HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-07-18 Transcription
#2
Page I
ITEM 2
PROCLAMATION.
a) Persons With Disabilities Day - July 29, 2006
Wilburn:
(reads proclamation)
Karr
Here to accept the proclamation is Keith Ruff, Coordinator for the event.
(applause)
Ruff:
On behalf of the Everet Conner Center and people with disabilities in
Iowa, we wish to thank the City Council for their continued participation
in helping us (unable to understand) with disabilities (unable to hear)
people of all races, creeds. (unable to understand) not just for one type of
people, but for everyone, so we thank you very much. Thank you.
(applause)
Wilburn:
Thank you, Keith, for all you do.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
#4
ITEM 4
Wilburn:
Kerber:
Wilburn:
Elliott:
Kerber:
Page 2
COMMUNITY COMMENT (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA).
This is for items that do not appear on tonight's agenda. If anyone wishes
to address the Council, please approach the podium, state your name, and
please limit your comments to five minutes or less.
Good evening, Council Members. My name is Dr. Richard Kerber. I'm
going to read a very brief statement. I'm a University of Iowa physician
and the head of a study, a research study, on treating people severely
injured in out of hospital emergency settings. This study is going to take
place in Johnson County and West Branch community in the near future.
The study is part of a larger MIH sponsored research effort called a
Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium, or ROC for short. My assistant
research nurse coordinator Linda Moss is holding up the logo for the
study. We recently sent each Council Member a letter that gives more
specifics about our research. We wanted to invite all of the Council
Members and people in the audience and watching to a July 27th
community meeting we have organized in order to get the word out about
this important research. Current treatments for trauma have very poor
survival rates. The goal of our Research Outcomes, Resuscitation
Outcomes Consortium is to improve survival from trauma, such as car
accidents, falls, severe injury. This research is very important to the
communities involved and we want to provide as much information about
the study treatments as possible. It's also of great importance to us to get
feedback from the communities that will be involved. The meeting is at
7:00, Thursday, July 27th at Iowa City City High School. In addition,
people can attend live broadcasts at the Iowa City Armory and at Solon
Middle School in Solon, using the fiber optic Iowa communications
network. Signs will be posted at these facilities with directions to the
room. In addition, if you want more information or have questions, you
can call our Iowa Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium office locally at
384-8484. Again, 384-8484. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Dr. Kerber, my understanding is the unique aspect of this, is that it
involves people in situations where they are unable to provide consent?
That's correct, and if you'll bear with me, I can give you a very brief
explanation of what's involved in that, because you've raised a very
important question. Normally, all research is, requires informed consent
from a patient or a person participating in research, and the subject of this
research is people who are severely injured in major automobile accidents,
falls, and so on. They'll be in shock. They'll have head trauma. They're
not in any condition to give any kind of informed research. For many
years, no emergency research was done because of this problem - an
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
",-,--~---~~----,-~-,,-'~'-"-'--"----'---'-~----'----"._-~~..._---,._. -~_.__._-_._------_."_.._---_.__.~----.--~-~--- ."
#4
Elliott:
Kerber:
Wilburn:
Gould:
Page 3
inability to gain informed consent. Eventually, the federal government
recognized this problem and anxious to encourage research in the severely
injured patients, developed a mechanism, approved by the Food and Drug
Administration, called Exception From Informed Consent for Emergency
Research. It's quite an involved process and I don't think I have time to
explain it all now, but the bottom line is we propose a protocol. We go
through a number of reviews, beginning with local, University review
boards, proceeding through several levels ofreview and then go through a
community notification process, which is part of what I'm doing now and
what that community meeting will be on July 27th to inform the
community of what's involved in this. We also provide an opportunity for
individuals who would not want to participate to opt out by providing
wristbands or wallet cards, which would indicate that they don't want to
participate in this kind of research, if they were severely injured.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hi, my name is Dave Gould. I reside at 2923 Radcliffe Avenue and I'm
the new member on the Senior Center Commission. It's my understanding
that the Commission members come regularly and report on what's going
on at the Senior Center, and I had three items that I'd like to bring to the
Council's attention. The first one is a recap. On June 30th, the Senior
Center hosted a volunteer recognition breakfast. Approximately 125 to
ISO people were in attendance. I also wanted to bring to the Council's
attention that the Senior Center Coordinator, Linda Kopping, was selected
as one of the six peer mentors for the NCOA MetLife Foundation Wisdom
Works Program. As a result of that, she attended a two and a half day
workshop on developing self-directed teams of volunteers, interested in
working on projects that address significant community needs, and I think
that's obviously going to serve our community, as well. And finally, I
wanted to let the Council know that there's a volunteer committee who's
been busily working over the past several months, plarming and
organizing the events that are going to commemorate the Senior Center's
25th Anniversary, and the celebration is going to run from Thursday,
August 31 st through the end of September. Just one or two quick
highlights - it's going to be kicked off, have a kick-off celebration, if you
will, by the former Mayor, Ernie Lehman. A host of activities on that day,
one of which Constant Todd, who is the Director of the National Institute
on Senior Centers at the National Council on Agency will be doing a
presentation entitled, "The Road Ahead, Senior Centers in Transition."
There's a film festival. There is a dance, but one event I'd like you to also
note especially is on September 7th, which is a Thursday, there's going to
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
#4
Page 4
be a member appreciation dinner that the Senior Center is going to be
hosting. So, thank you.
Wilburn:
Thank you. Does anyone care to address the Conncil on an item that is not
on tonight's agenda?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
~ p.s
ITEM 5 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
c. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR
AUGUST 1,2006 ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14,
ZONING CODE, SUBSECTION 4E-8C, NONCONFORMING
SIGNS, TO ALLOW FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF A
NONCONFORMING SIGN BY SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
O'Donnell: Move to set the public hearing.
Bailey: Second.
Wilburn: Moved by O'Donnell; seconded by Bailey. Discussion?
Elliott: I support this and I hope it flies by unanimously. I would be interested in
knowing what further is needed and what the time frame is for that.
Steve? Do you know, or Eleanor?
Dilkes: The ordinance amendment will provide for a special exception so they will
go to the Board of Adjustment. I think there's a time frame that's already
established for that process.
Franklin: It's scheduled to go to the Board of Adjustment, I think it's the second
Wednesday in August, which will be after your first consideration and the
approval of the Board will be subject to the passage of the ordinance.
Elliott: So, as soon as the Board of Adjustment approves it, that's it?
Franklin: As soon as you do the final reading, that's it.
Elliott: Okay. Thanks.
Wilburn: All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. Motion carries 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
#5
Page 6
ITEM 5
PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
e. VACATING A PORTION OF RUPPERT ROAD WITHIN
AVIATION COMMERCE PARK NORTH (V AC06-00004).
a. PUBLIC HEARING
Wilburn:
(pounds gavel) Public hearing is open. (pounds gavel) Public hearing is
closed.
b. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION (DEFERRED FROM 6/27)
O'Donnell: Move the resolution.
Wilburn: Moved by O'Donnell.
Champion: Second.
Wilburn: Seconded by Champion.
Champion: Can somebody. ..I'm sorry...can somebody remind me why we deferred
this before?
Dilkes: We deferred e. and f. because we did not have a signed Development
Agreement. We still do not have a signed Development Agreement, but
we have made the resolution, your approval, specifically contingent on
that agreement being signed.
Champion: Okay.
Wilburn: Roll call. Item carries 6-1; Bailey in the negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006,
...__.~--.-----_._.._--_...._--~._._--~----,._"-_._--------"+...--------'.'.
~ ~7
ITEM 5 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
f. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT
OF AVIATION COMMERCE PARK NORTH (A RE-
SUBDIVISION OF NORTH AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT AND
NORTH AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT - PART TWO), IOWA
CITY, IOWA. (SUBOS-00021) (DEFERRED FROM 6/27)
Vanderhoef: Move the resolution.
Wilburn: Moved by Vanderhoef.
O'Donnell: Second.
Wilburn: Seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion?
Champion: By approving this, we're disapproving the plat, and not who's going to use
the property, isn't that correct?
Bailey: It's specific to the...
Dilkes: What was your question, Connie? I didn't hear.
Champion: If! vote for this, I'm disapproving the plat of the land, but not who might
use that land. Anybody could buy it.
