Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transit Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Iowa City council removes loitering clause from bus conduct overhaul after debate
Summary
Council updated the city’s bus conduct ordinance to modernize prohibitions on vaping, amplified sound and harassment but voted to remove a proposed loitering provision that would have made repeated continuous trips enforceable; councilors and residents raised concerns about criminalizing vulnerable riders.
Iowa City — On Dec. 10, 2024, the Iowa City Council approved first consideration of amendments to the city code that modernize prohibited conduct on public buses while voting to strip a loitering provision after sharp exchanges about enforcement and equity.
Darien Nagel Grama, director of transportation services, told the council the update was prompted by “a societal shift post pandemic” and would bring the municipal code into step with current behavior and technology. He described five principal changes: expanding the smoking prohibition to include smokeless tobacco, electronic cigarettes and vaping devices; updating language on sound amplification (phones are the common source today); clarifying that service animals are exempt; adding harassment and bullying to the list of prohibited conduct; and adding a definition of loitering on buses as remaining on a bus for more than one continuous trip or riding the transit system continuously for more than two hours.
“Drivers will give a warning if somebody is boarding a bus playing music out loud,” Nagel Grama said, and enforcement typically involves supervisor intervention before any law‑enforcement involvement. He said more serious incidents are rare and that supervisors and the street‑outreach team are the usual resources to resolve behavioral or social‑service needs.
Several councilors and members of the public questioned whether moving the loitering language from administrative policy into city code would subject peaceful riders — including people experiencing homelessness or immigrants — to criminal penalties. The city attorney clarified the penalty provision (section 684) allows either a simple misdemeanor or a municipal infraction for code violations, noting a municipal infraction is a civil penalty while a simple misdemeanor is a criminal offense.
A public commenter raised the concern directly: that elevating the provision could create criminal records with immigration consequences. The city attorney responded that the city does not expect routine enforcement to reach misdemeanor prosecutions and that, historically, such items have resulted in warnings or administrative responses rather than criminal charges.
Councilor Andrew Dunn moved an amendment to strike the subsection defining a person remaining on board for more than one continuous trip; the council approved that amendment by roll call 6–0 and then approved the ordinance as amended. The council discussion made clear members supported clarifying and publicizing rules for riders and drivers while avoiding enforcement choices that would unduly criminalize peaceful behavior.
What’s next: This was the ordinance’s first consideration; staff said nonsubstantive renumbering would be corrected at the second reading. The council directed staff to proceed with public‑facing education about standards of conduct and signage improvements on buses.
