2026-11-02 - City Council Work Session

We will call the work session. We'll get started on the work session for November 2nd, 2026. And I will turn this over to our city manager, Scott Sanders, to introduce the items that we'll be talking

about today. >> Okay. Thank you, Mayor. Morning, everyone. We have two topics to cover this morning. We're going to actually start out with tax increment financing first. And I I'm going to start us

out and then hand it over to Carrie, our actual expert in uh all things TIF. Uh with whatever guidance Nick wants to provide on the financial side. So, I I think it's uh helpful to start out at at a

high level of what TIF is used for and the purpose of TIF. And then allow Carrie to dive into the details of how uh many elements of TIF have changed uh with the recent legislation from last session.

So, as a reminder, especially to the public, uh that TIF districts are used for a couple different purposes uh to reinvig rate uh reinvest in older areas of town, such as our downtown, but also to

create new economic development in new areas. >> [snorts] >> And the actual TIF mechanism, uh which captures some of the new taxes that are generated by growth, to pour back into the project. A lot of

times that investment is in uh infrastructure that the city needs and that all our residents get to partake in. But then the other side the equation is often times TIF is utilized for rebates for

which we're able to pour those taxes into the project through the developer and and rebate payments after they actually construct something. And so what you'll see is that that risk is then on the

developer cuz if they never actually build anything, then they also never get any incentives and that's purposeful and that protects the taxpayers. Uh the rebating taxes is based on only the new

construction and the valuation and it's a temporary amount of time uh that they would receive rebates. Uh all those details are shared with you as we go through project by project and we have several

of them tonight yet. We've We are very fortunate that uh we have development uh as such in Des Moines and yet uh realistically nearly all of that development relies on TIF to be able to move forward.

Um >> [clears throat] >> only the new future taxes I mentioned are considered for those rebates. Uh and the best way to think of the rebates is that the impact of TIF rebates on our city budget and

the school district and county's budgets is a delay in receiving that additional new revenue uh under a temporary uh time frame. It's simply a delay. It is not a reduction in the current taxes that

they're receiving or that we're receiving for operations. The rebates are based on gaps and so this is another crucial uh element to make sure you understand when it comes to TIF. We don't just hand

out TIF and again, it's not money just sitting aside. It's future taxes uh and the rebates are based on analysis that the project shows and illustrates that it needs the gap funding through TIF in

order to move forward. This is what's called the but for uh element of TIF. That analysis is typically provided by the developer and reviewed by our staff pretty thoroughly. There's a TIF policy that

guides, you know, how much of that gap can be filled and and things of that nature. And the project again would not be built if not for the TIF rebates. So again, Carrie will give more details on how

that works, some illustrations, and then again how things have changed under Senate File 2472. Now I've asked Carrie to prepare this presentation in a pretty quick order. At the same time, I think

she's a little busy also and her staff with a couple big projects that we're going to be talking about yet tonight. So give us some patience and some grace. This is meant to be the first conversation

of of others. We'll bring back further detail. But it'd be helpful to get this educational piece in front of you and out to the public. It's the same presentation that we'll give tomorrow to our local

developers to make sure that they're educated on how the new system works because I can tell you most of them are confused as well about how this new 2472 works. Again, we didn't have a whole lot of

time to put this together, but we will have an opportunity to ask you questions during the presentation so we know better what to bring next to you about capacity and some of those other questions

that Excuse me, you've had another meeting. So I think with that I'm going to turn it over to Carrie and I will finish up at the end. >> [clears throat] >> Good morning, Mayor Bosen, members of City

Council. Carrie Cruise, economic development director here at the city. I think the only other thing I will add to Scott's intro in the our upcoming conversations, we do intend to use this

presentation as a framework with our local developers. We're also including local business leaders in those conversations as well as other development stakeholders, so lenders, brokers, a nice mix of

folks involved in the the development space. All right, so jumping right in, Senate file 2472. This bill was acted into enacted into law on May 18th, 2026 and was really summarized as property tax

reform. We knew this was one of the main goals heading into last year's legislative session. Um the premise for this bill it was to limit the growth of property taxes statewide on an annual basis. So

divisions two, five, and eight of the bill outline the changes to property tax collections, to tax increment financing. Uh there are definitions that have been modified for low and moderate income

households, provisions of workforce housing and the construction of workforce housing as part of urban renewal activities. Um one important note on these bills, they're often passed with higher-level

kind of gray information and I can see uh in various pieces of this bill a clear need for administrative rules, administrative guidance to come forward uh to really help Department of Revenue,

Department of Management, county assessors, county auditors, city staff who who administer city who work on our urban renewal plans to give us guidance on on the specific implementation of some of the

pieces of the bill because it just doesn't get into that level of detail. And so as administrative rules or guidance comes forward, some of our interpretations could be refined over time. And so this

is um what you'll see the impacts that we're going to present on the changes from this legislative bill could be refined over time if the guidance um changes our interpretation of some of this bill.

All right, so the first division division two is the section that outlines the um new city property tax growth cap. We're all very aware that um the city's general fund levy is now limited at a 2%

growth cap excluding new valuation. There is a definition in the bill for new valuation, which we'll highlight on the next slide. Um what's important to note here is beginning in the fiscal year that

ends in 2031, our general fund allowable growth will equal the lesser of a 2% growth rate or the growth at the 810 levy limit. And so what that means is beginning in that fiscal year, if our growth

exceeds 2%, it will force a reduction in our general fund levy so that growth average citywide does not exceed that 2%. Um and you'll see um over time we're projecting a decline in the tax rates, and

you'll see that that's compounding some challenges that we've already had kind of a multi-year trend of reductions in TIF rates, reduction in in tax rates um that do start to weaken or lower the value

of the tax increment financing tool, and so that's a piece um that I'd like to keep top of mind as we look through all the changes in the bill and the impacts that it has. All right, the new valuation

definition um so we are allowed to grow above 2% for new construction projects, but with caveats and limitations. Additions or improvements to uh existing structures or net boundary adjustments, so if

we were annexing a new new property into our city limits, um that would not be subject to the 2% growth cap for that valuation that's being added. Um so on the new construction piece, we when various

versions of this bill were being passed back and forth and amended before it, the final version got passed. We had provided some um some sug- suggestions for further clarifying the new construction

definition to try and include specifically release of value from TIF. So, once projects are done being paid rebates, all the valuation goes onto the tax rolls, all the taxing entities benefit.

Historically, that is how TIF has worked and been successful for all the that are participating. Um but that uh the explicit release of TIF value was not included in the definition. Same goes for tax

abatement. We were wanting to include specifics so that projects that roll off of tax abatement would count as new construction. Most of those projects are new construction. Um we forego taxes for a

short period of time for the long-term benefit of those projects. Uh but that was also not included in new construction. And uh what we were hearing is uh from the Department of Management is the

intent of the bill um from their perspective was not to allow for those pieces to count as as new construction under the bill. All right. So, just taking a step back and looking high-level uh at our

property tax formula today, uh we have property valuations that get reassessed every other year in odd-number years, which is then multiplied by the rollback depending on the class of property. So,

you can see on your screen commercial properties are fixed at a 90% rollback and have been for several years now. Uh the residential rollback changes every single year based on a formula that's tied

to a cap on statewide growth and also has a tie to agricultural property growth. Um and you know, the the whole premise of the rollback was really initiated to limit rising property values and the

impact on property owners' tax bills. So, the rollback was first created 49 years ago in 1977. Um it was implemented at a time of increasing inflation and concerns for property tax bills and

controlling property tax growth. The first reductions under the rollback system went into effect in the 1978 assessments. And the rule back in 1978 allowed for an annual growth cap statewide of 6%.