Dilkes: No, that's right. You're approving the subdivision of the land. It is a
contingency to the Purchase Agreement with Wal-Mart, but it does not
require a purchase by any party.
Franklin: The Development Agreement is part of the plat, which includes Wal-Mart.
Bailey: Because if this didn't go through, a future potential developer might not
want this exact plat.
Dilkes: We don't intend to record this plat until the transaction with Wal-Mart
closes.
Bailey: We do plats that are specifically specific to the developer, correct?
Franklin: In this case, the City is the developer. That's what makes it a little
peculiar.
Champion: Okay.
Franklin: Urn, it is designed such that it accommodates the amount ofland that Wal-
Mart would require. It also has the development agreement, which
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
#5
Page 8
includes certain obligations on Wal-Mart's part to do some public
improvements, the relocation of the road, the intersection at Ruppert and
Highway I. If the deal with Wal-Mart were to fail, at that point we would
consult with you again as to whether you wished to go forward with this
plat or not, but it probably wouldn't make a lot of sense to go forward with
it. (several talking at once) That's correct.
Wilburn: Any other discussion?
Bailey: I won't be supporting this.
Champion: I guess I won't be either! I thought it was just the plat because...
Bailey: I understand the word "the developer" but this is specific as part of this
purchase agreement and as you've noticed for the last, I don't know, year
and a quarter? I've not supported the development of retail on this land.
So, I won't be supporting that for that reason.
Wilburn: Any other discussion? Roll call. Item passes 4-3; Correia, Champion, and
Bailey in the negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
#5 Page 9
ITEM 5 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
g. AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF FORMER BENTON
STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY AND AUDITOR'S PARCEL NO.
2006081 LOCATED TO THE NORTH AND EAST OF 708 S.
RIVERSIDE DRIVE, TO PROFESSIONAL MUFFLER INC.
Karr: I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor. Can we go back and accept correspondence on that
last one?
O'Donnell: So moved.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Wilburn: Moved by O'Donnell; seconded by Vanderhoef to accept correspondence.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. Item carries 7-0.
Wilburn:
Kemp:
1. PUBLIC HEARING
(pounds gavel) Public hearing is open.
Yes, good evening. My name is Noah Kemp. Well, it's supposed to
work.....! got it. First of all, I'd like to extend my appreciation to you in
listening to me. I would like to tell you a little bit about myself and my
business before I start. My business is 34 years old, family-owned, my
employees have been there - well, I can't quite say forever, but between
20 and 30 years. I had a fellow businessperson say, 'Well, why don't you
just retire?' which I'd like to do. Take the insurance money and go home.
Well, not a bad idea, but I can't do that because, obviously, I'm obligated
to my help. They've been there 20 years - they need another 15. My
customers are loyal to me. Obviously, there's a base there that I can't let
down. So with that, I would like to make a comment on the issues which
you find in your information packet, all of which are very important to us
in rebuilding our business from the tornado damage. I very much
appreciated my visit with Mr. Elliott a few weeks ago. We discussed our
differences. He asked me if! would be represented by legal counsel here.
I said I would not, because I believe one should not go to battle before
there's a war. We agree that responsible people would be able to find a
reasonable solution to a problem - that is why I'm here this evening. First
I believe and agree the price on the auditor's parcel to the east of our
building is fair at 440 per square foot for the sewer easement parcel and
1258 for the remaining portion. As for the sewer right-of-way recorded in
1923, I believe the payment to have the sewer line is another issue. I find
it necessary to concede to pay for the portion on Professional Muffler
property, even though I maintain this should be a City expenditure, as
designated in a recorded sewer document. . . as a cost to repair or at least
maintenance to an 83 year old sewer, now I need to concede to that
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
#5
Page 10
because of time. If! let the City go ahead and proceed with that, it would
take a bid letting and we'd lose probably three months. I just can't see
that I can afford to do that. So it's beneficial to me to help pay for that.
By paying for this it would expedite my rebuilding process and the City
agreed to pay up to $25,000. This would allow me to obtain a contractor
to do the liner. In the event of reconstruction, I would ask the City to be
responsible - this is if they reconstruct the sewer. The plan would be to
some day enlarge it and they have asked for an easement - to maintain an
easement along the new vacated property. In the event of this
reconstruction, I would ask the City to be responsible for any damage to
my property in that process, and replace any and all plantings or parking
lots, etc. Hopefully there won't be a building back on it. I would like to
clarify Mr. Behr's reference to the Benton Street right-of-way. The only
record I can find is that the street is a consent road, and not a right-of-way.
I believe this is where some of our differences of opinion come from. Let
me explain. Described in an affidavit dated December 23'd, I'm sorry,
December 1923 and recorded, John Ryerson, the then property owner,
agreed with the Board of Supervisors, that the road should be opened and
used as a consent road, now known as former West Benton Street. This
happened in 1901, but was not recorded until 1923. Take a breath! I
recently visited with J. Patrick White since he is on the Board of
Supervisors currently, and he indicated that unless it was a paid
acquisition, the Board of Supervisors would revert it back to adjacent
property owners. If it is correct then, that it was only a consent road, then
I believe the City should return the land. They no longer need to the
adjacent property. In conclusion, I trust that you see my proposal as
reasonable. I also realize a government is a governed body and must
follow rules and laws. I believe ifFEMA would have come to help
tornado victims, everyone would be happy. Unfortunately, they didn't.
So I ask that you do what our President wouldn't do and help us through
this difficult time, by doing the right thing. Since time is of essence,
anything you can do to help move this forward more quickly would be
greatly appreciated. Is there any questions I might ask.. . answer? I thank
you for your time and consideration.
Wilburn: Thanks for your comments.
Vanderhoef: Eleanor, could you comment on ownership of the property?
Wilburn: After Eleanor makes this comment I want to make sure that the public has
a chance to finish during, since we're still in the public hearing.
Dilkes: There's a couple issues with the consent road. In terms of, I understand
that that is the County's position. That has not been the City's position, or
our reading of the statue which requires adequate compensation for, for
transfer of any property interest. And we see that as happening here. In
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
#5
Page II
addition, there is no evidence that prior to an easement for public right-of-
way being on this portion ofland, that that land was owned by
Professional Muffler and its predecessors. So, 1... we just have a
difference of opinion in terms of whether the history that Mr. Kemp has
found justifies a transfer for no consideration, and I don't believe it does.
Urn, you know, if the Council believes that there's a public benefit to
transferring that right-of-way, then you can do so without monetary
consideration, but that has not been identified to me yet. And I also note
that Linder Tire provided compensation for the northern portion of that
right-of-way when it was transferred to them.
Wilburn: Anyone else care to address the Council at the public hearing?
Elliott: Ross, I have a procedural question. I'd like to ask that we defer this, but
my understanding is we would have to continue the public hearing in order
to defer it, so I'd like to ask a procedural question. I have no idea whether
there's sufficient support for a deferral. How do we go about that? Do I
need to propose that prior to closing the public hearing?
Dilkes: Yes, you should move to continue the public hearing prior to closure.
Elliott: I would move to continue the public hearing, prior to its closure, and that
we recommend deferring this until at least the next meeting.
Wilburn: Move to continue the public hearing...
Vanderhoef: Second.
Wilburn: ...by...Bob, I forgot your last name! Oh, Elliott! It's the...seconded by
Vanderhoef. Discussion on deferring, or continuing, the public hearing?
Karr: Bob, August I"? Is that the motion - to August I"?
Elliott: Yes.
Bailey: And what's your intent or your concern, interest in... what do you hope we
will accomplish between now and August I"?
Elliott: My concern is, I would like to better get my arms around this situation. I
went down this afternoon, a couple of us went down this afternoon, and
looked at what property belongs to Professional Muffler, what property
apparently belongs to the City. Regarding that aspect, I have to go with
whatever our City Attorney says. I have, I think, no alternative. If the
City Attorney says, 'This is what we do,' that's what we'll do, but
regarding whether or not this building...Ijust have too many questions
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
#5
Page 12
that are yet to be answered and I think give me a couple more days, and
maybe a couple of other Council persons, I would appreciate that.
Champion: Bob, I'm not totally against deferring it, but if we decided we're going to
move forward with it, then I would want some assurance from people who
want to defer it that you would expedite it so he wouldn't have to wait
three meetings to get our final approval. (several talking at once)
Dilkes: We have two more readings of the vacation ordinance.
