles and subject to regulations of

1:03:13motor vehicles,

1:03:14while the other items that I just

1:03:16mentioned are not.

1:03:18On the right-hand side, you have these

1:03:21other things that exist in the world

1:03:23today.

1:03:24And so these are the high-speed

1:03:26pedestrian conveyances. And I'll just

1:03:28read that definition out for you because

1:03:30this is a neologism. This is the new

1:03:32definition and the new term that has

1:03:33been created in order to make sense of

1:03:36this universe and present it in the form

1:03:38of code. So a high-speed pedestrian

1:03:41conveyance is any device that would

1:03:42otherwise meet the definition of a

1:03:44pedestrian conveyance, but with a motor

1:03:47exceeding 750 W or capable of speeds

1:03:50over 20 mph on level ground when powered

1:03:53solely by the motor.

1:03:57So these devices,

1:04:00uh the lack of current state definition

1:04:02for these devices also mean that there's

1:04:04no current applicable state regulations.

1:04:06There's no state process for licensing,

1:04:08registration, insurance for these

1:04:09devices. Since they cannot be

1:04:11registered, they cannot comply with the

1:04:13requirements of motor vehicles and

1:04:15should not be allowed on public streets,

1:04:17and they travel too fast to be allowed

1:04:18on trails and sidewalks. Therefore,

1:04:21high-speed pedestrian conveyances should

1:04:22not be allowed in the public right of

1:04:23way

1:04:24or public property until we have a

1:04:26statewide framework to define them.

1:04:31I should say up in the upper corner I've

1:04:33put the logo for PeopleForBikes and

1:04:36their

1:04:37work in this space has been very helpful

1:04:40in helping to

1:04:42frame these devices and make sure that

1:04:44we're following national norms.

1:04:48I mentioned quickly that there have been

1:04:49a number of updates to state code in the

1:04:51last 5 years. These include providing

1:04:54those definitions of e-bike pedestrian

1:04:56conveyance

1:04:57and then also ensuring that people

1:05:00crossing the street who are pedestrians,

1:05:02bicyclists, or pedestrian conveyance all

1:05:05have the same right of way, and then

1:05:07actions against bicycles.

1:05:09Those items are taken verbatim from

1:05:11state code and placed in this document.

1:05:15Additionally, there are seven very

1:05:17important new things, updates, things

1:05:20that are not in state code, not in our

1:05:21city code today that I'm asking for your

1:05:24guidance on moving forward with. Those

1:05:26include change lanes to pass, so simply

1:05:30that you pass a slow moving vehicle in

1:05:32the same fashion as you pass a person

1:05:34riding a pedestrian conveyance or a

1:05:36bicycle. You take the lane to the

1:05:38opposite side or the second lane over

1:05:40and return to that lane only at such

1:05:42time as it's safe to do so.

1:05:44Second, lateral passing distance. So,

1:05:46that's the 3 ft of space between the

1:05:48moving vehicle and the bicycle or

1:05:50pedestrian conveyance if they're in a

1:05:53paved shoulder or a dedicated bike lane.

1:05:59The third one is the right arm for the

1:06:02right turn signal,

1:06:03simply indicating what we all learned

1:06:05growing up and what's recommended by

1:06:07Nitsa, League of American Bicyclists,

1:06:09and others. Turning right, hold out our

1:06:11right arm.

1:06:13Fourth, door zone protection, ensuring

1:06:15that when people are getting out of

1:06:16their motor vehicles,

1:06:18they look and make sure that they're not

1:06:19endangering any person, pedestrian

1:06:22conveyance, bicycle, or vehicle that

1:06:24might be operating in that

1:06:26public right of way.

1:06:29Far to right exemptions, identify those

1:06:31instances in which a bicycle or

1:06:34pedestrian conveyance can ride other

1:06:35than as far to the right as is

1:06:38practicable

1:06:39per state code.