And then from 1980 all the way until 2012, that annual growth cap was lowered to 4%. And then beginning in 2013, the statewide growth cap with the rollback was lowered to 3%. So, over time we've had a

reduction in the total amount of taxable growth that's allowed to occur statewide. And I think that's the complicated piece that a lot of folks don't understand cuz it is complicated. There are uh

pretty complex formulas involved in establishing the annual rollback. Um but it's just a good reminder, currently residential properties are paying taxes on 44% of the value of your your home. And so,

uh if you see your valuation of your property go back, you can't surmise an equal increase in your tax bill. I think it's important to remind people of that. Oh, sorry. I have a few more talking

points on this as well. So, now with the new bill, um in addition to the statewide 3% growth cap, we uh also now have the 2% citywide growth cap on taxes as well. So, further reducing what we're able

to to increase. All right, this slide probably looks familiar. I think Nick Shaw has included this in some of our budget presentations. Uh this is showing the annual growth rate of the city's general

fund over time. You can kind of see the spikes and peaks and valleys that is due to the reassessments occurring every other year. But we also have historically been able to be very strategic every

year in looking at our TIF certifications, how much we're requesting in funds for the following fiscal year, being strategic about the valuation being released so that we can smooth and out our growth

to the greatest extent possible. If we did not do that, the peaks and valleys of our growth would be more dramatic than what we have experienced in the past. And then the other interesting thing on

this chart I will call out is in the current fiscal year, you do see a large increase in growth for fiscal year 27. That was very strategic and intentional. We knew we had upcoming growth limitations

that were likely to go into effect. We made a conscious decision to for this current fiscal year draw down on fund balance in TIF to pay some of the current year obligations versus certifying more

value to pay an equivalent amount of those obligations and that essentially released the most value that we could to increase valuations available to the general fund. That was so that we could start

from the highest base possible once we're limited in our growth. So it's a one-time one-time fix to be able to do that and now our ability to be more strategic with our TIF valuation release no longer

exists because of the the lack of that valuation release being part of that new valuation definition that we can capture above 2%. So a strategy that we've had that we're no longer going to have going

forward based on the current legislation. This slide is also I'm sure very familiar with this group. Just summarizing the overall impact on the structural deficit of the city having a 2% growth cap

plus new value and expenses growing at a greater pace than what our revenues will be able to grow at. So, nearly a $12 million budget shortfall for the current fiscal year that we've all worked really

hard to solve and additional structural deficits going forward that we'll have to continue to work on strategies to resolve those. All right. This slide is showing a map of the city's existing urban

renewal areas. We have 29 urban renewal areas in the city and 10 of those areas have a perpetual duration. And so we have TIF districts in those areas that exist. They're already in place. They were

adopted with a designation under state code that recognized slum and blighted conditions, which is the trigger that allows those districts to carry on perpetually and not have a state statutory sunset

date or an expiration date. 15 of those districts will be subject to expiration dates. Some of those and sorry, I'll go back. The the ones that do not have expiration dates are the districts in blue

on the map. 15 of those in [clears throat] red, those will have expiration dates. Some of those districts were adopted with a slum and blighted designation, but we did not and have not implemented any

TIF districts within those areas yet. And for any new TIF districts following this calendar year, all of them will now be subject to an expiration date. So, some of the red districts would have been

blue if we had projects that had triggered the creation of a TIF district, but because they have not at this point, they will now be subject to expiration dates. And then we have four unique districts

in yellow that are going to have a combination of both. Those are Carpenter, Riverview, Upper East Village, and Oak Park and Highland Park. In those areas, we've been a lot more strategic in creating

our TIF districts to be more project-specific because we have a variety of conditions happening. There are higher risks in some of these areas that you could have some buildings that get demolished

that could draw value values in that district down. And so, to protect the value for projects that we're doing development agreements with, we are creating project-specific TIF districts in those

areas. Um and those development agreements are only based on the increment that that those specific projects generate. Which is often the case for most of our development agreements. Um so, now we

have areas within those yellow urban renewal areas that that do have TIF districts and the majority of the areas where there's not yet a TIF district. So, as we have new projects come forward in those

areas, we'll have some districts that don't expire and some that do within the same urban renewal area. So, we're going to have to be very meticulous about tracking that information within our urban

renewal plans, on our GIS maps, um and just making sure we're tracking what is expiring, when in each district. So, kind of a unique situation with the changes. All right, division five. This is the

section that deals with uh the school foundation tax levy. Um this one's kind of a minor change, but again, um compounding on a reduction in taxes and and reducing the overall tax rate that can be

used for TIF rebates. So, we do have some planned reductions in the school foundation levy. It's currently $5.40 per thousand. It will go down 30 cents in fiscal year 29, and then another uh 20 cents

in fiscal year 2030. So, the total impact on the tax rate, about 1 and 1/2%. Again, not a huge impact, but you'll see it it's a compounding effect of multiple things driving the tax rates lower. Yes.

No. Yeah. Okay. Apologies for that. We can send out a updated link to the final presentation. All right. Uh division eight of the bill, this is the uh section that um involves the urban renewal

changes. Um so this section completely repealed the low-to-moderate income set-aside requirements. Um this is not a provision that any of our existing development agreements had triggered. Um so it

doesn't affect any of our existing districts. It is It was a a complicated um aspect of uh economic development TIFs if you were to do public infrastructure for residential projects, it would trigger

a requirement for low-to-moderate income housing uh set-aside funds from the TIF that would be generated. In Des Moines, it was around 40% of the TIF that would get generated from from those types of

deals, which um it just made it complicated to to finance those types of improvements with this tool. Uh now there's some additional flexibility with the repeal of this section, so that's something we

may look at in the future. Uh the section of this bill also notes the new TIF district duration limits that I discussed a little bit when we were looking at the map. So economic development TIF

districts are going from a 20-year maximum limitation up to a 23-year limitation for new districts, um which is a slight improvement and helps with some of the reductions in tax rates. And then uh new

districts, even if they do have sub-lighted conditions under state code, those new districts will also be limited to 23 years going forward for a maximum duration. Uh there are additional changes

regarding the school foundation levy in this section of the bill as well. So, new districts established after this year uh will be prohibited from collecting that full foundation levy in the TIF

district. So, that's the full 540. That is a 15% reduction in the value of the TIF. So, that's where it really starts to to um diminish the value of TIF as a tool uh when more levies uh come out of

the calculation and and are protected from being used uh in the TIF fund. All right, still in division 8. So, this section also includes a new 60% limitation on existing TIF districts that do not

expire. So, the blue districts that were on the map, um this limitation goes into effect 20 years after enactment of the bill or 20 years after first certification of debt. The timing on that is a

piece that I think we will need further administrative guidance on. I'm not sure if that's 20 assessment years or 20 fiscal years after the enactment of the bill. And so, not exactly clear on the

timing, but in roughly 20 years, we'll be limited to utilization of those districts at 60% of the value that exists. All right, um this is the division of the bill that also adds in the definition for

low and moderate-income families, which defines those as households earning no more than 80% of the median income. And then adds in workforce housing as an allowable activity in economic development