Champion: Yeah, there are two more readings.
Dilkes: But we were going to collapse those. I would ask that we get some
direction as to where, 1 mean, I guess it's in the Council's hands. My
feeling is, I told you last night, as staff has done what we can do without
any further direction from the City Council. We.. . and I think in order to
even pass this resolution tonight, there needs to be a meeting of the mind
as to what the agreement is. It doesn't make sense to pass the resolution if
there's no agreement and vacate the road if there's no agreement.
Bailey: We don't have agreement apparently.
Dilkes: We apparently don't.
Bailey: So, I mean, with the property, the person who would be acquiring it. We
don't have agreement because...I don't see a public benefit to providing
this with no consideration. Okay. Is that what you're thinking you're
looking for...a public benefit?
Elliott: No, I'm just looking to better understand the situation, which I do not
now.
Vanderhoef: Well, from my perspective, moving forward with vacation and rebuilding
in a non-conforming way with a sewer line that will be underneath of
property that has been grandfathered in for many years, but I don't think
it's in the public interest to even think about selling this land. So, that's
the perspective I'm coming from. I've got two or three other reasons why
I don't think we should be selling this land. So, that would be my wish, is
to sit down and see what we can do to assist the property owner and also
make it very clear to him if there's agreement on this Council that we will
not be selling off our property.
Dilkes: Okay, you...I don't think it's an option at this point to approve the
resolution, because we just don't have an agreement. So, you have two
options. One is to vote no to the resolution and to the vacation, which
kills it and then we'll have to start over again, or continue it and defer both
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
#5
Page 13
of them to allow further time for reaching an agreement, but again, and I
think Mr. Kemp needs to understand those, those options, because if time
is of the essence, you know. . .
Bailey: I'm very interested...
Wilburn: Well, I haven't heard...I haven't heard a majority that's interested in
continuing the hearing yet. So...
Dilkes: I just want to make sure that we're all clear about what the options and the
ramifications of the various...
Bailey: Right, and I'm interested in helping Mr. Kemp rebuild his business. I'd be
interested in conveying this for consideration, but to convey property with
no public benefit. I mean, Ijust can't see that we can do that. You know,
it's just inappropriate, from my perspective.
Dilkes: Another option, actually, would be to pass the resolution, authorizing
conveyance, but hold up on the vacation until you got, until there was
indication from Mr. Kemp that he was agreeable to those terms.
Kemp: May I readdress the Board?
Wilburn: If you have additional information, if you're going to dispute a
disagreement that's already out there, then I would say no. If you have
additional.. .
Kemp: My information, if you will, came from my abstract recorded, dated in
your County Recorder's office. I don't know what else I can do.
Dilkes: I'm not disputing the information you provided from the abstract. I just
think our interpretation of that is different.
Kemp: If! might some day, if! might some time negotiate or visit with Council,
I'd appreciate that. Let me know how and when.
Vanderhoef: If that's the request, then I would suggest that we vote this down and sit
down and talk with him.
O'Donnell: Well, if we vote it down we start it over and that's a lengthy process.
So...
Elliott: I would like to do this in the most time-efficient way.
Bailey: So if we support this resolution, this authorizes staff to go forward within
these parameters to negotiate with Mr. Kemp to. . .
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
#5
Dilkes:
Bailey:
Dilkes:
Bailey:
Dilkes:
Kemp:
Dilkes:
Kemp:
Elliott:
Wilburn:
Elliott:
Franklin:
Elliott:
Franklin:
Page 14
It doesn't...it authorizes a conveyance on those terms.
Okay.
Period.
And so if there are... those of us who are interested in authorizing a
conveyance on those terms, then we can support this resolution and the
discussion with Mr. Kemp continues?
Well, we would simply wait to hear from Mr. Kemp to see.. . and then I
would suggest that ifhe says yes that's agreeable, we'll put the vacation
back on and you can vote on it. Ifhe says no...well, we'll put it back on
either way and you either vote it down or up. But, but I just want to make
it clear that it is staff s intention to do no further negotiation because we
have no direction to do so.
Are you saying if I agree with your proposal we could close this the
evening?
We could conclude what Council needs to do, and we can conclude a
vacation, and we can proceed to closing.
And I would do that. I mean, I do feel kind of railroaded, but $30,000 is a
small price to pay for three months, so yes, I would agree, if that's what it
takes. (phone rings) Thank you.
Can I ask a question of Karin?
Sure.
As we looked at the property this afternoon, the property that is, that
would be purchased from the City by Mr. Kemp would be that which
protrudes north to the street, and east to the concrete, is that right?
That's correct.
And we are tonight then determining whether or not we would allow him
to purchase that property?
There's two things that you're doing tonight. One is vacating the street to
a degree, because we're still leaving open a 20-foot alley there. The other
thing that you're doing is agreeing to convey that property once it is
vacated, plus the piece just to the east of Professional Muffler, the gravel
area, to Mr. Kemp for the price that is included in Mitch's memo.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
-_..._._-_._.,-~,_._-_.__..,-----,~-_._.._.,-~------~-..._~._--,-----_..~._--_._~----_.._-.._~_.__._--~~'-_.--_._,,----------
#5 Page 15
Bailey: And that preserves access to the trail.
Franklin: Preserves access to the trail, access to parking for the trailhead, yes.
Correia: And the sewer (unable to hear).
Franklin: Yes.
Vanderhoef: That means then we pay to line the sewer, an old sewer, that may well
have to be upgraded and then the easements that we are being offered are
in an L-shape that is not ideal for sewage flow, as I understand it? (several
talking at once)
Dilkes: I think Rick should address the sewer issues. (several talking at once)
Fosse: With the slope that's available out there, the L-shape is not good, but in
the future when we can lower the outlet of it, then the L-shape will be
adequate.
Wilburn: And was that related to what happens with the Mums property, is
that. . . you said last night?
Fosse: Yes, it is.
Wilburn: So it's setting something up for the future.
Fosse: Correct.
Vanderhoef: But we don't know when.
Fosse: No, we don't, but the lining will be good for a number of years.
Vanderhoef: And the cost on that lining is?
Fosse: Our component will be $25,000 or less. We're paying for approximately
one-third of that, and then Mr. Kemp will be paying for two-thirds of it,
and that's based under whose property that would lie.
Champion: That was an expensive building put on top ofthat sewer! (laughter)
Vanderhoef: That just isn't good public policy to do that and make another non-
conforming situation with that sewer.
Bailey: Well, I'm interested in helping Mr. Kemp recover from the tornado, which
I think we all agree would be the primary interest as we move forward,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
#5
Page 16
and I understand your concern about non-conformance, but I thought that
we agreed that when businesses were concerned, we would do what we
could to move things forward and get back to normalcy.
Champion: It was my understanding that there is money available out there through a
couple different agencies for helping businesses recover, and so even
though we can't give him the land, I hope you seek some of those other...
Bailey: Chamber of Commerce is. . . will have that information. So...
Champion: Urn, I mean, I was willing to disapprove this, but I guess I'm not now
because ifhe's willing to, he's put a lot of work into this. It's a viable
business. He needs to get it up and going. So I'm not going to support the
deferral.
Bailey: And that's the motion on the table? (several respond)
Vanderhoef: It is, and I'll go ahead and say no, I'm not trying to hold up Mr. Kemp.
He and I have had this discussion and he knows where I'm coming from,
but for the public's information, I think there are future ramifications in
that entire corner area of where streets will be widened and perhaps more
turn lanes put in there, and certainly reconstruction of sewer lines, as we
are upgrading Benton Street some time in probably the near future. I
would say in the next five years we'll probably be looking at tackling that
project. I'd like to help Mr. Kemp relocate into another spot and I would
certainly encourage staff and everyone to make that happen. However, I
also am looking at the entrance to our City, which has been in our
Comprehensive Plan for some time, and we have no green space in this
corridor. This is an old corridor. This is an opportunity to do some things
in that area, as different businesses are being rebuilt. We have a park
along with this trailhead in this area that would be a very good amenity,
both for the public to see it and for the citizens who work in that area,
where they could go and have lunch, they can access the trail. Obviously,
they can access the trail, but one of the things that has been very, very
plain is that nobody knows it's there. They can't see it. True, we don't
have a sign on Benton Street that points this out, but when you, if we were
to rebuild.. . have a building rebuilt on that corner, we will either be
blocking the view more, both from the south and from the west. So, here
again, we've got a public amenity there that could be expanded and why
we haven't expanded that park into the land that we presently own, I don't
understand that. Why we didn't do that right to begin with, so that we had
a true trailhead that people could see and make it work. So, in the public
interest and in both beautification and having a non-conforming building
and future sewer issues, this is not the time for us to be trying to redevelop
on that property.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
#5 Page 17
O'Donnell: I think we should put up a sign and clearly point out where the park is, and
let Mr. Kemp do business down there. It's.. . all my questions have been
answered. The sewer line has been addressed and I'm ready to move
forward with this.