1:06:42The dead red lights allowance

1:06:44is there to allow the bicycle who gets

1:06:47or pedestrian conveyance that gets

1:06:49stranded in signalized intersection

1:06:51because the detection is not detecting

1:06:54them.

1:06:55And so, after a period of time, after

1:06:58ensuring that the right of way is clear,

1:07:01they can proceed through after a certain

1:07:03period of time or a cycle.

1:07:06And then finally, improved bicycle lane

1:07:08operations,

1:07:09Uh uh which ensures that vehicles are

1:07:12not driving or parking in bicycle lanes.

1:07:16Uh I'll say that these items came to us

1:07:19by way of the Iowa Bicycle Coalition all

1:07:22the way back in 2018 when I first

1:07:23started. Um and they've not changed much

1:07:27in the interim. Uh they are the precise

1:07:29same items that you'll see recommended

1:07:31by the League of American Bicyclists,

1:07:33>> [clears throat]

1:07:34>> which has an incredible resource called

1:07:35Bike Law University,

1:07:37uh which tracks at the state level which

1:07:40states have or do not have these various

1:07:42provisions.

1:07:44Um

1:07:45and uh I don't know if you want me to

1:07:47stop here or proceed through and uh I

1:07:49just have a few more slides and can come

1:07:50back to any of these items as you

1:07:52>> let's just keep going through.

1:07:53>> Okay.

1:07:54>> Who knew bicycling could be this

1:07:56difficult, huh?

1:07:58Or for you, not a road.

1:08:00>> It's the and other things.

1:08:01>> And other

1:08:02>> Right. So, one of the first questions

1:08:05that comes up when I present this

1:08:06material to any audience is where can I

1:08:09ride which thing? And so, I've tried to

1:08:12create as simple of a chart as possible

1:08:15to answer this question.

1:08:17So, starting at the right-hand side, as

1:08:19I described previously, high-speed

1:08:20pedestrian conveyances, because there is

1:08:22not currently a regulatory framework to

1:08:24define what they are, to license them,

1:08:26etc., they are simply not to be

1:08:29permitted in the public right-of-way or

1:08:30public property,

1:08:32uh meaning parklands. Um

1:08:35motor vehicles, motorcycles, motorized

1:08:37bicycles, aka mopeds, can be used on

1:08:41public roadways and uh on park roads,

1:08:44but not in any other location such as

1:08:46trails, paved or otherwise.

1:08:48Uh OPDMDs, uh that's other power-driven

1:08:51mobility devices, and I'll just read to

1:08:53you directly from the footnote number

1:08:55three at the bottom, may be operated by

1:08:57people with mobility disabilities,

1:08:59provided that they do not risk damage to

1:09:01the property, surrounding environment,

1:09:03or pose a risk uh to the safety of other

1:09:05users. And so these are for people who

1:09:08have mobility challenges, and this is

1:09:10their way to get around.

1:09:12Communities have the opportunity to

1:09:14define those spaces where, and even when

1:09:17they can be used.

1:09:19Um

1:09:21Uh notably, this is taken from federal

1:09:23ADA regulations, and this is one of

1:09:26those items where we're simply simply

1:09:27keeping up with the Joneses, and

1:09:29uh making sure that our code matches

1:09:31federal requirements.

1:09:34Pedestrian conveyances, with the

1:09:36exception of wheelchairs and strollers,

1:09:38and bicycles can be ridden in any of

1:09:41those locations.

1:09:43Um

1:09:43when it comes to riding on public

1:09:45sidewalks, I'll read you footnote number

1:09:48one, which is very important, and this

1:09:49is verbatim the way that the language

1:09:52has been incorporated into the code.

1:09:54Um I'll note that the second half of

1:09:56this was expressly conveyed to us as a

1:09:59recommendation from AARP, which closely

1:10:02mirrors the recommendations that come

1:10:04out of the League of American

1:10:05Bicyclists.

