HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-06-11 Transcription #2b Page 1
ITEM NO. 2b MAYORS PROCLAMATIONS
Pride Month
Lehman: (Reads proclamation)
Karr: Here to accept is Sara Baird.
Baird: On behalf of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, I
would like to thank you for recognizing June as lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender pride month. Pride month is an honor of the anniversary
of the Stone Wall riots in New York City that happened June 27t~ -
29th 1969 and is hailed as the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender
liberation movement. In Iowa City we have a whole month of
activities planned including a parade and festival in College Green
Park this Saturday, June 15th. And all are welcome to celebrate with
US.
Champion: Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Kam~er: Thank you.
Vanderhoef: Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#3 Page 2
ITEM NO. 3 CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS
PRESENTED OR AMENDED.
Lehman: (Reads item)
Champion: Move adoption.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Vanderhoef. Two things I'd like to
point out: we're setting a public hearing for July 2nd regarding
amendments to the 2000 FY '02 and '03 City Steps plan and we're also
setting a public heating for adopting the international building code
(can't hear). Other comments on the consent calendar? Roll call?
(Motion passes)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#4 Page 3
ITEM NO. 4 PUBLIC DISCUSSION
Lehman: Item number 4 is public discussion. This is the time reserved on the
agenda for people who would like to address the Council on items that
otherwise do not appear on the agenda. If you wish to address the
Council please sign in, give your name, address and limit your
comments to five minutes or less.
Rick Mascari: Hello everybody I'm Rick Mascari with the Airport Commission and I
thought I'd give you an update. See...so you know what is happening
at the airport these days. On August 25th we're having our annual fly-in
breakfast and I hope all you attend. And in celebration of the 75th
anniversary of Charles Lindberg's flight we're having a replica of the
Spirit of St. Louis come by offering rides and such - for a fee of course.
And this is going to be quite an event. We hope that you all come. The
Spirit of St. Louis is owned by the E.A.A. Experimental Aircrafts
Association and it's recognized worldwide as being a pretty authentic
replica of the Spirit of St. Louis. Instead they have two seats where
Charles Lindberg only had one. But, it will give you an idea as to what
Charles Lindberg went through during this flight.
Champion: I hope it had a better engine.
Mascafi: I'm sorry?
Champion: I said it has a better engine.
Mascari: Well, you know, it's...actually the engine was actually - well we'll go
into that later. Another thing too is due to some construction on the
University's Helipad the aircare has been coming to Iowa City's airport
on the average of about 15 to 20 times per day.
Champion: Wow.
Mascari: Oh, yeah. And we've been seeing people coming as a result of injured
and sick that are coming and going from our airport and using it. And it
truly does save lives. We really would like to see you come on out and
take a look and see how they do their operations. We're really kind of
impressed actually. And also we also had an idea that I think that all of
you are aware of, of ways that we might make the airport self sufficient.
And we look forward to discussing this with you I think at a meeting in
the early part of July is where I'm standing. And if you have any
questions, here I am.
O'Donnell: Rick, how much is the fee?
Mascari: We don't know. But, I'm sure it's going to be pretty pricey, Mike. It
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#4 Page 4
really is.
O'Donnell: Okay.
Mascari: They only do one person at a time, so I imagine that it's going to it's
going to be quite high.
Lehman: Thank you, Rick.
Mascari: If nothing else, thank you very much.
Champion: Thank you.
Lehman: Any other public discussion?
Betty Kelly: I'm Betty Kelly from the Senior Center Commission. I would like to
report on the Senior Center. And the May 14th meeting held much of
the discussion had to do with the decline of support from the County
Board of Supervisors. In other words we are going to expect a
monumental decrease in 2003 and probably no support in 2004. So
this is going to change the operations of the Senior Center. Some of
the discussion had to do with cutting down the mailing of The Post and
a possible membership fee for those participating in the Senior Center
Commission activities. This is something that we don't want to do,
but we're going to have to explore all types of options to overcome
this decline. Another thing that was discussed was the Elder Services
performance with the meals - (can't hear) meals in the assembly room.
We have had several complaints from participants so the task force
and the Elder Services are going to conduct a survey having to do with
the quality of meals and they have a six weeks menu and people will
have the option of checking off what they liked or disliked and what
they object to. Hopefully, we'll get some information from that. Our
chairman, Jay Honihan, is completing the lease with the Elder Services
for the dining space. Pretty well done except for a few minor details.
Hopefully that will be done. Linda Kopping reported on the
completion of the repair of the stairs on the Lirm side. One the door
side stairs are done and the second stairs are being worked on. This, of
course, has delayed the landscaping project on the Lirm Street side and
hopefully we'll be able to start that by June. You may or may no
know the master gardeners are the ones that are going to do the
planting and some of them are even storing materials. We bought
them at a pretty good price and so we are taking care of them until
they can be planted. I have about 250 bulbs that I'm babysitting -
bulb sitting I'm sorry I should say. Susan Rogusky talked about the -
I don't know if you're aware of- the creative retirement center that's
going to conduct classes next fall. We're going to have a kickoff on
September 4th and there are going to be four classes. One of them
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#4 Page 5
we're really excited about is called the City Scene. I think Mr. Atkins
probably could explain that. It's going to be conducted so that senior
citizens can get a very good view of the operation ora city. Water
works, waste treatment plant, parks, so forth. Another one will be an
advanced computer course conducted at the Iowa City Kirkwood. The
third will be exploring alternative medicines from several people from
the University of Iowa. And the fourth one will be what's a chair
which will be a discussion of antique chairs and economics - in other
word - getting the perfect chair for you. A catalog will be mailed out
in August and we hope a lot of people will sign up on September 4th.
One of the interesting things that we've had going on as far as
programs are concerned has been a series of forums. You may or may
not be aware of them. We've had three forums. The Senior City in
conjunction with the Johnson County Task Fome have conducted three
forums on June 10th... June 3rd, June l0th and the last one will be on
the 17th. On June 3rd we had - suppose to have the director of the
Department of Elder Affairs. However, she was relieved that day of
her job so we had Mike Acres. On June l0th we had Carla Pope who is
the Assistant Living Director of the Iowa Department and we had the
man that has a great deal to do with inspection appeals from the Iowa
Department of Inspection Appeals. On June 17thwe will have a - the
ombudsman who is Debbie Meyers. It's exciting that we are able to
get people from Des Moines to come down here. It's also exciting the
last forum that we had we counted noses and we had 125 people in
attendance which is very good. So we think we are doing a pretty
good job. You have any questions for me?
Champion: You were pretty thorough. Thank you.
Lehman: You are doing a pretty good job.
Kelly: Well I'm not the chairman. I'm just a - I'm the landscaper you may
have heard.
Vanderhoef: And a good one.
Lehman: Then I know you're doing a good job.
Kelly: We hope to have a very nice looking landscape when one of these
days. Thank you for the privilege of serving. I enjoy replacing my
husband.
Lehman: Thank you, Betty.
Kelly: Thank you.
James Thomas: Good evening. My name is James Thomas. I reside at 131 North First
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#4 Page 6
Avenue. And I submitted a letter to Mr. Atkins as well as copied the
City Cotmcil on some continuing concerns that I have related to the
auto storage ordinance. However, before I briefly speak about that I
came into some historic data about the battle amendment policy that
occurred about 1917 during the term of the Governor Harding here in
Iowa. And that enactment was designed to show patriotism, support
for America when it went to war with Germany. However, a
dissertation student at the University of Iowa wrote her dissertation
based on German American persecution during the war. And an
example of what happens with the battle provisions which basically
said that the only language to be spoken in Iowa would be American.