TIFs. Previously, that was not as explicitly clear. Now it is much more clear that construction of workforce housing is an allowable use for economic development TIFs, which is um great to have that

clarification. All right, this chart is showing the past 10 years of the consolidated full tax rate in the city of Des Moines. Um you can see over time it's been uh just a downward trend due to a

variety of factors, uh growing valuations, changes in rollbacks, um some legislative changes. There is a small increase in the current fiscal year, that was the school bond referendum. And so that was

the driving leading driver for the increase in the current year, but aside from the school bond referendum, we've really seen a downward trend. Uh and then the school bond referendum is a debt service

levy, so it's a protected levy that does not uh it's one it's a levy that properties will have to pay. It is not one that can be used in the TIF fund since it is for another specific purpose. Same

trend on the tax on the TIF eligible tax rates, only uh slightly more, I would say dramatic reduction in tax rates over time. When as Scott mentioned, when we are working with projects and they have a

financing gap, the gap is what the gap is. If you have a lower tax rate to try to fill that gap, it's going to require more valuation or more time to get there. So either a longer duration of a TIF

incentive or a higher percentage of project TIF to try to fill that same gap. Same goes for capital improvements, our our um CIP bonds that we issue that are TIF backed, those are fixed payments. If

the tax rate goes down, we have to use more higher utilization of the TIF value to be able to make those payments annually. And so um when we think about the long-term 60% limitation in the TIF

district, that is where I start to get nervous trying to project 20 years from now. We see reducing tax rates, we see a trend of increasing needs on the capital side, cost of capital, the gaps that

we're trying to finance are all increasing. These are all things that work against uh the utilization of that TIF to make it all work. All right, this uh slide is showing the specifics of um what

makes up the total tax rate in the city of Des Moines on the left side. This is an example of a downtown uh commercial or multi-residential property that would be um eligible for the downtown SMID

levy as well. Um so you see the city, county, schools, DMACC, DART, Broadlawns, and the SMID levy rate. In the middle column, these are the tax rates by those same taxing entities that are eligible

for TIF rebates. Uh one specific caveat I want to call out is the SMID rate. Under state code, technically um that levy is eligible for TIF rebate. We draft our development agreements to specifically

prohibit that levy from being rebated, and the reason for that um this is a special levy that has been um petitioned by property owners, so they're asking to be taxed additional for very specific

purposes, and we felt that it's very important that the funds raised from that levy get passed through directly to the SMID for those purposes since it is a a kind of a property petitioned extra tax.

And so any SMID funds that come into the TIF fund, we just pass those directly through to the downtown SMID. >> What about the other SMIDs that are like Highland Park has a has a SMID? >> Same thing.

Yep, so any of our TIF districts that overlap a SMID, we have updated all of our urban renewal plans to allow those funds to just pass straight through to those those groups since that really was the

intent in why those property owners were asking for that. >> No, Highland Park has has the SMID, too. >> Yes, they do. Yep. Um so then the column on the far right are the net uh, tax levies that are

eligible or excuse me, the tax levies that are um, eligible to be protected uh, under state code or we self-protect them in the case of the smid. So, um, in in factoring in that 2% growth cap, the

definition of the new construction, um, the restricted ability to utilize TIF for some of the larger catalytic, um, projects, one of the things that I want to make sure as you're looking at which levy

rates are used for TIF and thinking about, you know, the majority of our projects are self-funded, but we do on occasion have projects that are not project generated, and it is that middle column

where those funds come from any time that we um, considering and approving incentives that are not project generated. So, if you've non-project generated TIF, about 39% of that TIF is coming directly

out of the city's operating budget. Um, 31% would be coming out of the schools' budget, 12% or excuse me, 18% out of the counties. Um, those are the tax rates in the middle that are used any time we

have to dip further into TIF for non-project TIF. So, when we use existing capacity that is currently being factored into everybody's operating budgets, that's currently being released, any time we

need to pull those values in for non-project TIF, that is how those projects are being funded. So, that is one of the technical sides of this that, um, wanted to provide a little bit of clarity on and

why, uh, we've kind of updated and revised our TIF policies as it relates to our internal debt review committee uh, and looking at those projects really closely, really carefully and and we're going

to have to scrutinize those requests more than ever before um because of the new limitations with releasing TIF and not being able to capture that growth. >> Can Can I ask another question? >> Yes,

please. >> Give an example with like the Market District or Gray's Landing, some of those projects, are we using non-generated TIF funds there? Or do you have an example? >> Um currently not in Market

District and Gray's Landing we did. We agreed to some early fixed TIF payments while most everything was under tax abatement due to um costs that the developer took on up front. So, there is non-

project generated TIF in that project. Um trying to think of others. >> It's important, if I could real quick, that all of the infrastructure costs are non they're not generating any revenue

themselves either. So, it's it's not that's the biggest piece >> was going. >> of the cost is the infrastructure and the infrastructure think about our bridges over the rivers. >> Yeah. >> Are the

probably the largest. Uh you get outside of Des Moines, you have to be concerned about those as well. Southeast Connector has quite a bit of TIF. Uh Second Street re- rehab has a lot of TIF. So, >>

That's what I was >> That's the biggest piece, but there are some economic development projects that ask for some of the non-project as well. So, that it's a we have to balance that and weigh those

factors. >> Yep, and um I can go into that a little bit further on this slide, which is showing a 10-year history on the utilization of our downtown TIF. Uh and so, on average for the past 10 years

we've used about 50% of the available increment in the downtown TIF. Um anywhere from and it varies by year, but anywhere from 15 to 20% of that is being used for our capital improvements, our debt

service. Um the other 30 to 35% are going more towards um project rebates, admin costs, parking subsidies. Um SMID [clears throat] pass-through. And so that's kind of the split between the two in the

utilization. You can see in the current fiscal year a reduction in that utilization and that again is what I was explaining at the beginning, that intentional decision to release additional value in

the current year and drawing down on fund balance to pay this year's obligations. So that's the only reason we were able to lower the utilization in the current year for the downtown TIF. Um but other

than that, historically we've averaged about 50% utilization. >> So will it go back to around 50% in 2028 then? >> I believe so. We haven't finalized those numbers yet, but >> Okay. Thank you. >>