Correia: 1 think it's addressing our goal of helping businesses recover from the
tornado. I think that was something that. ..had fallen April 13th...
Vanderhoef: I think that up to that point, but this Council has never discussed it with
our staff to say is there an opportunity here to help him relocate?
Correia: Well, I don't think there were four that were interested.
Vanderhoef: Well, I don't think we ever had the conversation until recently. So that's
why the deferral in my mind is something that we need to do and have a
conversation with him to see ifthere are opportunities to do that.
Correia: If this resolution passes and there's no more negotiating. This is (several
talking) process of moving forward and everything is set out and
everybody knows what's happening.
Dilkes: Right, and it's based on Mr. Kemp's statement that this is agreeable to
him. Normally, just.. . normally we have a Purchase Agreement when we
get to this point so there aren't all these questions about what the terms of
the agreement are going to be. We have a Purchase Agreement or
something very close, at least a letter, indicating agreement, but because of
the need to move this along quickly, we're.. . find ourselves in this
situation. So, ifMr. Kemp is agreeable to these terms, go ahead and
approve the resolution and expedite the vacation and we'll proceed to
close.
Champion: I understand where you're coming from, Dee. I mean, I think you're
making some very valid points; however, Mr. Kemp has an established
business that his customers know where he's at, and I'm not so sure I'd be
willing to move my business. Ifhe's willing to move it, I think he can
have that discussion with staff, but I have to support an established
business to stay where they're at and to move forward with it.
Bailey: Well, and I agree with you, Connie, and Dee, I understand what points
you're making and typically I agree with you about green space, but I
think that getting this business up and going. I'm sure you've presented
the option oflooking for another location to Mr. Kemp when you
discussed it, and he didn't indicate that that was of interest to him when he
was speaking at the podium. So...
This represents only a reasonably accnrate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
#5 Page 18
Vanderhoef: We didn't talk about that specifically. Only in..J think my question to
you, Noah, was have you ever thought of relocating.
Bailey: I guess I'm not interested in piling on after a natural disaster. So I would
just like him to get his business up and going, get his employees back
working. I mean, he's doing a good thing. I mean, he could retire, but
he's in it for his workers and let's get them back in business and move this
forward.
Elliott:
Ross, clearly we don't have enough votes for a deferral. So I say let's get
on with the vote. I'll support moving forward.
Karr: Is that a withdrawal of the motion?
Elliott: Well, we don't have the votes so yeah.
Karr: But you have it out on the floor. Do you want...
Elliott: One word - yes.
Wilburn: The motion has been withdrawn.
Vanderhoef: I'll withdraw the second.
Wilburn: And the second has been withdrawn.
O'Donnell: Move the resolution.
Wilburn: I need to close the public hearing first. (pounds gavel) Public hearing is
closed.
2. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION
O'Donnell: Let's move forward.
Bailey: I second that.
Wilburn: Moved by O'Donnell; seconded by Bailey. All those in favor.. .or, roll
call. Resolution passes 6- I; Vanderhoef in the negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
#5 Page 19
ITEM 5 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
j. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY REZONING
20.79 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON LOWER WEST
BRANCH ROAD, WEST OF TAFT AVENUE FROM INTERIM
DEVELOPMENT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (ID-RS)
ZONE TO LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
(RS-5) ZONE. (REZ06-00013) (SECOND CONSIDERATION)
O'Donnell: Move second consideration.
Wilburn: Moved by O'Donnell.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Wilburn: Seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion?
Bailey: Ijust want to point out that we continue to move eastward and a
discussion about a second fire station probably should be sooner rather
than later. We're growing a residential tax-base and therefore, we need to
provide the infrastructure for these new developments.
Wilburn: Roll call. Item carries 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
~ p.w
ITEM S PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
k. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, ZONING
CODE, TO CLARIFY CERTAIN SPECIFIC PROVISIONS
WITHIN ARTICLE 2B, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
ZONES, ARTICLE 2C, COMMERCIAL ZONES, ARTICLE 2D,
INDUSTRIAL AND RESEARCH ZONES, ARTICLE 4B,
MINOR MODIFICATIONS, VARIANCES, SPECIAL
EXCEPTIONS, AND PROVISIONAL USES, ARTICLE SA, OFF
STREET PARKING AND LOADING STANDARDS, AND
ARTICLE 8A, GENERAL DEFINITIONS. (SECOND
CONSIDERATION)
Champion: Can we expedite this?
Bailey: Do you want to do it? I move that the rule requiring that ordinances must
be considered and voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to
the meeting at which it is to be finally passed be suspended, that the
second consideration and vote be waived, that the ordinance be voted on
for final passage at this time.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Wilburn: Moved by Bailey; seconded by Vanderhoef to expedite. Discussion?
Elliott: As I said before, I'll not support this. It retains in the code, not in the
amendments, but too many restrictions. For instance, parking, which I've
counted as good business practices. I also counted something like ten
references to building design, which I do not like at all. So I'll be voting
no.
Wilburn: Roll call. Carries 6-1; Elliott in the negative to expedite.
Bailey: I move that the ordinance be finally adopted at this time.
Correia: Second.
Wilburn: Moved by Bailey; seconded by Correia. Discussion? Roll call. Item
carries 6-1; Bailey in the negative. Or, I'm sorry, Elliott in the negative. I
did it again! (laughter) Now I don't remember the alphabet.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
#5 Page 21
ITEM 5 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
I. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF
DANE ROAD SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 1. (V AC06-00002)
(SECOND CONSIDERATION)
O'Donnell: Move second consideration.
Wilburn: Moved by O'Donnell.
Bailey: Second.
Wilburn: Seconded by Bailey. Discussion? This allows extension of southwest
runway.
Champion: Do we have the money to do that? Does the Airport have the money to
extend that runway, or. . .
Atkins: They're in the process of getting it. It comes in, I don't know how to
describe the components. There's a fill component that you'll pay for,
then another component they'll pay for, but the answer, the short answer is
yes.
Champion: Can we expedite this to get it moving along, because isn't this.. .don't we
have to have all this done before we can put that, cover that thing (several
talking at once; laughter).
Bailey: Culvert?
Champion: Yes.
Bailey: Our infrastructure expert.
Elliott: Connie, I love your nomenclature! (laughter)
Champion: They knew what I meant. (laughter)
Correia: What's their timeline, is that the question?
Champion: Yeab.
Correia: Do they need...
Atkins: To cover the thing? (laughter)
Correia: Well, the timeline to have this done so they can get started.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
~ p.n
Dilkes: I haven't heard any expressed need to expedite, but you certainly could. It
would.. . (several talking at once).
Atkins: Once less thing for the next meeting, but it's not necessary.
Champion: Okay.
Wilburn: Roll call. Item carries 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
~ p.n
ITEM 6 CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4, ENTITLED
"ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES," CHAPTER 2, ENTITLED
"LIQUOR LICENSES AND BEER PERMITS," BY AMENDING
SECTION 3 TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT THAT
JOHNSON COUNTY OFFICIALS APPROVE APPLICATIONS
FOR ALCOHOL LICENSES AND PERMITS AND TO MAKE
ADDITIONAL CHANGES RESULTING FROM THE STATE'S
NEW ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM AND THE INCREASED
INSPECTIONS BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. (SECOND
CONSIDERATION)
Vanderhoef: I move that the rule requiring that ordinances must be considered and
voted on for passage at two Council meetings, prior to the meeting at
which it is to be finally passed be suspended, and that the second
consideration and vote be waived, and that the ordinance be voted on for
final passage at this time.
Bailey: Second.
Wilburn: Moved by Vanderhoef to expedite; seconded by Bailey. Discussion? Roll
call.
Vanderhoef: I move that the ordinance be finally adopted at this time.