Therefore, no other language in America to be spoken but American in
Iowa but American. It didn't say English it said American. So
therefore, citizens of the State of Iowa were encouraged to ease drop,
peep in windows, and make certain that people were only speaking
American because the concern was that there would be German spies
in the state. So, therefore, the whole process was designed at that time
of intended purpose was to curtail German espionage activities in the
State of Iowa. But, its use and its reality got out of hand because five
elderly German immigrants - women - who never learned American
or English for that matter, were on a party line on the telephone. You
know back in that period everyone called Maybel and everyone put
everyone on the line. So when it was determined that these five
elderly women were speaking German they were arrested. Another
situation that occurred during the same time around 1917 a Swiss...a
descendent of a Swiss heritage was killed in World War I. And his
service took place in northeast or north central Iowa. And the minister
realizing that the grandma only spoke her native tongue decided to
perform some of the service in the native tongue and that minister was
as you might guess arrested. Now, the letter that I sent Mr. Atkins as
well as the Council I'm not going to read its entirety. But, there is on
page two, third paragraph, questions that I raise. And I raise them
parallel with the Babble act, provision or policy what have you. And
the questions that I raise were in relationships to the auto storage
ordinance which by the way seems to have been designed for one
person (can't hear). Where does it stop? Do you take a daily account
of the vehicles parked on a person's property? When we give a party,
should we call the City first? Should a homeowner call the building
inspection office and indicate when an overnight guest is residing in
one's home? Ifa University vehicle was parked at the home, does that
mean if it exceeds the maximum count will a citation be issued? Does
it also mean that a car still owned by someone cited, and in this case it
seems only me, returns to the property...returns a car to the property
for maintenance and the count is exceeded and an anonymous
complaint is filed, will another citation be issued? Once a citizen is
cited, how long will the building inspection office surveillance a
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
//4 Page 7
property? Is them a probation period? When does this procedure
become abusive? I end up by saying these are not light hearted
attempts at humor. Have come to a point in our existence that citation
is manner of communicating neighbor concerns. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you. Any other public discussion?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#5b Page 8
ITEM NO. 5b PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
A public hearing on an ordinance amending the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance to regulate isolated wetlands.
Lehman: (Reads item) Public hearing is open.
Rob Phipps: I'm Rob Phipps with the Iowa City Home Builders Association. I've
got a letter t~om the Home Builders Association to the Council.
Would I be allowed to distribute that?
Lehman: Certainly.
Phipps: Okay.
Kanner: Is it the same that was in the packet?
Phipps: No, this is the one dated today, actually.
Lehman: Just give those to the City Clerk and she'll pass them down to us.
Karr: Thanks.
Phipps: I know there's been a lot of discussion on this and some of our
concerns remain the same that we're concerned about how it would be
regulated. You know who would be considered an expert in these
fields if we were to have somebody besides the Army Corps of
Engineers be the regulating factor here. And we're concerned does the
City have the staff or would they want to hire the staff. So we're a
little concerned about how that would work and who would be
considered an expert. And I think we would like to go back to asking
the Council to take into consideration letters that came to I think Steve
Atkins back in...from the Planning Department Staff saying that they
were concerned about some of these same issues. And that we should
just leave it the way it is with the Army Corps of Engineers will still
be regulating the blue line streams and the navigable waterways. And
so we would like to see it left at that. You know if we get into
regulating every small piece that might or might not be of any concern
I think that we might be spending too much money and time especially
of the City's and developers would be concerned as to who is going to
regulate this and who is going to be considered the expert. So if you
would just - you know with that letter - it explains most of what we're
after. So, thank you.
Lehman: Thank you, Rob.
Champion: Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#5b Page 9
Kanner: Rob, there was a couple things in the previous letter that I found
interesting. One was since the Council has decided to pursue a direct
and contrary to the Supreme Court ruling I find that out in left field
because actually this is in compliance with the Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court ruling says that this is actually should be in the hands
of local control. It's not in control of Congress. It didn't rule on the
merits of regulating it, it's just who regulate it.
Phipps: And what were they saying, Steve. I mean basically they were saying
that they were only going to regulate it from that time forward blue
line streams or navigable waterways.
Kanner: They said Corps of Engineers only had control over the blue line
streams as you said. They didn't have control of isolated wetlands.
And it was up to states, counties, and cities to regulate it if they so
wish.
Phipps: If they so wish.
Kanner: So, there is nothing contrary to the Supreme Court decision.
Phipps: No, I don't think that there is anything contrary to it, but I'I1 let Dan
speak to it.
Dan Smith: Hi. I'm Dan Smith the Director of Governor Affairs for the Greater
Iowa City Home Builders and Steve I know we talked about this
briefly yesterday at the work session and you are right. I apologize
that was a mistake on my part. I probably should have said in light of
instead of contrary. So, you're right. And I apologize for that
misunderstanding. And the SWANCC decision as my understanding
said that the Army Corps of Engineers exceeded congressional
authority by regulating non-navigable waterways. That things that
were not connected by a blue line basically. And I apologize for this
misunderstanding.
Kanner: Thank you. And the other thing I think you had a good point here
about doing a cost benefit analysis. I think we need to do that with all
our development - to do a full cost benefit analysis to see what it costs
to put in infrastructure and police, fire, streets and what we get in
return in taxes. So, I hope that you'll work with us for all
development. I think it might be good for this regulation in the future
and other developments as well.
Phipps: And then there's been discussion about would the City want to do an
inventory of wetlands and some of the discussions that I've heard that
it might be too costly to do that to inventory all of our.., every small
wetland area in Iowa City and whether or not that would even be
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#5b Page 10
doable.
Kanner: Maybe the Home Builders Association could work with us to do that.
It would be a good partnership.
Phipps: I mean we could certainly look into that, but at this time so many
things about this seem so vague that I think we need to take a harder
look at it. And again I'm concerned about, you know it makes
reference...some letters make reference to expert opinions and things
and I don't know if we have a criteria for what is an expert on
wetlands necessarily at this time. You know, I'm sure we would come
up with one or the City would, but at this time to my knowledge we
don't really have that defined.
Lehman: Well, and I think that's the purpose of the public hearing. To take
input from people like yourself and listen to your concerns.
Phipps: I mean I will say that there is no questions that the National
Association of Home Builders is very interested in wetland issues and
it's not something that we're unconcerned with by any means. So, I'd
like to throw that out for sure.
Kanner: Thank you.
Phipps: Okay, thanks.
Lehman: Thank you.
Becky Soglin: I'm Becky Soglin with Iowa Wetlands in Needs and I'm now a chair
of Environmental Advocates - last time I was only vice chair, but
times have changed. And as you know I've been before the Council
before to address this issue - is that better? And I appreciate the
attention that's been given to it over these past several months. And of
course I'm here to again show our support for the amendment. We
believe that this is an important amendment that brings us simply back
to where we were in January of 2001. The...I did have a chance to see
the letter from the Home Builders Association and also saw staff
member Julie Tallman's response and feel that there's ample evidence
that this would not be an undue burden on staff nor would there be
highly significant economic costs that were any different from what
was happening in 2001. So again we're simply asking for something
that was in place that was successful that was protecting wetlands.
There were wetlands that were impacted and lost since the ruling was
made. And at last I do appreciate the attention being given to the
sentence that mentioned the direction which the Council is moving if
they decide to adopt the amendment would be contrary to the Supreme
Court because obviously it is a matter of taking some local action and
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#5b Page 11
controlling the wetlands at this level. Thank you.
Dan Smith: Having received and reviewed the letter...
Lehman: Give your name.
Smith: Dan Smith, Director of Governor Affairs, Iowa City - Greater Iowa
City Area Home Builders Association. I haven't reviewed the letter
from Ms. Tallman. The Home Builders questions still remain. We
don't believe that the economic impact has been assessed necessarily.
And more importantly we're not convinced that the ecological benefit
of these individual wetlands have been determined. This is a view that
actually shared in the Iowa Wetlands and Riparian Conservation Plan.
This is the blueprint the State of Iowa is supposed to be using to
implement their wetland policy. In fact, Ms. Tallman sat on this
commission as well as some local developers. And I would just
briefly quote something out of this ifI may out of their summary plan
- the summary of the plan itselfi "Issue number 2: the degree to
which any wetland or riparian area performs specific functions is
usually uncertain. More information about these functions and values
is needed, especially information that is based on good data and
tailored to local, state and/or regional conditions. This can help people
make informed decisions about the values of wetlands and the cost and
benefits associated with their protection, restoration, management and
mitigation." To the extent that the Home Builders are aware of many
of these concerns are still unanswered. This is also a sentiment that
echoed among the League of Cities National wetland policy. I won't
waste your time quoting from there. However, needless to say the
Iowa City Home Builders Association questions do in large remain in
regards the implementation of this policy. But, we absolutely respect
Julie Tallman's response to us. It was very timely and we look
forward to continuing the dialogue with the City officials and the City
Council. Thank you,
Lehman: Thank you, Dan.
Kanner: Dan, can you get us a copy of that League of...National League of
City position?
Smith: Sure.
Soglin: I would like to address the point that was just made and point out that
the State of Wisconsin and with the cooperation with some of their
developers associations adopted a law to insure that their wetlands
were again protected after the SWANCC decision. So, they made a
determination that wetlands do have value. I acknowledge that
perhaps in some of the documents there's questions about exactly
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#5b Page 12
what's happening in specific places in Iowa, but I think there is a great
deal of documentation out there that wetlands have significant
benefits. It might be interesting to look at what happened up in Cedar
Rapids last week with all the flooding. We do know that possible was
impacted by development and it would be interesting to know that if
perhaps some wetlands had been in place in certain areas there might
have been less flooding in an area like that.