1:10:06So, um pedestrian conveyances and

1:10:08bicycles may be ridden upon public

1:10:10sidewalks in a careful and prudent

1:10:11manner, except where signs or pavement

1:10:13markings explicitly prohibit riding on

1:10:15the sidewalk or in specific dismount

1:10:17zones.

1:10:19Riders shall yield to pedestrians, slow

1:10:21to walking speed when passing, and

1:10:23dismount if possible in high-conflict

1:10:25pedestrian areas when needed.

1:10:29>> I have one comment. Um

1:10:32it's insane to me that bicycles are on

1:10:34public sidewalk

1:10:37when we have dedicated bike lanes. And

1:10:39I'm thinking about Ingersoll, and it's

1:10:41just a

1:10:42it's a disaster.

1:10:44Um

1:10:46can bicycles be banned on public

1:10:48sidewalks when there's a bike lane

1:10:513 ft to the left or right?

1:10:54>> Uh

1:10:56policy

1:10:57provides the opportunity to ban or

1:10:59permit

1:11:00>> It just doesn't make sense. People who

1:11:01are walking and strolling shouldn't have

1:11:04to

1:11:04be passed by a fast-moving bicycle on a

1:11:07public sidewalk when there's a

1:11:09bike trail right next to it.

1:11:15Am I the only one?

1:11:17>> I understand. It's uh

1:11:19>> Well, Ingersoll

1:11:20>> Ingersoll is confusing cuz I It's very

1:11:22confusing cuz there is the bike lane is

1:11:25part of the sidewalk, right?

1:11:26>> Uh the the clay that clay-colored

1:11:31um

1:11:32cement is it is it is a bike lane and

1:11:35and that's dedicated for

1:11:38bikes and I guess a few of the other

1:11:40devices.

1:11:41Um the

1:11:43uh

1:11:44um

1:11:44>> [clears throat]

1:11:44>> non-colored

1:11:46is where

1:11:48uh people are supposed to walk and so

1:11:49that's

1:11:51seems to be working well.

1:11:55I'm not sure uh there

1:11:58when I bike on on Ingersoll,

1:12:01occasionally there's a person

1:12:04walking on in the clay-colored concrete

1:12:07area that's

1:12:09and I say, "You know, this is a bike

1:12:11lane." And

1:12:12and people get it, so they're

1:12:15>> I'm going to be alone on this, I'm sure,

1:12:17but I think bicycles belong on the

1:12:19streets, on dedicated lanes where they

1:12:22can move fast.

1:12:23Um

1:12:24>> Well,

1:12:24>> Yes. I'm I'm again, I might be alone,

1:12:27but I I don't get all these bicycles

1:12:29being up

1:12:31next to sidewalks.

1:12:34>> I think it's somewhat sometimes the

1:12:35speed people are going down.

1:12:38>> The uh the

1:12:41uh bike lane and and the pedestrian area

1:12:44are separated by tree boxes.

1:12:52>> Just

1:12:53a couple more slides here.

1:12:55Um

1:12:57the draft code includes a report that

1:13:00precedes it, another eight pages of um

1:13:04kind of bringing you up to speed of how

1:13:07we got to where we are today, why these

1:13:08recommendations are there, um what is

1:13:11included, etc. Importantly, it also

1:13:14identifies a number of items that were

1:13:16not included in the code. So, uh here's

1:13:19a quick list of those items. Uh the

1:13:21Idaho stop, also known as the stop as

1:13:24yield, its corollary, the red sign as

1:13:26stop red signal as stop sign.

1:13:29Um additionally, the code does not

1:13:32address um bike or shooter uh scooter

1:13:35share. So, of course, we do not have

1:13:37scooter share, and if and when we do,

1:13:39we'll have to develop regulations to

1:13:41regulate the same.

1:13:43Uh and the B-cycles,

1:13:45uh they are parked in docks, so we don't

1:13:47have the issue of the littering of the

1:13:49public right-of-way. That's a big

1:13:50concern on that front. Autonomous

1:13:53vehicles are already covered in state

1:13:54code chapter 3210.