Wilburn: Moved by Vanderhoef.
Bailey: Second.
Wilburn: Seconded by Bailey. Discussion?
Elliott: Mike, are you going to say something about good moral character?
O'Donnell: (laughter) I think it's a poor choice of terminology, but I'm going to
support this.
Wilburn: Roll call.
Dilkes: The terminology being the State's.
Elliott: Yes!
O'Donnell: We had no choice on it.
Wilburn: Item carries 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
~ ~M
ITEM 7 CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, ENTITLED
"MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC," CHAPTER 4, ENTITLED
"PARKING REGULATIONS," AND CHAPTER 5, ENTITLED
"PARKING METER ZONES AND PARKING LOTS" TO LIMIT
PARKING IN STREETS AND RAMPS FOR THEIR INTENDED
PURPOSE. (PASS AND ADOPT)
Bailey: Move adoption.
O'Donnell: Second.
Wilburn: Moved by Bailey; seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion?
Elliott: I'd like to either amend or defer this. I would like to. . . I think it's worth
discussing. The fact that we have already set a precedent for this sort of
activity taking place in the streets with the Jazz Fest, on a temporary basis.
I think that we have talked about in the past that we would like to expand
the Farmer's Market, and if that were to spill out into the street, whether
on a bridge or other part, that I just don't think that the precedent of not
allowing any activity such as this on the traveled portion ofthe street, I
don't think that - to me - that's not appropriate, and I think this is another
service, another fun, neat thing that we could have downtown. I've talked
to Johnson County Health Department. They have no problems. They
will license the storage, preparation, and delivery. I'd like to talk about
this further.
Champion: I second that motion!
Correia: Yeah, I support that.
Bailey: I'm willing to talk about...
Wilburn: I'm sorry. You made a motion to defer?
Elliott: Defer.
Wilburn: Has been moved by Elliott to defer; seconded by. . .
Champion: Champion.
Wilburn: ...by Champion. Discussion?
Bailey: I'm not interested in deferring. I'm.. .as I've indicated, I'm interested in
talking to, talking about adjustments to our current Plaza and Iowa Avenue
permits. We can look at some different things. I've always been a
supporter of downtown. I could be totally wrong on this issue, but I don't
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
#7
Page 25
see the public benefit for this use of public way, and when we went round
and round with that ordinance a couple years ago, it was really...I really
got it that we're in charge of our public ways. We're in charge of how we
decide that they are used, and there has to be a comprehensive public
benefit. We've decided that there's public benefit to having vendors on
the Plaza and vendors on the Iowa A venue. I'm willing to look at that
expansion ofthat, but we hear about parking all the time and I'm not
willing to tie up parking for a niche market that provides limited, if any. . . I
have not been convinced of... public benefit. It might be a neat idea and
I'm willing to talk about it as we look at permits for next year, but I'm not
willing to defer the adoption ofthis ordinance. (several talking)
O'Donnell: I also am not going to support deferral. When we have Jazz Fest, we have
the streets blocked. You don't have the streets blocked for this. There's
people in the street late at night. I will not support it.
Correia: I also think we're in an unfortunate situation where we have businesses
that have been operating for almost two years, with the knowledge of City
staff and other persons, and they've gone through.. .at least one, going
through the motions oftrying to, of getting the public health permit and
feeling like they were investing in the community, and have staff in the
community, and so I feel like we're pulling the rug out from under
businesses that have been in operation for up to two years in the
community, and that part of our public benefit with determining
of. . . vendors on the Ped Mall is an ambiance, and I think Austin addressed
some ofthe ambiance that the street vendors provide in that market, late at
night in our downtown, and that's another segment of the community.
Champion: A large segment.
Correia: A large segment of the community. (several talking at once) I think that
we need to have a permitting process.
Bailey: Well, and that's what I'm willing to look at, but not on the streets. Really,
just not on the streets. I mean, and.. . obviously, with some complaints
about the smoke, we have. . .
Correia: And I think with regulation and a permitting process that we'd be able to
put into place those types of ...
Bailey: But if the way that we change things were if! want to do something I do it
until somebody notices and says, 'You can't do that any longer,' or we're
going to make a law so you can. That's really not the process that we use.
Correia: No, I don't think that that is the process. I guess my, the thing I think is
unfortunate is that businesses did come to the City and say, 'Can we do
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
#7
Page 26
this?' and they were told, 'Well, you can't not do it.' And so I wish that
we.. . (several talking at once).
O'Donnell: I think that's what we're trying to correct now by ordinance.
Correia: I guess I wish that it happened sooner so that there weren't businesses that
had invested time and money (several talking at once).
Bailey: Oh, I agree with that. I don't argue with that, but I think also if we don't
clarify this, instead of whatever number we have, you know, come fall
we'll have...it may increase geometrically and there won't be.. . and it will
look like Jazz Fest and perhaps if we decide that that's the atmosphere that
we want to have after hours downtown, then we should affirmatively
support that in some way. I'm not sure that I would support that, but I
think that we need to clarify this and then move on and look for other
options, if people are interested in late night, and we do have late night
service downtown. Plaza vendors have the option of choosing whatever
nights and whatever hours they want to serve because they're out there,
you know, in the noonday sun on days like today, because that's what our
permitting process requires.
Wilburn: Want to also point out that the risk that you pointed out, Amy, the use of
the public right-of-way which is the pedestrian mall that we use, sidewalk
cafes, the cart vendors - they understand each year that conditions may
change and, in fact, ifI'm not mistaken, there may have been some
changes in the sidewalk cafe related to some of the fencing where people
had to make adjustments from year to year. So, that's the chance that you
take.
Correia: Well, I'm interested in regulation. I'm certainly not interested in allowing
commerce on the street without regulation.
Champion: Right!
Correia: And, and I think in a work session (unable to understand) didn't get an
indication that there were four willing to talk about expansion.
Wilburn: Right now we're discussing whether or not we're going to defer.
Bailey: I think at second consideration I indicated that I would like this put on a
work session for the fall, so come permitting time in January, if we want
something different, it's up ready to go and people know what to expect. I
mean, that's probably not what some of the vendors want, but they
probably want more quickly, but that's what I'm willing to look at.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
~------------~-------_..~-_."..,--_.._-'--_....._--_.-_,~,,_--,--~----~---"'-"-"--
m ~~n
Elliott: If this does not, if this passes tonight, ifit is not deferred, and I guess I'm
kind of king of the deferral tonight, but I hope this has given those people
who would vote in favor of this at least a bit of pause to see that there is at
least some merit in this type of activity that a precedent has been set and
that this is something that could stand on its own merit and we need to at
least think about it and consider, if not now, for the future. (unable to hear
other person talking) We use the streets during Jazz Fest. I hope that we
will fill out into the streets for Farmers Market, and that's precedent.
Wilburn: The Jazz Festival is over the course of three days.
Elliott: And it's using the streets.
Champion: Arts Fest uses it.. .lot ofthings...
Bailey: It's a permitted process, and we understand that, but I would not go so far
- not being a legal person - but I wouldn't call that precedent.
Wilburn: And I think that the City Council and City Council's past have tried to
show some flexibility, willingness to consider portions of the public right-
of-way. This just is an area with the sidewalk cafes, the existing cart
vendors - even heard tonight here, willingness in our work session to
consider trying to expand on the sidewalks for pedestrian right-of-way, but
this just happens to be an area where I think we just disagree. So, there's
been a motion to defer. All those in favor...
Karr: Deferred to...is there a date? Is it indefinitely? Defer to?
Elliott: Next meeting.
Karr: 8/1.
Champion: Well, do we discuss this at the next meeting, or do you want to defer
indefinitely until we have the discussion at the work session on what we
can do to make some ofthis possible?
Elliott: Would anyone who would perhaps vote against this, if it.. . would it make
a different to anybody? Okay. Next meeting. It's going down to defeat.
I can read the writing on the wall.
Wilburn: All those in favor of deferring to August 1st signify by saying aye. All
those opposed, same sign. Urn, the.. .the motion to defer fails. Elliott,
Correia, and Champion in the affirmative.
Champion: I agreed with Elliott! (laughter)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
#7 Page 28
Elliott: You're going to go home and think about this tonight, aren't you?
(laughter)
Wilburn: Now we're back to the main motion, which is pass and adopt.