Pfab: Before you leave, are you aware of any...you said that they took their
concerns and made it into law in Wisconsin? Do you have any copies
of those?
Soglin: I can try to get a copy for you. They took very quick action last year.
I believe they had a moratorium of some kind and then they had a law
by, I believe it was May or June of last year.
Pfab: Is that something to work from? I'd appreciate that.
Lehman: Other public discussion?
Julie Tallman: Hello. My name is Julie Tallman and I'm going to be representing
Iowa Wetlands in Need as much as I can to draw a big thick line
between that role and my role on City staff. I think it's fair to say that
since the 1960's the Federal Govemment has acknowledged the role of
wetlands certainly in how they mitigate for flood damage. And I know
that to be the case because that is mentioned in the Federal legislation
that developed the flood insurance policies that we now abide by
nationally. We pretty unquestionly acknowledged...I mean it seems to
me that we acknowledge in a general sense the role that wetlands play
in flood abatement and also in protecting the quality of our water. In
fact we mimic the activity of wetlands when we construct storm water
detention basins to allow sediments to settle out and cleaner water to
leave a site and go into the receiving bodies of water. That is a
function that wetlands perform in the natural environment. We
acknowledge that. The City of Iowa City took a big step in
acknowledging the role of our natural resoumes when the sensitive
areas ordinance was passed. And language in the ordinance says that
it was passed in order to provide protections beyond that afforded by
the Federal Government. When the Supreme Court decided in
SWANCC that...or Swancy - however, you want to say it, that
isolated wetlands were no longer protected by the Clean Water Act
and that roiled over into impacting our sensitive areas ordinance it cut
our ordinance protections off at the knees without any participation by
the public at all. People in Iowa City didn't know it happened. The
development community did. The people who were behind adopting
the sensitive areas ordinance didn't read the National Association
Home Builders Newsletter which was the only place that this topic
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of Jun e 11, 2002
#5b Page 13
was even discussed. So, I have a concern coming from two directions.
One an appreciation of wetlands as a valuable natural resource which
we acknowledge, but we hesitate to really stand behind. And two the
effect that Swancy had on our local regulation without the benefit of
local participation.
Pfab: Before you go, I have a question. Do you have any list or inventory of
the wetlands that were destroyed after the law was changed?
Tallman: In Iowa City?
Pfab: Yes.
Tallman: Yes we do. We have correspondence from the Corps of Engineers.
Pfab: Could you see that we get a copy of that?
Tallman: Certainly.
Pfab: Thank you.
Dilkes: As I understand it, there was compensatory mitigation done in all those
cases?
Tallman: Those wetlands I don't know if there was compensatory mitigation
done for all of them in all the cases. I believe that compensatory
mitigation was called for in the case for the airport wetlands and I
believe in the sewer wetlands of the Kennedy and Southgate land, but
there were actually four separate wetlands that were filled. I just think
that when we talk about destroying wetlands we also need to talk about
compensatory mitigation.
Pfab: Is...
Lehman: Thank you, Eleanor.
Pfab: Eleanor, could I address (can't hear). Is there compensatory mitigation
in the new ordinance that we are in the process of adopting here?
Dilkes: Well, there's an issue as we discussed yesterday about the
compensatory mitigation that the Corp may require between a ½ and
1/10 of an acre.
Pfab: Okay, so that is still in the discussion stage?
Dilkes: That's been pointed out to Council and you all need to deal with it or
can deal with it.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#5b Page 14
Franklin: There is a provision in the wetlands regulation that provides for an
opportunity for compensatory mitigation independent of any of the
issues regarding size.
Dilkes: As it exists now.
Franklin: As it exists now.
Pfab: That's an opportunity is it an obligation?
Franklin: Compensatory mitigation is an option that can be used.
Pfab: Oh, it's an option. It's an opportunity.
Franklin: Yes.
Pfab: Okay. So it is one of the enforcement mechanisms.
Franklin: Yes. It is possible to use compensatory mitigation now under our
sensitive areas ordinance.
Kanner: But, it's not mandatory if it's - as the new proposal is written with
construction under 1/2 acre.
Franklin: No, and as we discussed today, Steven, I don't think that you want it to
be mandatory that's compensatory mitigation if you can provide
mitigation on-site.
Kanner: But, it doesn't...you can destroy without having to do anything
actually.
Franklin: That's another issue. That is related to your size issue. But the
question was do we provide for compensatory mitigation in our
ordinance now. Yes we do.
Pfab: But, at what point is the size issue going to be addressed?
Franklin: That is what is under discussion with the amendments before you.
Wetlands are regulated with certain exceptions. Those exemptions are
what is before you tonight in terms of the amendments to the code.
When they are regulated, that is if they do not fall under an exemption,
then the methods of regulation have to do with mitigation on-site
providing buffers or compensatory mitigation in which you provide for
a wetland on another site and provide a wetland of equal quality and
size to the one that you are filling in on the construction site.
Pfab: ... are destroying.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#5b Page 15
Franklin: Yes. Is that clear?
Kanner: To follow up what Irvin was saying though I just want to clarify my
understanding is that there is an exemption for wetlands under ½ acre
that they can be destroyed without any consequences or construction
greater than single family or duplex home tinder our proposed
ordinance. And my understanding is that is contrary to what the Corps
of Engineers regulations were previous to SWANCC. And I'd just
like to enter for correspondence proposed amendment to the
amendments that I will be offering when we consider this next time.
And I hope the public will look at this. My amendments, and there are
some copies out there in the hall if anyone needs one. Also the
Council members have this. Bring the proposed sensitive areas
ordinance amendments into line with what the Corps of Engineers
regulatory power was for isolated wetlands before the SWANCC
decision. I think it comes pretty close to doing that. And so I would
hope Council would consider this so that we get this truly in line with
what protection we had before. I echo the sentiments of the folks out
there talking about the benefits of wetlands and we need to make it as
least as strong as it was previous to 2001. We owe that to future
generations.
Lehman: Any other public discussion? Go ahead.
Smith: I just think it's important that we clarify the Home Builders
Association local and national do recognize the value of wetlands and
the role they do play in water purity, storm water management among
a variety of other benefits. But, that doesn't change the fact that
there's disagreement in the value of these. And we're talking about
the value - the ecological value - we feel that it is necessary to
balances with the economic feasibility of a community. We are...you
are stewards in both of those capacities. I have a point to also to Lon
Drake's testimony October 22na work session where Lon Drakes says I
doubt that you would find a pristine wetland out there in the isolated
category. They still serve some useful purposes in terms of handling a
little bit of storm water, but not as much as they could. That brings me
to my next point where you're talking about compensatory mitigation.
This is one of the points where we're a little confused about and we're
looking for some guidance from the Council or Planning Department.
And Mitch Behr's, Assistant City Attorney Mitch Behr's memo to the
Planning and Zoning Commission dated April 22nd of this year he
writes that quote, "Compensatory mitigation is a complex regulatory
process that requires time, work, and expense related to the location,
completion and subsequent monitoring of the compensatory mitigation
sites. The Corp of Engineer has significant staff with expertise
devoted to the compensatory mitigation regulatory process. The City
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#5b Page 16
of Iowa City has never engaged in regulation by way of compensatory
mitigation." So we're a little concerned maybe what is...what are we
getting into here as a community? So that's one of the other concerns
that we had and as you can imagine with all of the concerns that we've
laid out questions we feel need to still be addressed. I would like to
point to one last piece of information and that is the memo written by
the Director of Planning, Karin Franklin, to City Manager Steve
Atkins, dated July 26th 2001 in which she states quote, "Our evaluation
of the change was that there would be minimal impact in terms of
wetlands mitigation in Iowa City, but to require further review if we
were to change the sensitive areas ordinance would mean expenditures
and time in terms of time and money on the part of the City and the
private sector which would not be justified by what was achieved." If
that status has changed as of this date we would just simply like to
know it, I suppose.
Lehman: Thank you.
Smith: Thank you.
Lehman: Public hearing is closed.
Kart: Motion to accept correspondence.
O'Donnell: So moved.
Vanderhoefi Second.
Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Vanderhoef to accept
correspondence. All in favor [all ayes]? Opposed? At this point I
guess I would just informally ask Council if we anticipate any problem
with the passage of this ordinance. Our own rules require that we meet
with the Planning and Zoning Commission so if there is an indication
that there may be difficulties here I would suggest that we make those
indications now so that we can schedule a meeting with P & Z.
Pfab: I would suggest that we schedule a meeting with them.
Champion: Why?