Generally that's that's been the average. Okay, these charts I've shared with all of you previously. Again, it's an attempt at an oversimplified visual of how TIF has worked in the past. Essentially,

you have your base valuation taxes. This is what Scott was describing at the beginning of the presentation. Those taxes continue to flow to all taxing entities. It is the growth from new construction

or major re redevelopments that are occurring, renovations that are occurring. The growth in those is eligible to be captured in the TIF district. Now if if we were being really technical, we'd

probably have a portion of that yellow box be red to represent the protected levies that are in there that cannot be captured in TIF. And then once the rebate period ends, the valuation is no longer

needed to make those rebate payments, it's released to all taxing entities. Everyone benefits in the long term. Now with the 2% growth cap and release of TIF value not being able to be recognized

above that 2%, the most likely scenario is at the end of the rebate period, when that valuation comes online, it is going to be used to reduce our tax rates, and we won't be able to recognize the full

full value of that valuation coming onto the tax rolls. Um if we go back to that slide showing our annual growth, in all but two of those years we were exceeding 2%. Um and so uh the likelihood that

we'll get to to fully benefit when those comes on the tax rolls aside from lowering taxes um is pretty low. So, when this bill uh was passed, uh we were looking for creative ways on, you know, are

there still opportunities that we could capture the new construction value? This is where our strategy for trying to restructure TIF deals going forward to delay the rebate period, allow those

projects to get built, constructed, come onto rolls as new valuation under the definition of new valuation, um have them pay those taxes in the first year, and then start the rebate period in year

two, then drawing those that valuation down into the TIF fund. Uh will this strategy work? It is yet to be determined. Um does it align with the intentions of the bill based on the definition of new

valuation? Questionable. Um as we get more guidance and rules on this, our strategy may have to adjust. Um but it's, you know, one thing we're going to have to really think about is if the city does

not have a way to capture growth either at the front end of the projects or at the back end when the incentives are done being paid, it no longer makes sense for us to continue incentivizing projects

that are adding to city service costs, potentially expanding police and fire needs, snow plowing, all the costs that that we have to do long-term, uh if we don't get the tax benefit long-term to be

able to provide those services. And so that um is going to be a big challenge if we can't find a strategy to achieve the benefits of these the new tax base aside from lowering taxes, which is also a

great thing. Uh but you have to pay for services somehow. >> Okay, and Council member uh that is the takeaway statement for this morning. Um but it also, you know, is a question of reminding reminding

Council that probably 90% of the economic development growth occurring in the city requires incentives in Des Moines. This is not the case in other areas and other jurisdictions. Uh when you are new

greenfield first-time development, uh often times those numbers can work out where you don't need incentives. But what that's not what Des Moines has. We have redevelopment and often times demolition

costs for for development in Des Moines, uh infrastructure replacement uh for higher capacities and aging infrastructure. Those are costs that our peers uh that we compete with for economic

development don't have those costs. So when you recognize that we need to be involved in these deals in order for them to move forward, and this is the tool that we've used to do that in the past, it

becomes pretty clear then that what they've done is passed the most impactful anti-growth legislation in more than 40 years. And that's twofold. Okay, so we'll talk at at the end of this about legis-

fixes that are necessary, but I think we have to let that sink in is that what they've done with 2472 is harm in two regards. Our operating fund, for which we spent the last 4 months working on budget

cuts, that harm our quality of life and amenities the most. That's where we have to go to for more of the cuts. That's an anti-growth element in itself, right? [snorts] Because people don't come to

our community for public safety. They expect that. They come for the amenities and even the regional attractions that we have to help out with as well. So, you have that element of the operating

budget, and then you have this. The one tool that allows for economic development to happen in Des Moines, they've slaughtered it. So, that's why tomorrow we're meeting with our development uh groups

and business leaders to make sure this this does sink in and that if this is what's allowed to continue, then we will lose economic development in Des Moines. We already do because of the gaps being

pretty high, but at least TIF was an option under the way it used to work. So, we have to get back to what TIF was originally used for, and uh I'll leave that for we have some conversations with you

about legislative fixes. That's why this is rising uh to the top, essentially. >> What you say? >> Thanks, Scott. >> Uh just before you Can I ask a Scott, I just to uh unpack something you said

earlier, too, cuz I think for a lot of folks that aren't involved in development, for whom it's not really a key part of their lives, uh you made a point about TIF being necessary in Des Moines as

opposed to suburban uh neighbors, and it it sounds like it's as much as anything a math equation of the cost of doing projects in Des Moines uh versus uh greenfield. Is it Is it just a math equation,

or is it is this by choice to buy by you know kind of the legacy of of how things have been done year over year over year and building on a legacy where there's some expectation that there's also

public investment in this. >> Yeah, there's definitely legacy conversations which again we can bring back to you in a in broader conversations. But part of that is when you develop in an existing

neighborhood you have to listen to those neighbors about what the development options are and what's being proposed. That's another hurdle as well that's not so much financial but all of that factors

in then to whether or not the project's allowed to move forward. So there are several legacy issues that that come about but infrastructure is one of the largest. And infrastructure is always easiest

to do the first time in Greenfield. It's not a Des Moines versus others it's just so happens we are not getting very many opportunities for first time development. There's only a couple areas of town

that haven't already been developed and that's why we put some infrastructure Army Post Road and and others to at least compete with that let's call it cheaper first time build opportunities that

don't exist in 80% of Des Moines. >> Wasn't the whole concept of TIF is for the slum and blight? I mean it was supposed to be to rebuild because it costs more. I mean when you look at our storm water

systems with wooden storm waters. >> Yes, and that's >> like that so it's a much more expensive as you have said so wouldn't this impact this whole bill not only is it Des Moines it's not just Des

Moines but any community that's older right? Which is most of rural >> Sure. >> Iowa. I mean I would think our small towns would have the same issues of redevelopment so >> It's correct. And that I

mean the title itself is urban renewal. That's where it originated and then 20 years after the '70s, they added this, "Oh, let's do this for Greenfield development, too." And now suddenly that's the

priority. And they're they're forgetting how essential this tool is for us to be able to scrap for every development project that we get. And that's on the corridors, too. I want to remind you, this

is not just in downtown, but our corridors need this tool to work appropriately, as well. And if not, even more so. >> Uh so, uh Carrie, are other growing Iowa communities struggling with this? I

mean, what are you hearing from, I'll say, Cedar Rapids or Iowa City, Ames, um >> Yeah, so a lot of the the older, more aged cities are going to have the same challenges that we're seeing as far as

the um operating budget capacity challenges and how that also plays into uh TIF as a tool and a strategy for um how cities look at using that valuation, releasing that valuation to balance budgets. Um

they will be in very much a similar boat. >> So, it's uh I guess deem they they don't want us to grow? >> It's a fair question. >> You'd have to ask Zeb Carl. >> Okay. >> Or they don't Or they don't

understand TIF. Or they've been misled by the education they receive when they become state legislators for the first time. >> And I I'll go back to the opening. That the whole premise of this bill

was to lower taxes. If you diminish the value of TIF, then you're not using that as a tool, is there an opportunity there for lower taxes overall? Possibly, but you're also your cities aren't going to

grow. And how are you going to pay for and support services? They're all interrelated and interconnected. >> I think it goes back to the education of if people understand then this bill was passed in

what, 30 hours? So, of a marathon session. So, whether anybody saw implication, nobody saw financial implication. And these are results of um I think people it all sounds good to cut property taxes,

but you're cutting all the other things that are pretty important for cities. >> Yes. So, just to summarize um the biggest challenges as we see them in the bill. It's the 2% cap on our general levies,