1:13:57And then there were a few uh items as we

1:13:59were corresponding and collaborating

1:14:01with other departments within the city,

1:14:03uh specifically these three items that

1:14:05had come out of the Parks and Recreation

1:14:06Department as recommendations

1:14:09uh that have not been included in the

1:14:11code. Those are a 20 mph trail speed

1:14:14limit, uh

1:14:16provisions relating to forward

1:14:17illumination and helmet usage.

1:14:20And then finally, um

1:14:22as Council Member uh Simonsen alluded

1:14:25to, uh

1:14:26sidewalk riding prohibition. So, there's

1:14:28different ways to approach it. Um I

1:14:30walked through the language um on the

1:14:32previous slide that's included in the

1:14:34code relating to um how and when, where

1:14:38uh sidewalk riding is permitted or

1:14:40prohibited.

1:14:42Um this is simply a listing of the

1:14:45chapters, those sections in the uh code.

1:14:51And then uh before finishing, I'll just

1:14:53point out on the right side of the

1:14:54screen here,

1:14:56uh three examples of education that

1:14:58accompany changes. So, when a city

1:15:02implements significant changes of this

1:15:04nature, and especially in this

1:15:06environment where we're seeing such

1:15:07variety community to community, um it's

1:15:11important to be as clear as possible

1:15:13when we're communicating with the

1:15:14public. At the top, you have a campaign

1:15:17launched by Polk County called We All

1:15:19Arrive, focused on transportation

1:15:20safety. At the bottom, you have uh some

1:15:23material prepared by the City of West

1:15:25Des Moines, which frankly has been at

1:15:27the

1:15:28uh tip of the spear in terms of the

1:15:29experience of e-motos in the Des Moines

1:15:31metro area, and they've um made some

1:15:34really fantastic uh educational material

1:15:36that they're blasting out on social and

1:15:38uh traditional media. And then in the

1:15:40middle, the Ride Safe and Smart is a uh

1:15:43branding that got developed and is

1:15:45shared amongst uh all of the metro

1:15:48communities, including Des Moines,

1:15:49simply encouraging both parents and

1:15:51children to be aware of what it is that

1:15:53they are uh purchasing and or riding out

1:15:56on the streets.

1:15:58Um so, with that, um

1:16:00I'm happy to entertain any questions,

1:16:02comments.

1:16:02>> So, is this similar to the other I know

1:16:05other communities we've discussed this

1:16:07at the MPO, other communities have

1:16:09adopted

1:16:10uh their own ordinance. Is this

1:16:15similar to it? Is it

1:16:17>> Yes.

1:16:17>> Okay.

1:16:18>> similar.

1:16:18>> So, we're all kind of doing the same

1:16:20thing or no?

1:16:22>> Uh we're all doing very similar things,

1:16:24but there has been a fragmenting on the

1:16:27details of exactly which items, for

1:16:29example, where things are permitted to

1:16:31be ridden.

1:16:33Um

1:16:34generally speaking, I'd say 95% of the

1:16:38content across the board is the same.

1:16:41There have been small differences

1:16:42community by community.

1:16:43>> What's what what what's the 5% that's

1:16:46the small difference, I guess, that's

1:16:48we're going to

1:16:50>> I think is one of those big ones. So,

1:16:52where any particular thing can be

1:16:54written.

1:16:55>> So, okay.

1:16:56>> Forcing certain types of um

1:17:00pedestrian conveyances or bikes or

1:17:03um scooters either onto the sidewalk or

1:17:06off of the sidewalk or certain

1:17:09uh street classification or speeds. So,

1:17:12if it's posted above a certain speed

1:17:13limit saying it's not permitted in that

1:17:15space, that sort of stuff. Uh there've

1:17:18been

1:17:19a number of other very small things, but

1:17:21generally speaking, yes, we're all the

1:17:23same.