Pfab: Because until those smaller numbers are put together and that process
is cleared up I think there are questions that Planning and Zoning
struggled with also. I think this is the time that if we are going to...the
question is divided when we do not wish to move ahead and we say
part of this is okay. But, there's another part that says a small section
of wetland can be developed away and then it excludes itself and as a
result the City and the citizens of Iowa City lose the value of that
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#5b Page 17
wetland.
Lehman: Well, the question here are there four people on the Council who
might not support this as it has been presented that we had the public
heating on it. Could I see a show of hands?
Champion: Well...
Vanderhoefi At this time I need more information and I think that we will be getting
more as it comes down from the Feds so I won't support the ordinance
at this point in time. However, I will be looking towards Council to
identify areas in the City that might be appropriate areas for mitigation
or drainage basins and protect flood plain areas and existing wetlands.
Pfab: Okay.
Lehman: No, let's just...we're not going to discuss this ordinance. We're going
to discuss whether or not there's not sufficient or we suspect there may
not be support on the Council which means we need to meet with the P
& Z. Dee has indicated her lack of support. I will indicate my lack of
support.
Pfab: I will...
Lehman: Okay.
Pfab: I have a question on procedure.
Lehman: (Can't hear) schedule a meeting with P & Z.
Wilburn: Yes.
Lehman: We will meet with P & Z and discuss it.
Pfab: Okay. But, as it is now what is the law of the land today?
Lehman: We have the Federal regulations.
Dilkes: Our ordinance adopts the Federal definition of wetland and therefore
we do not regulate isolated wetlands.
Pfab: Okay, but is...what law is in effect today, right now.
Champion: That's it.
Karmer: That's it.
Dilkes: That's it.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11~ 2002
#5b Page 18
Pfab: Okay. But, what if we don't adopt it? What if it's postponed or...
Dilkes: Well if you postpone...well you're not going to adopt tonight anyway.
Pfab: Right.
Dilkes: But, if you don't adopt anything it stays the way it is which is what I
just said.
Pfab: Okay.
Lehman: Okay?
Wilburn: I would recommend that if Council has questions, specific questions
for staff that we get those before the meeting with Planning and
Zoning.
Pfab: That's a good idea.
Wilburn: I keep hearing there's questions, there's questions, but I'd want to
know what questions I had to answer if I were.
Lehman: And I would certainly encourage the (can't hear) be at that meeting as
well, because I'm sure there's going to be questions for staff.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#6 Page 19
ITEM NO. 6 PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION APPROVING A
PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH UNITED ACTION FOR
YOUTH FOR CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1-C IN TOWER PLACE
AND PARKING AND THE DISPOSITION OF SAID
PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE THEREWITH.
Lehman: Reads item) Public hearing is open.
Lars Anderson: Thank you. My name is Lars Anderson and I'm a member of the
Board of Directors for United Action for Youth and there's also some
other staff members for the United Action for Youth here and Jane
Aso the Associate Director for the United Action for Youth is also
present. Before we get started I'd like to first thank the Committee on
Community Needs on behalf of the Board of UAY for the CBDG
funds that have kind of made this whole purchase agreement, the
whole contract, possible and have enabled us to move forward with
our long term goal of acquiring some additional space. Youth
center...having a youth center downtown at my understanding is part
of the City's comprehensive plan. The City of Iowa City has
repeatedly over time demonstrated a strong commitment to serving the
youth and having a youth friendly community. We believe that this
agreement with UAY is in keeping with that tradition of both having a
youth center downtown - maintaining a youth center and fostering a
youth friendly environment. When UAY acquired 410 Iowa Avenue
in 1988 we were serving approximately 700 youth and parents. I
believe last year we served over 2600 youth and parents and our space
hasn't grown considerably - our space hasn't grown in keeping with
the growth in client. We a couple years ago started a task force or a
committee to address our long term space needs. That committee has
put in a lot - the people who were involved in that put in a lot of time
and effort and eventually settled on 1-C in Tower Place. We really
wanted the City, excuse me, the staff and the board really wanted to
maintain a presence downtown - a strong presence downtown. And !
think everybody - the board and the staff at UAY are very excited
about the possibilities that Tower Place offers. We plan on moving the
youth center activities there which would include our sound studio,
visual arts center, possibly an art gallery, a volunteer center, and a
low-wattage FM youth radio. We believe, in short, that 1-C presents
the perfect opportunity to showcase...
(End of Side 1; Tape #02-54, Beginning of Side 2, Tape #02-54)
...community and would really encourage the Council to approve the
agreement with UAY. Thank you.
O'Donnell: Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#6 Page 20
Lehman: Thank you.
Champion: Thank you.
Lehman: Would anybody else like to speak to the issue? Public hearing is
closed.
(Returning to this item after Item number 7 was voted on)
Dilkes: I'm sorry. We need to go back to Item 6.
Lehman: Did we do wrong?
Dilkes: There's a resolution approving the purchase agreement in your packet
and what we normally do is hold the public hearing and have...and
then that same night discuss and vote on the resolution approving the
purchase agreement. For some reason it's not...the resolution isn't
called on in the agenda, but I think you've sufficiently noticed the
item.
Lehman: Okay. What we need then is under Item 6 is a resolution approving
the purchase agreement for UAW for a condominium unit 1-C in
Tower Place.
O'Donnell: I would move the resolution.
Wilbum: Second.
Lehman: We have a motion by O'Donnell, seconded by Wilbum. Discussion?
Wilbum: That's UAY United Action for Youth, not United Auto Workers.
Champion: Good point.
Kanner: Well, maybe they have some plans for (can't hear) space.
Lehman: Still early too.
Kanner: I have something to say.
Lehman: Yes?
Kanner: One thing that we talked about yesterday at the meeting which I think
is good is we're going to ask our economic development committee of
the Council to look into funding. We're subsidizing some of this
move and I think most of us feel that's a good thing to do and we also
think in terms of economic development as was I think was pointed
out in part perhaps that in terms of the comprehensive plan and other
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#6 Page 21
things that this is a good thing for downtown Iowa City and perhaps it
might be appropriate use of economic development funds. And so I
look forward to the discussion and report back from the economic
development committee of City Council.
Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call.
Dilkes: We missed the second on that. Did you second that, Irvin?
Lehman: Wilbum seconded it.
Pfab: He said Wilburn did.
Dilkes: All right.
Kanner: UAW guy.
Lehman: UAW right. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#10 Page 22
ITEM NO. 10 A $300.00 CIVIL PENALTY AGAINST THE OLD MARKET
PLACE, 1963 BROADWAY STREET, PURSUANT TO IOWA
CODE SECTION 453A.22(2).
Lehman: (Reads item)
Andy Chappell: Good evening. We've had a few of these in the past. With respect to
the Old Market Place on January 14th one of their employees was
convicted of and plead guilty to providing or selling tobacco to a
minor. Based on that conviction I believe the civil penalty is due
pursuant to Iowa Code Section 453A.22(2).
Lehman: Do we have a motion assessing the penalty?
O'Donnell: So moved.
Champion: Second.
Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Champion. Discussion?
Wilbum: Is it even a corporation still existing to assess this to?
Dilkes: It's my understanding that they are no longer in business, but, you
know, you may have a collection problem.
Lehman: Not if we don't pass it. Roll call. (Motion passes 7-0)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#1la Page 23
ITEM NO. 11 A $300.00 CIVIL PENALTY AGAINST THE SANCTUARY
RESTAURANT & PUB, 405 S. GILBERT STREET, PURSUANT
TO IOWA CODE SECTION 453A.22(2).
Lehman: (Reads item)
Chappell: Similar situation here although I believe with The Sanctuary we may
have been dealing with a cigarette vending machine and again the
employee was convicted or plead guilty on January 15th, 2002 of
providing tobacco to a minor. I'm sorry I also have a - I usually give
you folks a certified copy of the conviction. I have a copy for you. I
also have a copy of the printout which is the only thing we have from
the Clerk's office which indicates that the charge was.., the individual
was adjudicated guilty and that the fine has been paid. (Can't hear).
Lehman: Well I think it's sufficient that Eleanor you look at that for us.
Dilkes: So it's part of the record.
Lehman: Thank you.
Chappell: Based on that violation and the guilty plea or conviction I believe that
a civil penalty is also in order with regard to The Sanctuary.
Kanner: Can you tell, I'm sorry, can you tell us exactly what happened in
regards to the action that happened that resulted in this penalty?
Chappell: I don't have the specific report in front of me. What typically happens
you have a vending machine right?
Woodson: You tell me you're the prosecutor.