the definition of new construction, the 60% limitation on existing perpetual TIF districts starting 20 years from now, and then the exclusion of the school foundation property tax levies uh from the

urban renewal capture. So, uh our internal >> Mary, if I may have one other comment. Um Scott, just as a reminder and you'll hear this from developers tomorrow, I'm sure, in addition to the cost of

infrastructure, etc., you're also going to hear the fact that in the city of Des Moines, it costs the same amount of money to build a building, but we do not collect the same in rent. When you go out

to the suburbs, retail rents are 30 35 dollars a square foot. In Des Moines, they're maybe 18 dollars a square foot. So, it costs the same amount to build a building, but in order to pay for that

building, they're not getting near the rent. Now, we have success stories. Ingersoll, Highland Park, and we're continuing to seeing some of these rents increasing, especially with residential, we're

seeing those increase, but on the retail side, it's still low comparatively speaking. >> All right, so diving into some of our internal TIF policies, still a very strong preference for project

generated pay as you go rebates versus projects that necessitate funds that that they themselves are not generating. A strong preference for infill redevelopment projects where we already have the

services in place, the infrastructure in place. Projects that are not going to have a material impact on overall city services. Development projects that require new or additional city services or new

infrastructure going to be discouraged until either there are refinements in the TIF legislation or of course there could be exceptions for projects of catalytic nature. Maybe a project that's

bringing a high number of really high quality high paying jobs. There's always going to be exceptions where we may look at projects differently and but for the most part we really need to be highly

scrutinizing projects that could add cost to city services long long term. And so those types of projects will be required to be reviewed by our debt review committee regardless of the level of

incentive being requested. We're also updating our internal TIF policies just to align with the new state code that new district shall not exceed 23 years instead of the 20 years that we previously

had. Um acknowledging the 60% limitation and limiting project generated rebates to 60% when that limitation kicks in. Now that is a very short term strategy to make sure that we're not eating into TIF

capacities above and beyond 60%. That is not going to work long term. We have been able to negotiate existing recent projects where we've boosted some of the TIF percentages in the earlier years so

that we can draw them down to 60% in the later years. But as time goes on and more years would be limited to 60, we're going to find ourselves in a place where we're not able to fill the gap, or we're

going to have to use non-projective above what we're allowed to collect. Um and so that's going to require a lot of additional analysis and strategy to make sure that we can um enter into these

agreements in good faith, that the city can afford to pay them 20 years from now. Um and so uh just a lot more analysis and long-term planning to make sure we're not exceeding that 60% limitation in

the future. Um we also added in our uh uh our policies that projects seeking TIF assistance shall be prohibited from receiving tax abatement. As you know, we are pausing that program at the end of

this year. If that program were to come back, uh we would still recommend not allowing projects uh seeking TIF to also seek tax abatement. Uh with recent changes in allowance for abating school levies

or prohibiting um abatement [clears throat] of school tax levies, the tax abatement piece, the value of that has really uh been reduced, and it makes more sense to look at a TIF in lieu of tax

abatement so that all the taxing entities are benefiting from some of that value in the from the very get-go versus tax abatement. Nobody gets to benefit from any portion of the value until either the

abatement starts scaling off or the abatement period ends. And then lastly, we did add in our strategy for the delayed TIF payments in an attempt to try and capture new valuation growth. Uh and again,

that's still pending administrative rules and guidance for if that'll work. Um so before I wrap up, I just wanted to share a reminder, some photos on the power of TIF in the city of Des Moines, um

things we've been able to accomplish with this economic development tool. Uh this photo on the left is uh the historic East Village only about 25 years ago, and it's kind of hard now to remember a

time when the East Village was in this condition, but it really wasn't all that long ago. Um Another image just showing uh previous conditions of the properties um versus current day. These buildings

uh were the kind of lower density, lower value per acre buildings um that were on the block that is now the Nationwide building uh adjacent to us at 1100 and 1150 Locust. So, a lot of investment

around the Western Gateway Park. You can see where Wellmark office building sits today was previously a surface parking lot. And then the Kraus Gateway Center and this uh couple of single-story low-

value per acre commercial buildings um that bordered the Western Gateway Park prior to its construction. So, all of those large projects were driven partially by our participation uh with TIF

incentives. We've also seen significant investment in historic renovation of the um business district up at Highland Park. It's a lot of historic tax credit projects that also relied on layers of TIF.

Opportunities to uh revitalize warehouse buildings downtown that sat largely unused, mostly used as uh storage, file storage for many years. Uh now renovated into a modern office building that was

fully leased before uh construction was even finished. A project that probably wouldn't have happened um without that TIF assistance. Downtown office to housing conversions. I get phone calls all the

time from cities around the country asking, "How are we doing this?" A big part of how we are doing this is because we do have the flexibility and capacity of the tax increment financing tool to

assist with these obsolete office conversions into housing. This is an initiative many cities across the country are struggling with, and we've been doing it for decades. And even with the tool, these

projects have been a challenge. They require a very complex layering of incentives to get them to work. Just a sign of the momentum, the total amount of housing that we have being built not just

downtown, but also throughout our corridors in our neighborhoods. The mix of housing we have owner-occupied condos coming on the market. We have rental housing. We have a high-rise tower. We have

affordable mixed-use housing on our corridors. This momentum is is incredible and um is due to the fact that we have a tool like tax increment financing to make these projects possible. We also have a

lot of exciting projects in the pipeline. As Scott mentioned, several of these are on your agenda tonight. Another our first hotel since the pandemic being proposed converting an obsolete office

building to a hotel downtown. Infill housing and renovation of existing housing around the Drake campus. More historic renovations at Highland Park. The soccer stadium project, infill housing on

surface parking lots. This is all momentum we want to see continue for Des Moines. But for these projects and the city to be successful and provide the services we need to provide, we need to make

sure that the incentive tool also provides the long-term benefit to the city. All right, this chart the intention with this was really just to show a a sampling of recent projects and that TIF does

drive investment of other non-city funding sources in them. For each of the projects listed on average for every dollar of TIF that we provided as an incentive, there was another over $14 of other

funding that did not come from the city to support those projects. And so, um all this to say, while TIF is a significant tool, it is a small piece in the whole financial pie for these projects, and

it does leverage a substantial amount of other investment in the community. All right. Uh before we wrap up and get into paths forward uh for some legislative priorities as as we see them, um I just

want to mention the downtown that we have today, the historic East Village we have today, the Highland Park business district we have today. The strength of our corridors, none of that is happening by

accident, none of that is happening by coincidence. Those investments are happening because local leaders have a vision. We have the tools to act on that vision. And we do see concerns if those tools

start to weaken. And so, the consensus that we're hoping to build with this presentation with you today and with other stakeholders that we're going to be having these conversations with is that we

really need to look for ways to strengthen our local economic development tools and not weaken those tools. So, with that, um I'm going to turn it back over to our city manager, Scott Sanders, uh to

talk through some of the legislative uh priorities and solutions that may help us in facing some of the challenges we've discussed today. >> Thank you, Carrie. Uh actually, I'm not going to spend any