1:17:23>> we allowing it on the sidewalk, the

1:17:25e-scooters or the Yeah. So, is

1:17:28>> So, their footnote number uh one

1:17:31describes the approach to sidewalk

1:17:33riding.

1:17:35>> So, we are going to allow it on public

1:17:37sidewalks.

1:17:38>> That

1:17:38>> And on

1:17:39>> As long as they're not the high speed.

1:17:42>> Okay. Well, who who's going to know if

1:17:45it's

1:17:46the one that's high speed or it's the

1:17:47one that's not high speed? Who who's

1:17:50going to be able How are we going to be

1:17:52able to enforce

1:17:54the one that goes 55 mph and the one

1:17:56that goes

1:17:58less than the 20?

1:18:00>> Mhm.

1:18:01>> So, uh just comes back to responsible

1:18:04riding. And so, there is um a section in

1:18:07here, as you recall,

1:18:09on responsible riding, chapter seven,

1:18:11that walks through what those

1:18:14expectations are of the public when

1:18:16they're using

1:18:18public sidewalk or other facilities,

1:18:20whether that's on street or on a trail

1:18:22or otherwise.

1:18:24Uh and it talks about going at a prudent

1:18:25speed, being aware of your surroundings,

1:18:27et cetera, et cetera.

1:18:29>> But a lot of these are

1:18:31teenagers or younger, correct? And so,

1:18:33if they're not getting the word from

1:18:35their parents what they're supposed to

1:18:37do or we're not educating them

1:18:39some way.

1:18:41>> Is one of the cities finding parents?

1:18:44>> I I'm not That's

1:18:45>> I think some I mean, it would be maybe

1:18:47we get a list of what how ours varies or

1:18:50what is some of the difference. I don't

1:18:52for the 5%.

1:18:54This was truly something that we had

1:18:56hoped the MPO would have taken up, so we

1:18:58would have uniformity.

1:19:00>> But

1:19:00>> Yeah, I think I think everybody was kind

1:19:01of doing their own thing and and and

1:19:03trying to get it done because the

1:19:04suburbs were

1:19:06pressed to

1:19:09There was some serious issues out there

1:19:12that

1:19:13>> Right.

1:19:14>> Yeah, they have the they have the

1:19:15high-speed ones that are causing

1:19:18probably the majority of the issues that

1:19:20we're seeing.

1:19:22And majority of them are kids that are

1:19:24riding them wherever they want to ride

1:19:26it.

1:19:27>> I think Scott

1:19:28>> Yeah, Mayor, thank you. I feel inclined

1:19:31as I've been

1:19:32had this presentation a couple weeks

1:19:33back and one of my concerns is on the

1:19:36other side of the spectrum

1:19:38where for instance downtown you'll see

1:19:40on the place of riding chart if you

1:19:42could go back to that

1:19:44the more typical pedestrian conveyance I

1:19:47think of skateboards and a scooter that

1:19:49is has no motor

1:19:51would be allowed

1:19:53to take a lane downtown traveling

1:19:57and I do worry that our vehicles will

1:19:59get very impatient with

1:20:02those type of

1:20:04conveyance that might be going 4 or 5

1:20:06miles an hour or less.

1:20:09Um

1:20:10and so it feels like there might be an

1:20:13opportunity. I haven't really shared

1:20:14this even with engineering cuz I was

1:20:16thinking about this

1:20:17that if there is a divided line

1:20:21um that might be a distinction to

1:20:23consider where that would not be allowed

1:20:25out in the lane.

1:20:27Whereas a neighborhood that doesn't have

1:20:29uh uh, lanes

1:20:31uh marked that might make more sense for

1:20:34these

1:20:365 mile an hour in the neighborhood

1:20:38situation. I just I throw that out there

1:20:40cuz I know

1:20:41our drivers will get impatient if

1:20:44somebody is riding a, uh, skateboard

1:20:48in a lane

1:20:50uh,

1:20:50in a situation downtown or such.