Chappell: Well, this isn't really a trial, but what usually happens is we have a
vending machine and the officer goes in and the underage person goes
in with them. And the underage person will go up to the bar and
request change for the cigarette machine. When change is given they
go to the cigarette machine, purchase the cigarettes, they're considered
providing tobacco to a minor. That also, although not usually charged
that way, it's also a violation of 453A.36(6) which actually requires a
vending machine to be kept in an area where no one under the age of
18 can get to it. As you've seen before what happens when they
actually sell them at the bar is you have the individual come before
and just request just like the like you're at a Quick Trip. Request
purchase of the cigarettes. If they provide them, then they charge
them.
Woodson: I have a literal procedural question for Mr. Chappell or for Eleanor and
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#1la Page 24
that's what are the rules of procedure for this hearing?
Dilkes: You're entitled to notice, which you've received and an opportunity to
respond and this is your chance.
Woodson: I mean are we operating under Iowa Administrative Law?
Dilkes: You can say what you want.
Woodson: Are we allowed to present witnesses? What are the roles? What are
the roles of procedure for the hearing? This is a judicial body? The
Council sitting is a judicial body?
Dilkes: This is an informal administrative proceeding. We have complied
with the notice and an opportunity to be heard requirements. And
that's about as much as an answer as I'm going to give you. If you
want to address the Council please do so. If you don't please sit down.
Woodson: Just checking. Thank you I will address the Council. Mr. Chappell's
incorrect that we don't have a vending machine and now that I have
seen the evidence as of the guilty plea. The first thing that he provided
me in his letter of April 3rd was simply a copy of the original citation
with no copy of any finding of guilt or plea of guilt. So now that we
have that there really isn't a whole lot to say except to call in question
some of the due process of these administrative hearings. And to point
out that everybody makes mistakes and we've been checked into
compliance check four or five times. This compliance check occurred
during the busiest hour of the busiest night of the week and yes an
error was made. I do have copies of the Iowa driver's licenses to show
you how difficult it is to see some of those dates, but that doesn't
change the guilty plea and the guilty plea being the only evidence
required to find us administratively guilty and assess a civil penalty.
There really is nothing that I can present at this point in time except to
say that yeah that everybody makes mistakes. Mr. Chappell made a
mistake in not sending out proper notice the first time on this and he
doesn't have to pay $150.00 fine and his boss doesn't have to pay a
$300.00 fine, but that's the way things work. The $150.00 fine, the
$300.00 administrative civil penalty and the $120.00 annual cigarette
permit costs are far in excess of our profits off of cigarette sells last
year. So, at this time we will turn in our cigarette permit. We will not
apply for a new permit. We suspended cigarette sales and we will not
apply for another permit.
Kanner: What did...did I hear you say that you don't have a vending machine?
Woodson: No, we don't have a vending machine.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#1la Page 25
Pfab: Did you have a vending machine at the time?
Woodson: No, we have never had a vending machine. Vending machines were
barred, I believe, I want to say eight years ago unless they had a lock
out device or direct supervision. Ours are sold over the bar and done
basically as a convenience to customers so they don't have to walk
outside in the winter time. So, like I said, very small sales. You know
we probably sell less than four cartons of cigarettes a month. So, you
know, we're just not going to do it anymore.
Kanner: So you had cigarettes behind the counter?
Woodson: Yes.
Lehman: Thank you.
Dilkes: A couple of clarifications, Mr. Chappell was not the one who didn't
get the notice out, that was our mistake which we corrected. Secondly,
Mr. Woodson is correct that his argument is with the State code which
provides that...
Woodson: I'm sorry I can't hear you.
Dilkes: That your argument is with the State code that upon conviction the
administrative penalty is essentially automatic.
Lehman: Okay.
Chappell: Just briefly if I may clarify the letter I sent to The Sanctuary
Restaurant and Pub which contains a copy of the citation is actually
the stamp, the certificate which you see on the certified record that is
the certified record of conviction. It's literally all I can get from the
Clerk's office. Other than I did actually get a printout of what the
computer screen shows as well.
Woodson: It doesn't show that there was a conviction. It just shows that this is a
copy of (can't hear).
Chappell: Right and that's I'm just saying that's all I get from the Clerk's office
and that's all ! can present to you.
Woodson: Well, since we didn't have evidence in our hands. I'd like to make one
other comment. When I did point out to the City Attorney that there
was an error in the proper notice for this hearing I was...the response I
got when I was called back to say that yes there was an error and
notice would be given and the hearing would be reset for a different
date. The response I got from the City Attorney was it pains me to tell
you you're right. Not an apology for, you know, not having the proper
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#11 a Page 26
notice and not a thank you for pointing this out which could have been
a fatal flaw if the hearing was held without notice and we decided to
appeal to District Court.
Dilkes: Guilty as charged.
Lehman: Do we have a motion?
Pfab: I moved that we go ahead.
Lehman: Moved by Pfab.
O'Dormell: I would second that.
Lehman: Seconded by O'Donnell to assess the penalty. All in favor? Or is it a
role call? Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#12 Page 27
ITEM ]NO. 12 CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
TITLE 10, '~PtlBLIC WAYS," CHAPTER 3, "COMMERCIAL
USE OF SIDEWALKS," SECTION 3, "IJSE OF SIDEWALK
CAFES" TO ALLOW SIDEWALK CAFES TO OPERATE
IJNTIL 12:00 MIDNIGHT. (SECOND CONSIDERATION)
Lehman: (Reads item)
Champion: Move second consideration.
Pfab: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Pfab. Discussion.
Wilburn: Just a question for the City Clerk, Marian, or Council I had heard that
there may have been a misunderstanding by the owner of Atlas who
requested this fi.om us. He was under the impression that Council did
not pass first reading. Did you have a chance to contact him?
Karr: Yes I did contact The Atlas and was able to reach them today. In
talking to him, he tmderstands perfectly. I believe the
miscommunication possibly came from because of the success and the
wonderful weather the Arts Feast on Friday and also on Saturday
evening there were a number of individuals who would have preferred
to continue sitting in the outdoor area past 10:00 which is the current
requirement. In response to that the owners and the workers explained
to them that the court law does not allow them to and that they are in
the process of amending that to 12:30, but indicated that it was a very
close vote 4-3 and it could go either way and to encourage them to
contact Council members. The owner that I talked to fully understood
that a 4-3 vote would indeed pass it, but it would be two more
readings.
Wilbum: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that (can't hear).
Kart: So, again I do believe I think the confusion might be in the simply the
fact that there's three readings and the fact that it was a wonderful
event and they wanted to stay out there longer.
Wilburn: Okay. All fight.
Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries 4-3, Lehman, Vanderhoef and O'Donnell
voting the negative.
Karmer: Just so people aren't partying to 12:30 it's 12:00.
Lehman: And it's after the 2"~ of July when we pass it the third time.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#12 Page 28
Kart: Upon publication which would be a week later.
Lehman: Upon publication which would be significantly after that.
Kart: It will be after Jazz Fest.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#15 Page 29
ITEM NO. 15 CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING THAT GENERAL
PROPERTY TAXES LEVIED AND COLLECTED EACH YEAR
ON ALL PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE HEINZ ROAD
URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT AREA, IN THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, COUNTY OF JOHNSON, STATE OF IOWA, BY AND
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE STATE OF IOWA, CITY OF
IOWA CITY, COUNTY OF JOHNSON, IOWA CITY
COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT AND OTHER TAXING
DISTRICTS, BE PAID TO A SPECIAL FUND FOR PAYMENT
OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON LOANS, MONIES
ADVANCED TO AND INDEBTEDNESS, INCLUDING BONDS
ISSUED OR TO BE ISSUED, INCURRED BY SAID CITY IN
CONNECTION WITH SAID URBAN RENEWAL
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. (SECOND CONSIDERATION)
Lehman: (Reads item)
Champion: Move second consideration.
O'Dormell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Dormell. Discussion? Roll call.
Motion carries, 5-2. Kanner and Pfab voting in the negative.
Lehman: I'm glad there's only one more consideration. I'm really getting so
that I can read these. Finally about the time we're through. We're
going to take a break.
Karr: Mr. Mayor, before we do could I just note for the record that Item 15
there's a memo before you this evening with a very slight, non-
subsitive change to the legal description as our bonding attorney
wanted it noted.
Lehman: So noted. Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#16 Page 30
ITEM NO. 16 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION (1) APPROVING THE MINIMUM
DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS, COMPETITIVE
CRITERIA, AND PROCEDURES FOR DISPOSITION OF
CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE IOWA CITY
URBAN RENEWAL AREA; (2) DETERMINING THAT THE
PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE PLAZA TOWERS L.L.C.