time on this. I just wanted to present show you that we we've started putting a list together. This list will change over time. I think we're going to be meeting with you in the next couple weeks to

figure out exactly how we prep uh for the next uh legislative cycle, and you'll see TIF release is pretty high on that list as well. Uh so, actually, I think at that point you can move on. Uh oh we

will be sharing if you want to go ahead and hit the next. Thank you. I think now's the time to consider additional information that would be helpful. Uh when it comes to TIF we have some of your

questions from previous work sessions that deal with capacity of TIF. I think we can we can be helpful with additional information there. You heard from Carrie that we could break down for you how

much TIF we're utilizing for infrastructure on an annual basis. I think that might be helpful. That is typically with that that has to be issued. Um but then also what the rebate situation is with

with with TIFs. I think it's going to be crucial to understand the policy discussions around TIF rebates. Really need to be focused in on the project needs. It's not like a a TIF project is generating

capacity for another TIF project per se. Right? And so you really need to look at each project individually. And we can bring forward more discussion if it's helpful that depending on the type of

project that's requesting TIF whether that be housing, retail, or hotels. We do have a better understanding of what those typical gaps are for those types of projects. So we can talk a little bit

about what is the norm for those incentive packages as well if that would be helpful. But I want you thinking about what additional TIF information might be helpful for us to prepare for you. Feel

free to to reach out to me if if you have more thoughts on that. And that way I think we'll be prepared for the annual TIF uh certification that will need to be submitted to the state at the next

council meeting. Uh we'll need council's approval to to move that forward. Um And then that's not that we need uh decisions based on that reporting, but if it's uh more information that's helpful to

you to understand what's all in that annual TIF certification, just reach out to me and we can we can uh put some additional together. So now I think I'll conclude the TIF conversation unless there's

additional questions or comments. >> I think we'll leave it open that if anybody has any question any additional questions, any more clarification that you need that you reach out to the carrier Scott

Sanders and let's compile them all and then we can share out. If there's things that come in as we now have time to digest a little bit [clears throat] more uh and then we can get back with everybody

on ideas or questions people have. We'll share that out. >> Mayor, I think it should be noted that we have an awesome staff. >> We do. I think the one thing uh you know, other communities are going to

be facing this. We have a staff that understands this really well and I think when people talk about our whole budget process, we had a staff that could identify how this new bill impacted us. So we

were out front much earlier than some, but I will guarantee you there'll be a lot of conversations from other cities on this very same thing. Probably going forward and how their budgets are impacted.

So thank you and thank you for uh giving us this education. I also thank you for reaching out to the people that would be impacted, the developers and all the city leaders of the different

organizations so they understand what impact this really has had. Um I think really putting it to the test on how it impacts. One thing to create a bill, but the other thing is to implement it and how

it's impacting. So thank you for um taking the time and the work to really delve into it and understand how it's impacting us. So, with that, I think we will move on to the next item. And I think this

was brought up um in other discussions. So, I'll turn it over to our manager again as to about the private towing policy questions and considerations that we will have. >> Thank you, Mayor. The second

topic is the towing ordinance which we've had uh multiple conversations about. Um and in fact, you've received uh legal guidance uh from our staff uh legal staff as well. Uh we have um I would say

nearly perfected the public towing aspect and how uh we utilize towing for city purposes. But there were remaining questions and uh desire by council members to bring back private towing concerns. And

that is a whole another realm of uh private activities. And so, what we are putting in front of you are some questions to consider. And really, the intent here would be to to draft a uh a request to

the Attorney General's office uh to uh to get an opinion as to which of the policies that the council desires to move forward uh would adhere to state law and and not interfere with uh private

relations as far as they go with private property rights and ability for uh property owners to uh manage their properties. Some of these items uh are clearly um additional regulations and others are

more informative in nature. Uh so, as we go through these, we can talk about whether uh it goes as far as needing a licensing process uh for the towing vendors that are in town or if it is isolated to

uh issues with again transparency and signage and things of that nature. So, Laura, if you could pull up the camera for me, that would be helpful. I've got one of the sheets on the so public can see

this as well. And if for those that are here, there is a copy in the back as well. So, these are the considerations that I would want to know if there is support from council or if there's not,

frankly. It might be easier just to let me know if if there is a desire by council to not include these. We want to be uh respectful of the Attorney General's time and not just ask is everything in

the world possible. It needs to be policies that the council majority would actually support to be able to advance these and and make sure that that there's not an issue with state law as it is

represented today. >> So, Scott, I I guess I have a preliminary question in terms of why we're why we're not contemplating an ordinance and why we're asking the Attorney General particularly when

there are multiple communities around the state that have done a number of these pieces already. Uh and they've not been subject to legal challenge. Uh >> Well, they're always subject to legal

challenge. They just it has to occur. >> That's what I said. They have not been subject to legal >> Okay. >> Like no no one has brought it up. No one has challenged their authority to to do those

things. We do know that state law is an abandoned vehicle law, so it doesn't apply until 24 hours. It That That is a pretty clear law. It So, I I guess we had this conversation almost 6 months ago. Uh

Uh, and and now we're coming back with a completely different tactic and and strategy that just seems to to potentially delay things further. >> Again, uh, the concern here is that this at the council

would want to uh, pass ordinances that are not uh, consistent with state law. And you've received uh, that guidance that some of these appear to be inconsistent with state law. And why not get the

opinion uh, from the Attorney General's office to protect the city from overreaching? I would rather do that with third-party input from an Attorney General's opinion. Um, I I think that's just very

prudent uh, that we do that. And I agree that some of these are very probably very easy and would not be. But others on this list uh, will cause issues. And we we need to get that confirmation that we

we'd be in state law uh, covered by that. So. >> Sorry, just point of clarification. You said you've gotten guidance already. What are you What's What's guidance are you referring to and from whom,

Scott? >> Legal. I think. >> So, we've discussed the House File 2617 that now has Iowa Code 321.89 that has the express preemption language, which is the language that discusses the uniformity

throughout the state for ordinances related to what the state has defined as the abandoned vehicle, which is separate from Iowa Code 364.1, which makes clear that Iowa's home rule authority provides

that it does not extend the regulation of private civil relationships absent an independent city power. So, that means that property private property between a private property owner and a private

civil tow is separate from what the state has allowed on a defined 24-hour relationship, which is what Scott is describing we previously discussed. So, with other cities that may have decided to have

these ordinances that have not yet been challenged, if the city of Des Moines has an ordinance that could be challenged, he's suggesting having the Attorney General provide an opinion that could be

persuasive, not controlling, if our ordinance is challenged, would be an additional authority the city could rely on when making a decision. Whether we have an ordinance that's challenged, having this

additional authority from the Attorney General that would be persuasive, not controlling, in the event that it's challenged is what I think Scott is suggesting. Now, what the ordinance we have,

whether or not the enforcement mechanism would change, whether or not the city's legal department would be providing that additional advice would change that based on the type of mechanism of

enforcement. So, if it's a license, would change it depending on if it's a criminal fine, whether or not the type of ordinance you're suggesting having. And so, if the majority of council suggests

that they want to have an ordinance that has these different types of enforcement mechanisms changes our advice. And so, I think that Scott, if he suggests that legal department provides these

questions to the Attorney General, we can help frame up what that would look like, but we would want guidance from City Council on what they're interested in asking the Attorney General, and if they

are interested in these things, what type of enforcement would they want the city clerk having a license or having the the police department having some type of police enforcement, and if that's

something that they want those resources to be dedicated to. >> So, what are you saying that basically we could possibly say anybody that wants to tow anywhere in Des Moines would have to have a

license, any company? >> And if that is what you're asking, then we would need to know if the Attorney General thought that that's something that this state has given municipalities the authority to

do. >> So, within these items are there ones what you're asking is what do we want to ask for or even draft into an ordinance? >> Ask for all of them. >> All right. Well, >> Ask for all of them. Let's

Let's see what type of And And everybody and then let's ask for a license to be able to tow in the city of Des Moines. I think that'd be great. More competition, the better. And they'll have to all

follow the same rules. >> Rules. >> All got to have cameras, all got to have a a credit card machines in their car, every in their tow trucks, all of them. All of these rules need to be implemented.