1:20:55>> Councilman

1:20:56>> yeah, I I wanted to ask about two items

1:20:58in here. So,

1:21:00>> [clears throat]

1:21:01>> as long as we're talking about the

1:21:02sidewalks, um,

1:21:04I the state law does allow us to

1:21:07restrict, um,

1:21:09in business

1:21:10districts and and I'm

1:21:13uh, firm believer that we should, um,

1:21:16not allow, um,

1:21:18these devices in areas like the East

1:21:21Village,

1:21:23Beaverdale,

1:21:24Court Avenue,

1:21:25>> in the business area.

1:21:27>> in the business area and

1:21:30I I realize that engineering doesn't is

1:21:33not enthused about

1:21:36adding signs to the street what is not

1:21:39allowed, but

1:21:41Laura, you have an example that I picked

1:21:44up from

1:21:45Independence, Iowa.

1:21:48And this is

1:21:50on the sidewalk.

1:21:53And it is a pedestrian zone and we have

1:21:56a lot of those.

1:21:57One of the reasons that that that this

1:22:00is important is that in in business

1:22:02districts,

1:22:03um, by code their their front door has

1:22:07to be out swinging.

1:22:09And so,

1:22:11um,

1:22:12for a person walking out of the store,

1:22:16opening the door, and bam, there's a

1:22:17person on a skateboard

1:22:20or a bike,

1:22:21um,

1:22:23I'm not enthused about

1:22:25more signs, but I'm

1:22:27less enthused about lawsuits. And so I

1:22:31think that there are areas in Des

1:22:33Moines, Court Avenue is another area

1:22:35that that we should not allow bikes

1:22:38and and skateboards on the sidewalks.

1:22:43>> Okay.

1:22:44>> And I would encourage

1:22:45>> Pardon?

1:22:47>> Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean I think this is

1:22:49And if you go

1:22:52to cities out west, you're going to see

1:22:54a lot of signs like this.

1:22:57It could be simpler, it could be just a

1:22:59stencil painted, but I encourage us

1:23:03when we make these changes to

1:23:06um

1:23:10>> To not allow in a business?

1:23:12>> To mark the districts

1:23:14Locust Street, the east um I'm sorry,

1:23:17the west side of Locust would be

1:23:20another example.

1:23:22>> You're talking all of pretty much

1:23:23downtown, but

1:23:24>> Yeah, and you know, it could probably

1:23:26even work in the Roosevelt shopping

1:23:29area, too. So,

1:23:30um

1:23:31>> I think it could have worked on

1:23:32Ingersoll, too. I like this idea,

1:23:34actually. [laughter]

1:23:35And so there's already

1:23:37>> my there are signs on the clay color

1:23:40that that is bikes, but people aren't

1:23:42you know, this is new to a lot of people

1:23:44and

1:23:45we're getting there, so

1:23:47um

1:23:48>> Okay.

1:23:49>> And I also

1:23:50>> Okay, go ahead, Council.

1:23:51>> Okay. Um

1:23:53also um

1:23:56I think Orange County, California is

1:23:59leading in enforcement on the underage

1:24:04kids that are on

1:24:05the motos. They're actually finding the

1:24:08parents for allowing their kids to be

1:24:10out

1:24:12underage and

1:24:14would would we consider doing that

1:24:17um

1:24:19in these code changes that they're

1:24:21recommending?

1:24:22>> Yeah, so we reviewed a lot of material,

1:24:25especially from People for Bikes. And as

1:24:27we looked across the jurisdictions

1:24:29across the country, both municipal and

1:24:31state, we saw quite a variety. And there

1:24:33are some real leaders in this space. Um

1:24:36I would say Minnesota is an incredible

1:24:38example of somebody who's doing

1:24:40something about the uh points of sale

1:24:43and those related issues about

1:24:46transparency and truth in advertising of

1:24:48what's actually being sold. In terms of

1:24:50finding of parents, Orange County,

1:24:52California and California as a state is

1:24:55definitely the leader in this space to

1:24:57the point that

1:24:58Amazon voluntarily chose to stop selling

1:25:01these devices in California. Be

1:25:04wonderful if Iowa were

1:25:06as respected as California. But

1:25:10we chose not to include that in the code

1:25:12um thinking that was more likely

1:25:15something that could be better addressed

1:25:16at the state level. But if it's

1:25:18something that you collectively believe

1:25:21ought to be included in this code,

1:25:24we can do that.