SATISFIES THE OFFERING REQUIREMENTS AND
DECLARING THE INTENT OF THE CITY TO ENTER INTO
AN AGREEMENT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT AND SALE OF
LAND FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA AND THE PLAZA TOWERS
L.L.C. IN THE EVENT THAT NO COMPETING PROPOSALS
ARE SUBMITTED; AND (3) SOLICITING COMPETING
PROPOSALS
Lehman: Let's get started again. (Reads item) Pr/or to accepting a motion to
approve this I would like Karin Franklin to explain to the public and
the Council part of the process. I would like to have a little
explanation. This proposal has been somewhat contentious to say the
least and I'd like to do a little briefing before we take (can't hear).
Dilkes: We should probably get it on the floor.
Lehman: Oh, okay. Then get it on the floor.
O'Donnell: Move first consideration.
Champion: I'll second it.
Lehman: We have a motion to approve the resolution by Mike O'Donnell,
second from Connie Champion. Karin?
Franklin: Okay. It just might be helpful to reflect back on how we got to where
we are tonight because this Council made a number of decisions that
have resulted in what's before you tonight. Your first decision was
that to actually sell what is known as parcel 64(1)a - the piece next to
the Sheraton, across from the library. After that the Council then
looked at an RFP ora request for proposals that the staff had drafted
and refined. That request for proposals before we sent it out to solicit
developers who would present proposals to the Council for
development of this site. And there were some specific things that
were requested in that proposal that had to do with submitting a project
that would be a significant addition to the downtown that would be
worthy of this last urban renewal parcel for Iowa City. We had four
people who responded - or four entities - that responded to that
request for proposals. They presented their proposals in a public
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#16 Page 31
forum at the Iowa City Public Library. That was not an opportunity
for Council discussion, but it was an opportunity for the public to hear
those proposals and to provide you at subsequent meetings of the
Council with any input they wished to provide you with what project
was most desirable to them. The Council then selected the project that
is the essence of the development agreement that is before you tonight
and that is the Plaza Towers project that included hotel, conference
center, grocery store, commercial space, and residential and
condominium units in a 13 and 14 story tower. So that's where we
are.
Lehman: Thank you, Karin. After selecting this project Council by a majority
vote determined that this was - of the four competing proposals - was
the one felt best suited for Iowa City. We directed our staff to enter
into negotiations with the developer - in this case Plaza Towers L.L.C.
- and after several months of negotiations they have returned to us a
document which is too long for any of us to have thoroughly digested
- I think 100 and some pages, but I think it represents the best efforts
of some very professional, very, very hard working people who are
working for the people of Iowa City. The purpose of the discussion
tonight is to determine whether or not this agreement meets the
requirements that we asked of that developer. There is no other
proposal on the table. This is the only proposal that we are discussing.
There is no other. So, our discussions tonight will be limited to the
points in this agreement and our determination will be whether or not
this meets our expectations. If it does, we will obviously approve it.
If it does not, we will not approve it and we will go elsewhere. So,
with that I would like to ask the Council in view of the discussion that
we had last night if we could limit our discussions on this issue for 10
or 15 minutes. At that time I would like for - with the Council's
permission - for each of the Council people who choose to make a
statement as to why they support or do not support this issue to make
their statement and proceed with a vote. Is that satisfactory with
Council, folks?
Champion: Yeah.
Kauner: Are we going to hear from people in the audience that (can't hear).
Lehman: Obviously, public will have an opportunity to speak.
Pfab: When will the public get a chance to speak?
Lehman: Public will have an opportunity to speak as soon as we quit.
Pfab: As soon as we quit.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#16 Page 32
Lehman: Right. We will take obviously the public if they wish to address the
Council may do so. And then I would like this - bm I don't care to get
into the...and I don't think any of us care to get into the discussion we
had last night.
Kanner: Ernie, could we perhaps hear from the folks here first. And that might
drive our discussion among ourselves.
Lehman: Fine. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this
issue? Yes. Now.
Ed McClement: My name is Ed McClement and I'm a taxpayer in Iowa City and I wish
to express my opposition to this proposal. First of all, based on the
finances it was over...originally this property was assessed at more
than a million dollars and it's being offered to a developer for less than
25 cents on the dollar. That's one thing. The second part is a 6
million dollar loan that they want to pay off with tax abatement and
the Press Citizen estimates $750,000 per year is the tax evaluation of
that property for 10 years that 7.5 million dollars which is more than
the price of the loan. Those are the financial reasons.and secondly I
wonder why we need a grocery store downtown when we have New
Pioneer and Johns in the area and why we need a hotel when we have
the Sheraton right next door. So, these are the reasons why I am in
opposition to this proposal. And I hope that Council will give a
resounding "no" vote to it.
Lehman: Thank you.
Colin Gordon: My name is Colin Gordon. I'm also an Iowa City taxpayer and I'm
also somewhat horrified by this deal. First of all I think we need to
look at what the City gets out of this. And in my view it doesn't get
much. It gets a distant promise of future tax revenues two decades
down the road that go if this parcel's development. But, during that
intervening two decades all of the property tax value as detailed in the
agreement goes to paying off the loan. It does get a new side of
commercial activity and employment downtown, but as the previous
gentleman suggested I think we have to look at what kind of
development is being subsidized, what kind of jobs are being created?
Is the City in fact underwriting low-wage service sector employment
in hotel and grocery store which I think is the ease. And is the City
subsidizing competition for other downtown merchants? This is a
proposal which will create immense new demands on public services
downtown while for at least 20 years not contributing in any way for
their upkeep. What do the taxpayers get? Not much. Again, we're
promised future property tax revenues. But, I think it's extremely
important to note that this is a benefit to the taxpayers only if we
assume that this parcel would never be developed by the private sector
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#16 Page 33
on its own. In the meantime, taxpayers foot the bill for increased
services and importantly other beneficiaries of local property taxes
particularly the County that funds our social services and our schools
get nothing. There is, in my reading of the agreement - because I did
read all 100 pages, one winner in all of this and that's the developer
who gets a massive public subsidy somewhere on the order of 6
million dollars in public funds for completing the project. And I want
to make it clear that contrary to public discussion this is not a loan.
The developer gets up the money on the front and the City retires it by
dedicating the developer's property taxes to the subsidy. The
developed site should either pay off its loan or pay its property taxes,
but if it uses one to pay off the other then the taxpayers are paying the
bill. By this logic I should be able to come before you ask for $25,000
to put an addition on my house and tell you that my property taxes will
pay for it. And then of course you'll get the benefit in 20 years when
the loan is paid off. I think it's important to emphasize that TIFs as an
institution -tax increment financing - was designed as...was adopted
by communities and states including Iowa as Federal urban renewal
policy began to fall apart in the '70's and 1980's. But, it was designed
for the same purpose to encourage the development of blighted areas.
This is not a blighted area. And unless the parcel is truly blighted
there is no immediate or long term benefit. The money comes out of
the pockets of tax payers, out of the pockets of schools, out of pockets
of county services and into the pockets of developers. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Steve Barnhart: Hello. My name is Steve Barnhart. I am a taxpayer as well. I have a
quick question. What is the estimated net income before depreciation
on this project if we pass it as it stands right now?
Lehman: What's your question again?
Bamhart: What will this building...what is the net income, projected net income
for depreciation on this project that the Moen's will get?
Lehman: I have no idea.
Barnhart: Does anybody have any idea?
Lehman: We have - if you've read the agreement you know that there is a
guaranteeofataxassessedvalue. We know that. Whichis...
Bamhart: No, I'm saying as far as the developer. The Moen's will own this
building after it's done.
Lehman: Con'ect.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#16 Page 34
Bamhart: What is their income -projected income for this building?
Lehman: I have no idea.
Pfab: I think they're there.
Lehman: Mark, you can get up. Go ahead and finish your comments. Mark can
get up later if he wishes to address that.
Bamhart: I find it hard to believe that a bank is going to lend them 16 million
dollars, we're going to lend them 6 million dollars and we don't have
any idea what the net income is on this project's going to be.
Obviously I'm against this for a couple of reasons. I was at the
discussion last night and we were all told that the bank would not sign
a loan if we weren't guaranteed the grocery store and the convention
space. I'm against the taxpayers footing that bill if the bank won't do
it.
Pfab: Can I...?
Lehman: Irvin let him talk. We're going to take public discussion first.
Pfab: I want to understand what you said. You said that the financial
institution would not lend them money if there was no grocery store?
Barnhart: If there was not guarantee of a grocery store for the...
Pfab: No that wasn't. No that's not correct.
Bamhart: So we can demand that there's a grocery store the entire 20 years?
Pfab: Well, that's not the way I understood your statement.