Bailey: Can we schedule this for a work session in September to give ample time
to our staff, if we have any changes in the permitting process?
Atkins: Absolutely!
Champion: Thank you, Regenia.
Correia: Do we need a motion?
Dilkes: There's a motion on the floor.
Karr: Moved by Bailey; seconded by O'Donnell.
Wilburn: I'm just looking to see if anyone's going to jump in and interrupt me
again. Okay, roll call. Carries 4-3; Elliott, Correia, Champion in the
negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
#9a Page 29
ITEM 9a CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK
TO ATTEST A CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE
RIDGE ROAD WATER MAIN BORING PROJECT.
Wilburn: Engineer's estimate was $73,500.
Karr: Mr. Mayor, you have a revision tonight in front of you. Yes.
Wilburn: Sorry, hold on a second.
Champion: Move to award the project to Gaylord Construction, Inc., for $20,250.
Wilburn: Which was the low bid. Motion by Champion.
Bailey: Second.
Wilburn: Seconded by Bailey. Discussion?
Bailey: That's a huge gap!
Atkins: Sarah's here! (laughter)
Okerlund: I'd love to explain this! As far as this project is concerned, we've never
really bid anything quite like this before. It's...I guess you could kind of
consider it a hybrid project where a lot of the work, some of the materials,
things like that are being provided by the City Water Department, and then
we're asking a contractor to come in and actually, physically bore the
water main. So, the Water Department will be doing bore pits and (unable
to understand) for utilities, things like that, and I guess we kind of
underestimated the value of all that work that they're doing. So, this will
be a great example and good indications for future projects like this. So...
Elliott: Thank you.
Wilburn: This one of those (unable to understand).
Bailey: Well, if there's going to be a gap, this is the direction I like it.
Elliott: Do that!
Correia: And to point out, this project is funded with Water Revenue.
Wilburn: Roll call. Item carries 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
#9a
Page 30
Atkins:
Mr. Mayor? Before you move to the next item, just for point of
clarification, back on Item 7, that is the street vendor. When can we
enforce that? I just want to make sure there's no misunderstanding.
Dilkes:
The ordinance is effective upon publication, which will be...
Karr:
Monday the 24th.
Atkins:
Okay, so Monday...Tuesday the 25th we would effectively, can authorize
enforcement. Okay, thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
#9b Page 31
ITEM 9b CONSIDER A RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING TO
CONSIDER A PROPOSAL FOR A FOURTH AMENDMENT TO A
PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY AND WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST FOR
APPROXIMATELY 21.76 ACRES OF PROPERTY LYING
WITHIN LOTS 10 THROUGH 17 OF NORTH AIRPORT
DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION, AND LOTS 2 THROUGH 4 OF
THE NORTH AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION - PART
TWO.
Bailey: Did you name a date for the public hearing?
Di1kes: The date for the public hearing? We don't have a date. If you want to set
the public hearing, we'll need to find a date.
Bailey: Thank you.
Wilburn: The resolution's not on the floor yet. I've announced it. Okay.
O'Donnell: What are we doing here? I move to set the public hearing.
Wilburn: I'm sorry, I misheard that.
Karr: We need to move the resolution to the floor to discuss the date. So,
moved by O'Donnell.
Wilburn: Moved by O'Donnell.
Elliott: I'll second it for discussion purposes.
Wilburn: Seconded by Elliott. Discussion?
Champion: Now, if we're not in favor of giving Wal-Mart any more extensions, if we
vote no to the public hearing...we can vote no. The public hearing's not
mandatory?
Dilkes: No, it's not.
Correia: And so, in the resolution, would include, because of the current closing
date - the current agreement has a closing date of July 31 '" and there's no
time between now and July 31 ,t for the public hearing, but we haven't
determined that yet. So the resolution would include allowing that closing
date to come and go without...if we set the public hearing for after July
31 '" what does that. . .
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
#9b
Dilkes:
Correia:
Dilkes:
Wilburn:
Downer:
Wilburn:
Dilkes:
Page 32
... the public hearing for afterJuly 31 st. If you're going to set the public
hearing, it needs to be at least early in the morning on July 31 st.
At the latest?
At the latest.
Bob?
Mr. Mayor, Members of the City Council, I'm Bob Downer. I am here on
behalf of the Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust this evening, and in
support of the request for the public hearing on the mattes that were
referred to in Ms. Wickman's letter that were communicated to Mitch
Behr yesterday. It is not my intention this evening to get into a discussion
of the merits of this, but rather to briefly explain the reasons behind this.
As I think everyone here is aware, last Wednesday evening, the Board of
Adjustment turned down a request for the installation of fill in the flood
plain on this site. That decision, according to my understanding, has not
yet been filed with the City Clerk. It seems to me that there are some very
significant issues that affect both parties with respect to this, not only Wal-
Mart, but also the City with respect to the future use ofthat property,
because of statements that were made during the course ofthe Board of
Adjustment meeting at which I was present. I don't know whether these
are going to find their way into any findings, but it does seem to me that
those could affect the possibility of marketing that property for other
purposes. There is a two-fold request in Ms. Wickman's letter. One is for
a 30-day extension; the other one is for a proposed closing mechanism to
deal with some of the uncertainties that are associated with this contract as
amended at this time, and also the various legal proceedings that surround
this. Weare only requesting at this time that a public hearing on this be
set. It seems to me that this is an altogether reasonable request in light of
what has occurred and with the numerous questions that this opens up,
whether the property is purchased by Wal-Mart or some other party, and
presumably, by the time ofthe filing of, or the holding of a public hearing,
there would be a decision of the Board of Adjustment filed. It would be
possible for this to be evaluated and for all parties to make an informed
decision on the important issues that would be associated with this
property. So, for these reasons, I would urge that the public hearing be set
so that there would be some further opportunity to explore these matters to
. determine, on both sides, how the parties wish to proceed.
Eleanor, is there anything preventing his client from approaching the City
tomorrow for a fill permit, based on our regular rules?
It has been and continues to be the City's position that the only
requirement for placing fill is to obtain a flood plain development permit
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
_..__~_____"___._."_________._ "__.~____~_ _....~_.___w.. ...~_____~.__,_,.__~_...____u.___'_'_'_'_'_'~_'_"'" -
#9b
Wilburn:
Downer:
Dilkes:
Wilburn:
Downer:
Wilburn:
Walters:
Page 33
and that a special exception is not required. There would be no objection
from the City to the issuance of the permit and the placement offill.
And, Bob, is your client aware of this?
Well, this is a matter on which I think lawyers can readily differ as a result
of an Iowa Supreme Court decision that arose out of a construction of a
Wal-Mart store in Decorah, and the issue ofwhether...resort to a special
exception is necessary or not, certainly can be argued from a reading of
that decision. I think it can also be argued that that is not necessary, but
staff at the Board of Adjustment did not indicate in their report on this that
this was a matter that should be rejected because it didn't comport to the
City ordinances ofIowa City or anything of that nature. The staff, in fact,
endorsed the granting of this special exception, which the Board of
Adjustment did not see fit to grant. So, at this point, it would appear to me
to say that this could proceed only on the basis of a fill permit is contrary
to the position that staff took less than a week ago with the Board of
Adjustment.
Mr. Becker, who represented Wal-Mart in that proceeding, is well aware.
We had numerous discussions about how to deal with this application for a
special exception. It carne as a complete surprise to us several months ago
when Wal-Mart said they needed a special exception based on their
reading of the Decorah case. That was not our reading of the Decorah
case, but it was our...my opinion...that given the possible interpretation of
that case, to require a special exception ifWal-Mart felt the need to
proceed to the Board of Adjustment, and we were not going to tell the
Board of Adjustment that they did not have jurisdiction to consider it.
That said, however, it was always clear that that was not consistent with
the City's position.
Okay, thank you. Thanks for your comments.
Thank you.
Um...sure.