1:25:26>> Uh well,

1:25:27the state has been slow to make

1:25:31changes even like

1:25:33allowing the uh

1:25:35arm right arm for a right turn. So

1:25:40um

1:25:42I would encourage us

1:25:45to do this and just uh

1:25:47Orange County also did a buyback a

1:25:51program um that they would uh just kind

1:25:54of like buy back your firearms.

1:25:57And and they ran out of money in 2

1:26:00hours. And then they crushed the bikes.

1:26:02So

1:26:03>> I think there's something

1:26:04>> Something to think about.

1:26:04>> with math council too about how you

1:26:07know, if you want to go further on

1:26:09finding, you know, try to figure out

1:26:11what everybody's doing. You probably

1:26:12know in the metro area.

1:26:14Uh try to get some consistency, but I

1:26:17think some of that goes back to that

1:26:18education point where do parents really

1:26:20understand the speed these things are

1:26:22going?

1:26:23I mean, what I hear out in the suburbs,

1:26:24kids were driving them to school, which

1:26:26is middle school.

1:26:28Uh things like that. And I think maybe

1:26:30some in Des Moines, but we did not hear

1:26:32as much as what our suburban

1:26:34neighbors heard. So, I think a lot of it

1:26:36could be just education that you know,

1:26:39>> Sure. Some of the communities are

1:26:41waiting on Des Moines to act. And that

1:26:45and that they'll follow suit afterwards.

1:26:48So,

1:26:48>> I think that's a conversation that

1:26:49people do want buying

1:26:51parents and things. So,

1:26:56hard to

1:26:59trying to

1:27:00All of this has to be enforced, right?

1:27:03>> Yes.

1:27:04>> So, expectations have to be set that

1:27:06this enforcement is not easy with all

1:27:08the different devices that are out there

1:27:10now.

1:27:12>> And I I don't know

1:27:14I've seen video examples from the

1:27:17suburbs. I've heard less of that

1:27:20among Des Moines residents.

1:27:24I mean, that can obviously change very

1:27:27quickly,

1:27:28but

1:27:30I mean,

1:27:33I I guess I think it's important and and

1:27:36we add layers of complexity. I think

1:27:38it's important that we get our ordinance

1:27:40in place

1:27:42and

1:27:43and get working on it and get educating

1:27:45people on the difference between

1:27:48the high

1:27:50high pedestrian high-speed pedestrian

1:27:52conveyance and pedestrian conveyance.

1:27:55And that e-moto and e-bike, I think

1:27:57that's that's the most important thing

1:27:59for now.

1:28:00And I hope we would be revisiting this

1:28:03on a regular basis, particularly as this

1:28:06area is as dynamic as it is.

1:28:09And we we had a presentation where it's

1:28:11only been a couple years and we're

1:28:13revisiting things in our rental code.

1:28:16I I think I would expect we will need to

1:28:18revisit this ordinance as well

1:28:22just to keep up with what we are seeing

1:28:24and what we are experiencing and what we

1:28:26are learning.

1:28:27>> That's cuz this Yeah, so go ahead.

1:28:29>> To your point, I think there's a very

1:28:31strong likelihood that the state will do

1:28:33something about these outliers, about

1:28:35these high-speed pedestrian conveyances.

1:28:37The terms that we have in Des Moines

1:28:39that we have in Iowa, motorized bicycle,

1:28:42frankly that doesn't make sense.