Barnhart: As I understand it, the bank would not loan them the 16 million dollars
if there's a stipulation that there would always be a grocery store there.
Pfab: Okay.
Lehman: That isn't what you said, but that is (can't hear)
Pfab: I misunderstood you then.
Barnhart: So, I just don't think the taxpayers should have to put up that ifa
financial institution wouldn't. I've seen the lease that Eagles pays -
that Eagles has on North Dodge and they pay about $5.00 a square
foot. And I think the projection is for a grocery store to pay $9.00 plus
a square foot downtown. To me 1 don't think it's going to happen.
And if they build this and picture what a grocery store is - wide span
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#16 Page 35
with refrigeration all built in. If that goes under, what do you think is
going to go in - a bar. That would be the most logical thing. I don't
think we want that. Another reason that I'm against this is that the
difference between the 1.7 million dollars that the property was
appraised at versus the $250,000 that the developer wants to pay is 1.5
million dollars that should be going to low-income housing and in fact
it's going to high income housing. And lastly, I don't think the
developer has enough stake in this. He's getting 16 million dollars
from a loan from the bank, 6 million dollars from us - it's a 22.3
million dollar project. That means the developer gets a 22 million
dollar building with an investment of only $300,000. I would ask that
the City at least demand that the developer puts in as much as the City
does. Those are all my comments ifI could get an estimate on the net
income before depreciation of the building?
Lehman: Well if Mark chooses to address that he certainly may. But, that's his
choice.
Bamhart: So, that's not public knowledge.
Lehman: I don't that that's public knowledge.
Bamhart: Why would we lend him 6 million dollars without knowing what's the
project going to throw offfor income?
Lehman: Our interest is getting repaid.
Dilkes: I think we need to conduct that we can't conduct the hearing by having
a dialogue between members of the audience. My suggestion would
be that people from the audience, if they desire, come up and speak.
Bamhart: I guess those are all my comments with the exception that I would ask
the Moen's to make public what their projected income on this project
is.
Lehman: Thank you.
Kanner: Can you tell me your name again, please?
Bamhart: Steve Bamhart.
Kanner: Thank you.
Daryl Woodson: Daryl Woodson. I would echo the previous gentleman's concerns
about T1F as a philosophy and a financing method for this project.
But, my major concern right now is the speed with which we have
moved to the final decision on this from the announcement of the
financing plan for the project. Now, true the project has been under
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#16 Page 36
discussion for quite a while. We had the public discussion and public
presentation on which of the four projects looked the nicest, you know,
and might be the best. But, it was only last week that the details of the
financing for this were released to the public. I believe the press
release was dated on Wednesday. I received it on my e-mail on
Thursday I believe it was. Now this is the largest construction project
in the history of downtown Iowa City. It is by far the largest TIF or
tax abatement that Iowa City has ever done. And the vote will come
less than a week after the announcement of the financing package. It
was stated during the discussions and the negotiations between the
City Staff and the Moen group that even the price of the property was
going to be a part of the discussion for the contract. So we find out
last week that it was $250,000 for 64(1)a and we find out the 6 million
dollar TIF which I believe is coming not only from the Plaza Towers,
but also from the Vogel House Apartments which are under
construction right now. So you will have two downtown properties
that will finance this one downtown property. I think at the very least
that we are rushing to judgment on this and not giving the public
enough opportunity to wade through that 70 or 100 or whatever it is
page document - that I think I got through about 70 pages of- and
comment on it. I think that we really don't need to be in so much of a
hurry. Construction can't start until the library construction is finished
and that's going to be 2004 1 believe. We certainly have another, you
know, 30 days or 60 days or whatever to have some public discussion
and some opportunity for the people to just understand what this is.
And a lot of people simply don't understand what is going on with this
project and the financing of it. It's been less than a week. There's
been minimal press on it and I think the public of Iowa City deserves
some more opportunity to view the project before the final vote. As I
understand, tonight is essentially the final vote. Because if no better
competing proposal comes in then Council will be obligated to go
ahead with this contract. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Kanner: Just to clarify, Eleanor, we'll be taking a final vote on this in July?
Dilkes: Karin? I'm going to let Karin answer those questions. She's far more
familiar with the agreement than I am.
Franklin: At your July 2nd or your no July 16th meeting, if there are no
competing proposals which come in in this 30 day period, then you
would pass a resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign the agreement.
You are considering tonight a resolution which says that you are
committed to this project and this development agreement and you are
setting this 30 day period for competing proposals if any should come
in. So that's what the resolution is about tonight. But then you need
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#16 Page 37
another action at your July 16th meeting if none of those proposals do
come in. If there are competing proposals, then it - the process -
continues on.
Kanner: So if the majority votes for it tonight, there's no legal obligation to
vote for it again in July? Is that correct?
Franklin: It would be extraordinary if you were to vote against it on the 16th if no
other competing proposals came in and your vote then tonight would
not be in good faith.
Kanner: But, is there a legal obligation?
Franklin: I can't say that there is a legal obligation, but I don't know. I'd have
to consult with John Hintz. And I'll have that information for you on
the 16th.
Dilkes: Just so there's no misconception that this agreement hasn't been
lawyered and lawyered and lawyered on behalf of the City, as you
know we retained Ahlers Law Firm in Des Moines - our bond counsel
- they've served as our bond counsel for years - to represent us in this
matter given its significance. John Hintz from that firm has been
involved in all the negotiations that City Staff has participated in and
in the meticulous drafting of the agreement and he was present at your
work session last night. So, just for the public.
Lehman: Thank you, Karin.
Bob Welsh: My name is Bob Welsh. I came to Iowa City in 1965. And the first
political campaign that I participated was on behalf of the three B's in
support of urban renewal. And I realize that this is the last part of that.
Also I - let me say that I've been out of town most of the past week
and I have just gotten up to date the last couple of days. I'm in support
of the Moen program and proposal. I watched the proposals on T.V.
and I felt that was the best proposal that was made. I felt that the goals
which sets a high profile building with a mix of private and
conunercial uses combined with a luxury hotel, upscale housing in the
heart of Iowa City would really help vitalize downtown. I was pleased
that the proposal contrary to other speakers, said that there would be a
10,000 square foot grocery store. I think that if you combine upscale
housing in downtown Iowa City, you need a grocery ~tore. I think it
would help to get other upscale housing units in downtown Iowa City.
I believe that the Moen Group in good faith did feasibility studies and
made a presentation to you what they thought was economically
feasible and viable. I think your staff when they reviewed the
proposals said that the Moen proposal was economically feasible.
Now that brings me to the point where, on the basis of the newspaper
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#16 Page 38
article today, I did spend most of the aftemoon not reading it, Mayor,
but scanning through things to see what the proposal really said. And I
guess what I'm here to say is I think that the proposal that you voted
on is the proposal that you should get and I don't think in the proposal
that you have before you that's drafted you have that proposal. I'm
interested in learning tonight that your own legal staff did not have a
major hand in that. I came tonight to suggest - and maybe you can't
do this, you need to go through another legal source - but that you
return the document and say you want a guarantee that the proposal
that was submitted to you is what's going to be built. I don't think that
the phrase which is in there under - on page 18 on the agreement -
will use its best effort at that point is sufficient protection. I think that
it needs to be in there that that's what they're going to do. You're
going to have high scale apartments. You're going to have a 10,000
square foot grocery store. I mean all these things that they said was
economically viable, which your staff said was economically viable,
which you said was economically viable. And the agreement that you
have before you does not assure that. It only assures that there will be
an effort to do those things. That is not what I think you voted on and
that's not what you should approve. I gathered from the paper that one
of the Council members said that they thought they should at least be a
guarantee of 7 years or so. I gather another one said 20 years which is
the length of time of the abatement and loan. You sure need
something. To quote best effort is not what you voted on. What you
voted on was a specific proposal that had many valuable factors and as
I said of those I felt that was correct. I had friends of mine who said it
was not economically feasible. And I suppose there's ways of getting
around that. And the Council is surely going to require that they carry
through with what they said they're going to do. And I hope that I'm
right and that the critics are wrong and that the proposal was made
before you is an economically feasible one and that in good faith you
and the developer will say, "Hey we're going to give you what we
promised you." So, my hope would be that you would not approve the
agreement that you have in front of you, but that you would return it to
your legal staff. If they want to work with somebody else that you
ali's prerogative. But, that you have an agreement drawn up that will
assure the citizens that the proposal that you voted on and approved is
what you get. Thank you very much.
Lehman: Thank you, Bob.
Franklin: I'd like to clarify something.
Lehman: Please do.