There's nothing wrong with any of these in here. >> The Attorney General has discretion whether or not to provide the opinion. >> Okay. Uh I I mean, I I can go through and give some feedback cuz some

of this we discussed 5 months ago. >> I think we got tied up with the budgets and things. >> Well, I I I understand, but but it you know, there are certain things. So, for example, requiring uh

requiring credit cards. I And one of the things in advance of our work session 5 months ago, the city of Davenport already has an ordinance requiring the use of credit cards. So, another city in this

state has that has that ordinance for private towing. I And I think that's a uh that's a good protection. I think we should add on to that that you limit the the credit card fees to to industry norms.

I think that's an important uh important protection as well. The drop fee >> Before you move on though, I think each one of these I do want to make sure council understands like who would enforce the

credit card piece. >> I I I mean, if it is not being followed I I suspect we'll we'll get pretty good compliance once we start enforcing. Um >> That's my question is how would we enforce? >> Don't you

have to you have to issue them a license. >> I mean, I think those are the questions we're trying to find out. >> That's what my point is. >> then if they're not following the rules, you take their

license away. It's pretty simple. >> Or we just >> license. >> It's kind of like we just assume they're going to comply. >> Well, we will get complaints if they don't comply. If this >> I I don't

think you need to go so far as a licensure. I don't think these other communities have licensure requirements. I I think Or or I think if there's a violation, it's a it can be an infraction. I mean,

we can look we can look at the enforcement mechanism that these other cities have, but these other cities have this in place. >> So >> And they have it in place without a licensure requirement. I

think we're >> How do you how do you prove then it's my word against Scott's word that you wouldn't take my credit card unless everyone has a camera. So we're going to have to make sure that everyone

it's all recorded all their interaction with anybody is always recorded. I mean, I think that's going to be important. >> [clears throat] >> If we don't give them a license then then at least there'll

be a way to to say you know, I could say you didn't take my credit card, but you're Scott's saying that I would have taken your credit card. So how do we ever even prove that unless there's video of

it? >> I think the easiest at this point is maybe with these What is that you don't want to see on the list? And I know we just got this today. So if you want to get back >> Yeah, that would work. >>

to our city manager on what items do you think are what should absolutely be in the ordinance? I think you start on some only because everyone's going to have different opinions, right? Possibly. >>

My My thoughts are let's see what the Attorney General has to say. I don't I mean, I don't think they're going to let us go above state law. I think they're going to come back and say, "You can't You

can't go over what the state law is." So, I think we just need to send it to the Attorney General and let them take a look at it. >> But, I would like to only send items that there's council support

for. So, if there is like the mayor said, "Are any of these items something you would not want to advance to the Attorney General?" And you can think on that and let me know if if any of these items

>> so well, so you gave us this 80 minutes ago. So, I think perhaps we should have >> we should have a little bit more time to think about it. I I mean, it State law is open to interpretation and and

that interpretation's going to vary depending upon the attorney that you ask. And so, you know, I just feel like given that we had a lot of conver- conversation about this, given that it is

contentious, this action to me, coming back to us with this list and saying, "Do you want us to send this to the Attorney General?" feels like there's folks up here that just don't want to do this.

That's what it feels like to me. And well, we can still We can always still do it, right? I mean, we're If you want to >> I mean, who of us said we didn't want to do anything? >> we put in more things

than maybe what some people originally thought. So, I don't think it's a lack of not wanting to do it. It's a lack of getting clarity. If we want to make an ordinance with it, we can if there's a

majority, I suppose we can do that. >> I thought I thought that we had that consensus 5 months ago that we were going to adopt an ordinance. >> But, I think there's some things on this list that some

people have questions about. So, what they put together is what I think they've had in the you know, the meetings they have with you. So, these Is there anything on this list that you want in it or

not want in it? We can always draft up the ordinance. And if no one If the majority doesn't think we need a ruling or some kind of clarification, but I think it's a attempt to get clarification. And I

appreciate other cities have done it, but I don't think anybody has as much towing as Des Moines probably does and the issues we've had. So, we're trying to get to make sure that we're being fair to

our residents and the people. So, I think there's more been added than what originally we had even talked about. So, I'm just saying we just got these. Is there anything you want on it? And we can

discuss the other aspects of it, too. So, that we can formalize something. I think there's I think people are willing to do more. That's not the issue. To say we're not is I don't think correct. I

mean, I think that in some cases some of the things are probably more restrictive than what originally was intended or more protection for our residents. So, it's not an issue. We're just saying what

is it? Is there anything on this list that you don't think should be on the list? And then we can put things together. >> So, are you giving us a couple weeks to think about this or what are we >> Why

don't you do it in a couple days? >> That's up to you guys. >> by Wednesday. >> That's up to you, the council. If you need more time, let us know. >> I [laughter] I just question how we can tell

companies how to do business. Um The tow yards must be open 300 65 days a year. And so, if there's a you only have one guy in the office or gal and they're sick that day, I mean, I just don't I mean,

drop fees are supposed to be reasonable. So, who defines what reasonable is? >> of the things I think we have to say. Is that something you want on there? If it's not something, but being open 365

days a year when people are getting towed and it might be a weekend or whatever, I think it's fairly important. I think it's fairly important to have for me the cameras. I think it's fairly important

that you have a drop >> So, let let's be transparent about some of these things because there's a range of towing practices out there. And there uh you know, one of the things we have a particularly

aggressive towing company that has led to multiple police complaints, multiple private disputes, multiple complaints to us as a council. To my knowledge, that is the only towing company in the state

that has body cameras. And that is because of their practices. Towing is not something that should require body cameras. It It's not something that there should be this level of disputes. The fact

that there is this level of dispute, this level of consumer complaint, that's a problem, and that's part of what we should be trying to fix. And there you know, there are ways that that we can we can

do that, but I think requiring, for example, and and I'd like you know, a little more information, but I think requiring the body cameras seems like something designed to favor the company that

already has body cameras because they're at a competitive advantage for that. And that is Croto, who has the body cameras, and that is because of their practices, not because they're trying to protect