A lot of us are wondering when this Council is going to finally find the
courage to just say "no" to Wal-Mart, and why you treat this largest
corporation in the United States with any more consideration than you
treat your local citizens who corne in here and ask you to have things
done. For some reason, for some reason you're doing this in this case, and
it's just very difficult for those of us who, like Professional Muffler or
people who want to vend on the streets, to understand why you defer to
legal counsel that comes in here from Des Moines and Omaha and other
places like this, and when your board, your Zoning Board of Adjustment,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
#9b
Wilburn:
Walters:
Wilburn:
Walters:
Wilburn:
Walters:
Wilburn:
Walters:
Wilburn:
Walters:
Page 34
who had the common sense to just take at face value what was put in front
ofthem and reject it. They simply rejected this. They said, 'No!' They
voted no unanimously, and now all of a sudden, we're skirting and trying
to figure out end runs around our own boards, and these are the people,
and I've watched this Council before when you talk about boards, that
you're supposed to trust the boards that do this work for you, and all of a
sudden, that's not happening. Now, I've written you about Wal-Mart...
Jim, and I'll go ahead and state your name for you, Jim Walters.
Jim Walters. I've written you...
What we're discussing right now is their request...
A little legal dance is what you're discussing.
What we're discussing is their request for an extension of a public hearing.
That's what we're discussing right now.
Right, before July 31 '" and they've had many, many chances to come in
here and honor their commitment and deal with you forthrightly and
honestly, and they haven't met that responsibility, and this is the largest
corporation in the world with the finest legal help and they can't seem to
get the job done and you're accommodating them and bending over
backwards to make sure that they get this done. Now, what I want to
say...
Actually, we haven't made a decision...
Okay.
.. .on this request for the public hearing yet. We haven't had a chance to
deliberate.
Well, this is, this is, this corporation that you're dealing with is among the
most lawless corporations in the world, and there's documentary evidence
all over the place about this, and I've written you about this. I've written
you on a particular concern to myself, which is that when a Wal-Mart
establishes itself in a community, it runs a parking lot which is largely
outside the law of the city. They say that we can do whatever we want on
our parking lots, and you've all got this letter, didn't you? You all got this
letter, which with documentary evidence, that Wa1-Mart says, 'On our
parking lots, we can do whatever we want, and your laws don't apply.'
And this is a corporation that now you're bending over backwards to kind
of figure out a way to get them in, and what happens when they vacate that
old building? That they're now paying taxes on? Are they going to let
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
#9b
Wilburn:
Taylor:
Wilburn:
Elliott:
Page 35
somebody else come in there, or is there a covenant that keeps that off the
tax rolls? And what about all the conditions they're putting on to the
businesses that are going to go into the rest of this development? That you
can't have this, you can't have this, you can't have this, you know? This
is so transparent that it's pathetic, and summon up the courage, folks, just
say "no" to this stuff. Don't give them a public hearing! Just say meet the
terms that you said you were going to meet and if you can't meet them, get
the hell out of Dodge!
Thanks for your comments, and please keep your comments to the request
for the public hearing. The Council has not deliberated. That's what
we're waiting to do right now about the public hearing, so please keep
your comments to. . .
Thank you. My name is Wally Taylor. I'm here representing the groups
Iowa City Stop Wal-Mart and 1,000 Friends ofIowa. My only point is
that this proposal by Wal-Mart is essentially the same proposal you folks
voted on a month or so ago, and rej ected it. The only difference is this
escrow scheme, but it's the same thing. You won't have the money until
two years down the road, ifthen, and if these, ifthe conditions, all the
legal things get resolved and so on at the end of that two years, you get
your $3.1 million, but that's all you'll get. This 5% fee, escrow fee, you
get only if the deal falls through at the end of two years, but this two years
is still a long wait for you folks to have that land out there with nothing
being done on it and you're not getting the money. So this is the same
situation you had a month or so ago, and you should reject a public
hearing. Thank you.
Thanks for your comments. Council discussion?
I'm not going to say anything regarding the decision by the Board of
Adjustment, which I found quite strange, but I think that's beside the point
here. I will say that this proposal by Wal-Mart, and we'll say Wal-Mart-
it's by a firm that, it's Wal-Mart.. . brings it much closer to something of
which I could approve. I would not put it in escrow. That would be
something that would eliminate my approval of this. Ifit were that this
property has value to the City; therefore, it has value to City taxpayers,
and we cannot allow it to just sit there indefinitely, not bringing value to
those taxpayers. If there were an offer of say $200,000 a year to be
reviewed every six months and every six months that there is a delay that
the City would receive $100,000 toward supporting that property, I believe
I could go along with that. So, this at least brings me much closer to
something with which I could agree, but I could not agree with this - two
years in escrow is not appropriate for me. It is an amount of money that
brings it closer, but for instance, $200,000 a year, we review it every six
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
#9b
Page 36
months. If there needs to be a delay, the City gets $100,000 - not in
escrow, just $100,000.
Wilburn: Well, backing up just a bit, because this.. .yes, attorneys can go back and
forth, but our recommendation of our counsel is that there's nothing
permitting Wal-Mart from coming in tomorrow and applying, going
through the process through our normal procedures, so I'm not interested
in granting the public hearing.
Correia: I'm not interested in granting the public hearing.
Champion: I'm not either.
Elliott: Not to hear this offer?
Champion: Right.
Elliott: Let me say one more thing, this is a... what we're talking about is a
legitimate sale to a legitimate business and that's where it should be.
Bailey: Well, if we're going to sell it to a legitimate business, let's close next
week and get on with this.
Elliott: I agree.
Bailey: We've been doing this for a year and a quarter.
Elliott: And if we don't close...
Bailey: If they want it, let's finish the deal. If they don't, then we should end the
consideration of this deal.
Elliott: This is not Wal-Mart's fault. This is not the City's fault. There is a third
party which has initiated litigation, but the property has value and we
cannot allow it to just sit there.
O'Donnell: I really don't understand. Iowa City listens to everybody, but we won't
set a public hearing. I mean, that's amazing to me. Many of these delays
were not at Wal-Mart, were not Wal-Mart's fault.
Bailey: I think it's giving them the wrong impression if we set a public hearing if
we're not going to consider the offer. I think it's just, I think it's giving
them the wrong impression. Now, ifthere was a legitimate offer that
people would consider, I think that we would set a public hearing. I mean,
I don't think we want to lead them down, or give them the wrong
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
---_..._~----~---------_._--_.'~---------_._...-.._._----_.._-----_._--~-_._.._.,-----,--~-~-_.,-------~_._---~-_.__._--~..__._--_._..-.-
#9b
Page 37
impression by setting a public hearing, and that's. . .I mean, I think that's a
legitimate" .
O'Donnell: I'm not giving them the wrong impression at all. I'm willing to listen and
willing to set a public hearing.
Bailey: To this offer? Okay. And I'm not.
O'Donnell: We have a difference of opinion.
Bailey: Well, we've had it for a year and a quarter. (laughter)
O'Donnell: I support the right to (several talking at once)
Elliott: Eleanor, if we were to set a public hearing, another offer could be
discussed, correct? That public hearing would not be limited to...
Dilkes: As we discussed last time, if there is another offer, there can be another
request for the setting of a public hearing. Yes, you could set it and
discuss variations of it.
Elliott: So, in other words, we could approve setting this public hearing, but with
at least somebody here.. .I'm not interested in this offer. If they come in
with a better, I would like to give them...
Champion: They always have that option.
Dilkes: They have that option to do that.
Bailey: What happens next week? The deal, I mean, that's the closing date. . .
Dilkes: We are hoping to close.
Bailey: Okay.
Dilkes: We have been proceeding to try and get this transaction closed. That is
the job that we have.
Wilburn: It can probably happen sooner than I would presume.
Champion: I'm going to mark little checkmarks on the calendar.
Elliott: I guess I would then, based on what Eleanor said, I would vote in favor of
having a public hearing, but I certainly wouldn't vote for this offer, this
recommendation.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
#9b Page 38
Downer: May I ask one question? Mechanically, how could this be accomplished,
as far as setting a public hearing based upon some other offer, since
there's no other meeting scheduled prior to August I?
Bailey: We have special meetings all the time.
Downer: Well, in terms of getting this, such a meeting scheduled?
Dilkes: It wasn't going to be at a scheduled meeting anyway. It was...they were
going to have to schedule a special meeting to hold this public hearing, if
they wanted to hold it anyway.
Vanderhoef: So the possibility of scheduling a public hearing and having them have the
option of making another offer at that time, is that... that a doable thing or
not?
Dilkes: Well, we have to have notice to the public as to what that proposal is.
Bailey: And you'd have to have four Council members willing to set a...