1:28:44That's what we have to work with,

1:28:45pedestrian conveyance.

1:28:47When we looked at this just 4 years ago,

1:28:49we came up with a brand new term which

1:28:51no longer makes sense, right? So we were

1:28:53calling these um

1:28:56personal transportation devices.

1:28:58State decides to call them uh pedestrian

1:29:00conveyances. We call them pedestrian

1:29:02conveyances, so the we have to work

1:29:04within a context for sure, but uh that's

1:29:08why Des Moines' code is going to look

1:29:09different than Omaha's code, right?

1:29:11>> Is Is the state dealing with this

1:29:13entirely in

1:29:15administrative role or administrative

1:29:18guidance or or is there

1:29:20laws that have been passed to address

1:29:22it? I mean, if the laws remain silent,

1:29:26can DOT address some of this?

1:29:29>> Yeah, the state has made these updates

1:29:31just in the last 5 years.

1:29:32>> Okay.

1:29:33>> So they are thinking about this and this

1:29:36tends to move through the public safety

1:29:39uh subcommittee.

1:29:40>> I think that's something we can add to

1:29:42is well our legislative um

1:29:44trying to get more consistency of cuz if

1:29:47it could be at a state level, it's

1:29:49somewhat helpful that there's more

1:29:51consistency.

1:29:52The uh folks at the Iowa Bicycle

1:29:55>> especially on the high-end

1:29:57pedestrian conveyance, whatever they

1:29:59>> So the folks at the Iowa Bicycle

1:30:01Coalition already have some draft

1:30:03language, I believe that they've brought

1:30:04forward for consideration amongst the

1:30:06legislature. Don't know if that'll go

1:30:08anywhere or not, but the idea is

1:30:10precisely that.

1:30:11Um where there is this vacuum, where

1:30:13there is this lack of regulatory

1:30:15framework to even address what it is

1:30:17that we're talking about.

1:30:18To give it a name at least.

1:30:20>> Okay.

1:30:21>> Okay. Well,

1:30:24bring this back. I think we move

1:30:25forward. Uh consensus sounds like to

1:30:28move forward with what we have. Maybe

1:30:30looking at a couple of the other things.

1:30:32>> Is there a timetable to bring this back?

1:30:40>> Um well, we're going to be adding, you

1:30:42know, with some of the things that we

1:30:43talked about today, it's we're talking

1:30:45in a few months, I would say at least,

1:30:47to work with our legal team and create

1:30:49new language for the If we are adding

1:30:51the the business district language, if

1:30:52that's something the council

1:30:54would like to add and and also that on

1:30:57top of that, you know, what it is. I

1:30:59mean, where who does the you know,

1:31:02putting out I guess it looks like I

1:31:04guess I'm not sure if Independence,

1:31:05Iowa, that's an actual code requirement

1:31:07or are they recommending people

1:31:09dismount. Um you know, who puts out the

1:31:12signages and the stickers and

1:31:14um

1:31:15to do these things.

1:31:16>> Sure. It's already in the state code

1:31:18that we can restrict in a business area.

1:31:21So, that

1:31:22is already there.

1:31:24>> Okay, why don't we uh review how long it

1:31:26take? I I would hope it's not going to

1:31:28take a few months, but uh let's review

1:31:31it. I think a lot of it's laid out

1:31:33already, so we can get going on it. And

1:31:35if we needed tweak and add a couple of

1:31:37things, we can do that. So.

1:31:39>> Thank you.

1:31:41>> You should.

1:31:41>> Thank you for the presentation and

1:31:43education on all the new vehicles we

1:31:45have available to us.

1:31:47So.

1:31:49With that,

1:31:50I think uh that ends our work session.

1:31:53We'll reconvene at 4:50. I think we have

1:31:56a couple proclamations. 5:00 is our

1:31:58regular meeting, so we hope to see you

1:31:59then.

1:32:00Thank you.

1:32:02>> Thank you.