consumers. And that to me is problematic. I don't think we want to increase overall cost for towing. I think we want to try and protect consumers, and there's some basic things from transparency to

form of payment. Sioux City, Carl, when you asked about a reasonable uh a reasonable drop fee, Sioux City in their ordinance has it at $20. I I mean, I think that that might be a little low, but but I

don't I don't think it should be you know, I don't think it needs to be $90, which is half of the initial tow charge in uh I mean, I think we can do better than that. I think when it was bid for the

city contract, the drop fee amount that they noted in that contract was around $50. Uh so I I think there are things like that. If we are trying to to guarantee access, you know, there aren't

necessarily other tow companies that that are open 365 days a year, but you can accomplish at at least a piece of that. Maybe if you're not open on a uh if someone can't retrieve their vehicle for at

least 8 hours on that day, they can't be charged for the storage on that day. Um there there are ways to accomplish this, but we have to actually talk about what what we are trying to accomplish. And

you know, I I thought we had a positive step with our conversation 5 months ago. I It's unclear to me what conversations have happened with others. I I know uh I know there has been I know there has

been lobbying in the interim. Uh I cuz I, you know, I heard from folks as well um reaching out to us. And And I think it's appropriate for us to learn more and to to try and get this right, but um I I

I'd like us to be focused on the things that impact our residents most, that protect them from cost, like the drop fee, that don't add cost to towing unnecessarily because of one company's bad

practices. >> And >> Well, give give one second because I know that there's been some innuendos. Nobody, me for sure, have not talked to anybody. This is the first I've ever seen this in 5 months. And

I haven't seen this. And I'm the guy that does the uh workshops, and this wasn't sent to me. So, I I didn't know anything about any of this. I'm just letting you know there's nothing in here that

shouldn't be done by everyone. How many tow companies is there? How many tow companies are doing business in the city of Des Moines? And I've had complaints about Crow Tow just like everyone else. And

to say that people aren't upset when your car gets towed, that's the biggest understatement. That pisses people off. And you know what's cleared a lot of those type of things is the body cameras.

Because you get one story from the person that got towed, and then you actually get to see the the the true story of what happened and how it was presented, and how the people reacted to the driver

and threatening the driver. So, there's lots of instances that camera will help tremendously. >> I >> All of these things, there's none of this out of line. Everyone should follow these. It's not a

big deal. You want to write an ordinance about it? Let's pass it. It's fine. I don't I don't understand what what the big deal is. Everyone should follow this, and we should be giving them a license

so we can we can monitor what's going on. Then you know who's doing what. >> This >> And everyone has to follow the same rules, period. >> I think this was intended, and it shouldn't be just singling

out one company because other people we've had issues with. So, to say that we're doing something in favor of another company versus another, I think is misleading. We let everybody put together, so

to Joe's point, I I think we could do if we want to draft the ordinance, not worry about the you know, it's up to this council. But these things are intended to protect people on all fronts. And to

think that it's just geared for one company is not how we should be doing business, either. >> No, we better make sure that no other company steps in and has any other problems that we're getting

complaints about. So, we better make everyone get a license and follow the ordinance. >> We know that there's some issues when you get towed on a weekend and it's not in the Des Moines area, and it's

out somewhere else, that's a problem for people if you can't get your car for a couple days. So, some of these things are universal based on what everyone said. And I'm just asking that you go through

here. Is there anything you don't want? Is there anything additional that we can put it together and start drafting something? >> I I'm I'm I want it all, and I want it to go to the Attorney General

to let them take a look at it to help our legal department to help sort us out. I think I don't appreciate the disparaging comments being made about a certain tow company. You know, it's a private

property, and as a private property owner, I can hire any tow company that I want. And because people choose the the company that may have the body cameras, they do that to protect themselves and to

protect the towing company. Towing company's not doing anything that they haven't been hired to do. And when they bring their, you know, half million-dollar trucks out to pick up a a car, they should

be compensated. Just because you show up and say, "Oh, give me my car." Well, they've still had to take their vehicle out. They've had to pay that person to go out. They should be compensated. >> If

[snorts] >> But >> Yeah. >> But but they also shouldn't be throwing that back in in the customer's face. >> Right. >> Like, I own this $500,000 car, and you're going to pay this. Those things

shouldn't be said to the consumer at all. And I've known that that's been said by by by business owners that do towing. That is not acceptable in any way. That's their profession. I think it should be

treated like a liquor license, and we you know what? It should be annually inspected just like the liquor license, and everybody gets a license to tow in the city off of private towing. And y'all

follow these rules. >> Everybody should follow the same. >> Okay. >> All right. We'll We'll get you comments by the end of the week. >> What? >> And One of the things that that I think we talked about

this a little bit 5 months ago. Nobody likes Nobody likes towing. I I agree with that. And I think the goal from a policy perspective should be to try and reduce the need for towing. One of the things

that is that is interesting cuz one of the practices we have that there are a lot of lots in in Des Moines that are monitored without necessarily trying to reduce the need for towing. The Sioux City

ordinance I think addresses this in a really interesting way. So if there are more than six toes from one lot within a 30-day period it triggers a reinspection of that lot and the city inspector can

require greater signage than the minimum. Again, the goal is >> to mitigate. >> To to minimize. And if you notice that there is a problem and that people are parking illegally in a private lot where

they are not supposed to park let's try and fix that problem so that that that problematic behavior doesn't happen and people don't have to have their cars towed regularly. That that to me would be a

really important step cuz that that's the goal. I don't want anyone getting towed. I also don't want people impeding a business owner who has a private lot that needs needs that lot for their

business. But I think there is more that we can do to to address this problem and and avoid it because I don't think the the way it's work the way things are going now is working. >> That's why we've

asked these items and it is to mitigate and to help solve some of the issues, which I think we've all heard about. And how we do it so the business owner can protect their and how we can protect the

rights of our citizens uh to have a a good um experience and it's primarily, you know, it's in the city where there's limited parking and I do know there's some spots that and even apartment

dwellings. I mean, if you wanted to go you know, we have to be careful, too, because if you have an apartment and somebody's in your spot and you have no place to go, those are concerns and it might

be over and over and then it also goes back to all of this. Who's going to keep the record? How are we going to get that information? All those things come into you know, really the compliance of all

of this, so that begins to compound some of the issues on getting all that information, but again, okay, Carl, I guess you have the end of the week if you can get back uh to Scott Sanders on what you

absolutely think should not be on it or what you think needs to be added. >> That'll work. >> And we should be able to have something probably by the end of the month. >> Mayor, I have one comment. I

thank Scott for the idea of sending it to the attorney general. I think that's a good idea. Why come up with an ordinance and then get sued? >> That is Thank you for saying that. That's it is a legal

risk analysis here. Let's have the authorities speak to it. >> Especially when you're dealing with the private towing. It's a different than our towing contract. So, with that >> other cities have

stuff already in place, then we know that those things are already legal. Or they're not or they just haven't been challenged yet. >> We will look into all those details to find out and see if there's

been clarification by those cities. And with that, I would say uh this work session is adjourned. Uh we will reconvene on for us, we have a 4:45 closed session, so the 5:00 regular meeting, uh we will

see you then.