Dilkes: And we have to have a publication with respect to that. I mean, there's a
gray area there as to what, how far that offer might deviate from the one
that's here. I mean, we set public hearing.. . for instance, we set a public
hearing on the Professional Muffler issue, okay? We had some, there
may... there was a possibility for some negotiation at the time of that
public hearing. This isn't any different than that.
Elliott: On that basis, I would certainly support a public hearing. Sometime prior
to the 31 s" on the morning of or prior to the 31 st.
Wilburn: Dee, go ahead with your comments.
Vanderhoef: I'll go ahead and support the public hearing. I think Bob is coming up
with possibly some good ideas for negotiation of how payment might be
made in this instance, rather than escrow. So I would be willing,
therefore, I'll be supporting the public hearing.
Champion: And there would be the option of bringing that proposal in anyway, if we
have the public hearing or not. Isn't that correct? They would always
have the option of another deal.
Dilkes: They have that option. We are running short of time.
Champion: They're running short of time.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
#9b Page 39
Vanderhoef: But we could have the public...as long as we have this one on the books,
then we certainly can open and close it if nothing happens at that meeting;
however, trying to get us back together again after "a different offer" were
brought to us, then it's a real problem to get this all worked in and get the
notice, so I would rather go forward with this one, that the public has been
notified that we're setting a public hearing. So...
Bailey: You know, July 3151 isn't really a surprise to these people. I mean, they
have had ample time to offer counter offer, set public hearings, talk to
Council members individually about what might be acceptable to them.
You know, you're making quite an accommodation for somebody who has
had a deadline for quite some time.
Vanderhoef: I think the surprise was the Board of Adjustment.
Bailey: Well...
Dilkes: I need to address that. That Decorah decision has been around since, it
was decided June 16th of2003. There is not a reason why the request for
special exception could not have come earlier.
Wilburn: And there's no reason that the request for the, our usual process, couldn't
have happened for the fill. Correct? The request for. . . I forget the
terminology...(several talking at once). There's no reason that...
Dilkes: Well, that's not an issue.
Wilburn: No.
Correia: If the closing date comes and goes, we don't have a public hearing, they
don't close, then the land goes back on the market for anybody else to put
an offer in on it, including Wal-Mart? Or any other company? It's not as
if on July 31 5t that land is...
Dilkes: Wal-Mart could present another offer.
Correia: Or we could get another offer?
O'Donnell: So, we could set a public hearing for like next Wednesday night. We need
a four-day notice, is that what I understand?
Dilkes: Yes, and I will be unavailable.
Champion: I will also be unavailable.
Correia: ... will be out of town.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
#9b Page 40
O'Donnell: Well, I'll be here.
Champion: Oh, never mind!
Wilburn: Roll call. The request for the public hearing fails; O'Donnell, Vanderhoef,
and Elliott in the negative.
Champion: It's the opposite. They voted in the positive.
Wilburn: I'm sorry. You're right. Yeah, they voted in the positive, that's right.
These negatives and positives go back and forth.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
#11
ITEM 11
Wilburn:
Karr:
Wilburn:
Bailey:
Correia:
Wilburn:
Page 41
COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS.
a) Telecommunications Commission
Last night the Council had an informal agreement to appoint... what was
the name again? What was it? Nicholas Parker. So all those in favor of
approving Nicholas Parker to the Telecommunications Commission...
We typically have a motion, if you don't mind.
Oh, that's right. You're right. I'll entertain a motion to...
So moved.
Second.
Moved by Bailey, I think she's.. ..seconded by Correia. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed same sign. That's approved 7-0. That was very subtle,
Marian.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
#13 Page 42
ITEM 13 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION.
Elliott: Me?
Wilburn: You.
Elliott: I want to take a minute to talk about what I call a Midwest incident. It was
really interesting. I don't know if anybody has heard, there's a
commercial on TV with a very unusual soundtrack. I went down to a
locally owned, I think it's still locally owned, record and CD store, and I
asked them the question, 'Have you heard this?' and the young woman
behind the counter said, 'No.' I started telling her it has a ukulele and a
man singing very unusual, and this is so typical of Iowa City because she
just was very interested and she said oh, and we talked about it for a few
minutes and she said, 'Oh, 1 think that was in a movie soundtrack "Meet
Joe Black'" and she said let me check on my computer, Over the
Rainbow. And she said, 'Oh yeah, I've got it,' and five minutes later she
says, 'We have two versions of it. One is a soundtrack,' and this is it.
This guy's name is Israel (tape ends) ... where else are you going to go to a
store, and you talk to the people, and she seemed really interested and we
had a good time. I got what I wanted. Spent a little money.
O'Donnell: What was the title?
Elliott: Over the Rainbow (laughter).
Bailey: Urn, I was in Des Moines a couple weeks ago for their Arts Festival and
visited their Public Library, which is a beautiful structure, but I have to
say that I believe we created a more beautiful structure than theirs in Des
Moines. It's neat to see two big, great cities with new libraries and was in
the library the other day, and I just want to thank the reference librarians.
I was on the second floor and had the opportunity, a couple times actually,
to overhear some ofthe questions that they get, and their pretty amazing
and far afield and those reference librarians do a really great job of dealing
with customers and really accepting whatever questions come to them and
I think that they do a great job over there. Also, I was at the Shakespeare
Festival and there was a nice thing in the program, thanking the Parks and
Rec Department, indicating that Parks and Rec will be building a shelter
and permanent bathrooms, hopefully in time for 2007's season, and I
thought that was a really nice acknowledgement of those plans and I
would suggest that in those plans we include bike racks, because I noticed
a lot of people had biked to the festival, and I don't know where the
closest bike racks are, and would also suggest that you might want to look
at the East Village in Des Moines. They've incorporated public art into
their bike racks. I'm not sure the Des Moines people know that these are
actually bike racks. I never see bikes in Des Moines (laughter),
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
#13
Page 43
but.. . trying to incorporate.. .it's a neat idea and I think that we could do
something pretty cool over there. Did I insult your city? I'm sorry,
Austin. I'm sure you ride a bike in Des Moines. Yeah.
Vanderhoef: I have nothing this evening.
Wilburn: Mike?
O'Donnell: I have nothing.
Champion: I don't really have anything either.
Correia: I just wanted to point out there was interesting correspondence in the
packet this week from Eden.. . you talked to him, Marian? Wanting.. .he
had written a letter to the Council about great-uncle, Paul Shikwana, who
had been a doctor here at the University and had died a tragic death and
this gentleman and some family had traveled to Iowa City and visited his
grave which is at Oakland Cemetery, and just wanted to acknowledge that
history, and submitted into our packet was some old...from 19...0Id
newspaper, so that was some interesting history from Iowa City, and I just
wanted to report on Bob and I attended City...or School Board meeting
last Tuesday, and presented on our hopes to share, if there is the school
infrastructure local option sales tax, SILO, and our interest in sharing that
for the emergency communication center. I know Regenia planned to
attend the public meeting on Wednesday. I saw that the City of Coralville
had sent a letter also in support of that shared idea for the joint
communication center. So that was welcome.
Wilburn: I want to thank all the folks who came out Sunday for the Centennial
Celebration of City Park, the rededication. A very hot day, but the history
was told and there were some good performances. Appreciate the bands
who performed during a hot summer day. Also, just looking forward to
seeing Austin on Ragbrai. I'll be on Ragbrai next week - leaving on
Saturday. And hope to.. .last time I visited all the Post Offices. Maybe
this time 1'11 visit all the City Halls in every town on the way there.
Otherwise, City Manager?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.
#14 Page 44
ITEM 14 REPORT ON ITEMS FROM CITY STAFF.
Atkins: Nothing, sir.
Wilburn: City Attorney? City Clerk?
Karr: Just a note, joint items for the agenda August 2nd, joint meeting with
Coralville, deadline is tomorrow.
Champion: How about the SILO?
Correia: Can we also have an update from Andy Johnson from the Housing Trust
Fund? Last time I know there's been.. . housing. forum and state housing
trust fund. . .
Wilburn: Contact him then, or...
Correia: I can.
Karr: I'll add it if you want to contact him. Sure.
Elliott: Marian, I was taking a short trip into left field for a few seconds there.
Karr: Over the rainbow? (laughter)
Elliott: What did you say was the deadline for tomorrow?
Karr: Agenda items for the joint meeting August 2nd.
Elliott: Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City
Council meeting of July 18, 2006.