Franklin: For the public. For Bob. In the agreement there is a requirement for a
performance bond that a certain building be built. And that building is
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#16 Page 39
referenced in exhibit C, I think it is, and then in the exhibit that
contains the minimum improvements. Exhibit C is the proposal that
the Moen's brought to the City Council. Before we convey this
property to the Plaza Towers L.L.C. constructions plans will need to
be approved by the City and those construction plans must be for a
project which includes a 13-story tower and a 14-story tower on three
levels of a base building. Those three levels will include a grocery
store, a hotel, conference center, everything that was in the Moen
proposal that the public saw and that the Council shows is guaranteed
to be built. The question is how long we can guarantee or insure that a
business stays in business in a building which is constructed. But, that
building will be constructed. There is no doubt about that.
Lehman: Thank you, Karin.
(End of tape #02-54. Beginning of tape #02-55)
Welsh: ...it will be built, but the question is for how long.
Lehman: We're aware of that, Bob.
Welsh: And all I'm saying is they have said, and your staff have said, that that
proposal is an economically feasible one. That means it's going to go.
And I think Moen's and the City in good faith said hey this is an
economically feasible program. So there should be no hesitation on
either the Moen's part or the City's part to have an agreement that
locks those things in. Not just put that they're going to be built, but
you know my guess is I've been in Iowa City for now 37 years, 36
years now my guess is that Iowa City is still going to be here in 36
years.
Champion: I think so.
Lehman: I hope you're right.
Welsh: And my guess is that whatever is built there is going to be here in 36
years. So, I'm not taking, you know I'm probably not going to be
alive in 36 years, but others that I know and relatives I hope will be
here. But that's important. And what you're doing now at this time in
history affects not only today but many, many years to come. And I
think it would be a travesty if in a few years that - I have nothing
against students, but if that became student housing. You know, is it
economically feasible or not? And when you go into business you
make long term projections. You don't build something like this on
economic feasibility of a year, two years, or three years, but for a long
period of time. And that's all I'm asking is that in good faith the
economic feasibility of this project I gather had been established so
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#16 Page 40
there shouldn't be any question on the part of either the City or the
developer to tie those in.
Lehman: Thank you.
Christy Canganelli: My name is Christy Canganelli and I'm a resident here of Iowa
City. I'm a tax payer and a voter. And I'm aware ora clear double
standard that's being established within this and other movements that
you've recently approved. Mr. Mayor, you recognize this as
something in which the people were clearly working for the people of
Iowa City. That this was a project that exemplified that. And I would
suggest that there have been many projects recently which I and many
others thought were working for the people of Iowa City, so I guess
that the working for the people of Iowa City depends on who the
people of Iowa City that the projects are working for. When the
applications come in and they're going in for affordable housing for
those in need even when it's elderly in need, those projects are not
getting awarded massive amounts of tax relief or being granted
property at much minimalized dollar amounts. And so I would ask
you to respond to that and clarify and express a position that the City
may have. And try to help me understand how that double standard is
not so because I'd like to believe that is not so and that I am just very
ignorant and not able to comprehend this.
Lehman: Thank you. Okay Council. We will entertain discussion by Council.
Pfab: I would move that we amend this document to a sale price of land to
1.5 million dollars.
Lehman: We have a projected amendment. Do we have a second?
Kanner: I'll second it.
Lehman: We have a motion and a second to amend the sale price to 1.5 million
dollars. Discussion?
Pfab: Well, this land was appraised for 1.77 million dollars about a year ago.
Somewhere in that area. It was too valuable to build the new public
library on. We just couldn't do that. But, we did by not building it on
this piece of ground it obligated the City to buy a building downtown
that really is going to hurt the public library because they have to use
it. So, now either this land is worth it or it isn't.
Lehman: Okay. Other discussion of the amendment?
Wilburn: I think it's important to remember that I was glad that we had City
Staff Karin outline where we had come from to this point and as I
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#16 Page 41
pointed out last night I was one who was willing to let the space be
and continue to exist as a parking lot. As I pointed again last night
because of the request for proposals and the constraints that are put on
the property you need to balance that with the asking price. And as I
pointed out last night if you wanted the most money in the City's
pocket as possible then that should have been made the criteria as
opposed to the multiple criteria and restrictions put on the property.
And that in combination with this being negotiation with a developer,
you know, there's two parts to that negotiation and negotiations did
happen with Staff and those are things that you are going to have to
weigh in your decision about.
Pfab: Okay I ...could I address that? Okay what restrictions are on this
building that is going to require the value to disappear?
Lehman: Irvin, I think that's rather clear.
Pfab: No, no...I mean he brought that up and I just...maybe there's
something I just don't understand.
Wilbum: Well, we asked for a multi-purpose project be put on. We asked that
various combination of hotel, grocery, conference space, grocery store,
the apartments, the condos. We received four proposals that reflected
that. All of them request, or all of them but one requested the
maximum possible TIF. I believe that when we first got them, most of
them offered $250,000. Was that my understanding?
Champion: Yes.
O'Donnell: That's exactly right.
Wilbum: And so all of those things are part of those restrictions. Plus the
assessment based on some of those restrictions showed up with a zero
value. And so that's all reflective influence.
Pfab: My response to that is, there are obligations, but there's no
enforcement of those obligations. There's no enforcement that the
grocery store there stays there until the City has recouped its cost.
There's no obligation that it stays as a hotel. There is no obligation
that it stays as a conference center. So those restrictions are mythical.
They're not real. And I think that's what a member of the public just
made.
Kanner: And actually...
Wilburn: Your...go ahead, I've already spoken so go ahead. Your amendment
talks about changing one of the criteria and focusing on one of the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#16 Page 42
criteria - the largest amount of money essentially. And so I responded
to you with why we shouldn't and if you disagree with me then vote
no.
Pfab: That's fine, but
Lehman: Just a minute, lrvin. Steven you had a comment.
Kanner: Well actually when we did get into the...the closest we got to bidding
against each other situation instead of looking out for the welfare of
the wealthy developers we had one of those developers come back and
say I'm committed to giving not only $250,000 for this land, but
another close to $750,000 to help low-income people in this City.
Now that was a great starting point. I think we could have gotten
more. And from the very beginning I said we should have people
bidding against each other, but I think we have too much concern
about the welfare of the wealthy developers in this case. I think
we...the point was made by one of the speakers about not knowing
what the net income is going to be. We could ask the developers to
take less profit, perhaps still make a healthy profit and pay more for
this land to help the low and moderate income people. And I think
that's one way we can do it and still keep in the criteria that we're
asking about. I think it's incumbent that we do those things. That we
ask more of the people who are going to be making a profit from this.
We have to assume that they're going to make a profit.
Wilbum: That second, that second offer what was it three-quarters of a million
dollars?
Karmer: I think roughly that.
Wilburn: Came after we'd indicated the Moen Group. You picked a developer
and said we are going to negotiate with you. And it's two points. It's
real easy when you're the party not being negotiated with to say I'm
going to offer all this money to try to entice you away. But, you've
already made a commitment to do that. Once you end up with a direct
negotiation with someone I don't believe that the agreement that we
have in front of us would differ that much in terms of the financing
had we gone with another group.
Lehman: Are we ready to vote on the amendment?
Champion: Yeah. Let's vote.
Lehman: All those in favor of the amendment which would increase the selling
price to 1.5 million indicate by raising your right hand? Those
opposed same sign? Amendment is defeated 5-2, Kanner and Pfab
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#16 Page 43
voting in the affirmative. Discussion?
Kanner: I'd like...
Vanderhoefi I wouldn't...go ahead.
Karmer: I'd like to also offer an amendment. Just a moment please. That there
be no TIF incremental financing for this project.
Lehman: Is there a second to that amendment?
Pfab: 1'11 second it.
Lehman: We have a motion and a second that we will not provide any TIF
financing. Discussion?
Kanner: ! think again the original purpose that the state offered tax increment
financing was to help blighted areas. I think we can all safely agree
that 64(1)a and the surrounding area is not a blighted ama by any
means. Now certainly the state has expanded that. It doesn't mean
that we have expanded the use of TIF to include a so-called economic
development. It doesn't mean that we have to go along with that. I
think that we can perhaps follow Coralville's lead and if we're going
to give a TIF put in the public infrastructure. They're at least not
putting the TIFs directly into the developer's pockets. I think there are
better ways that we can do it and I think the best thing at this point is
to not offer TIF on this project. I urge you to vote "yes" for no TIFs.
Lehman: Further discussion on the amendment? All in favor of the amendment
not allowing a T1F indicate by raising their right hand. All opposed
same sign. Motion is defeated 5-2, Karmer and Pfab voting in the
affirmation.
Pfab: I would like to make an amendment.
Lehman: Already made one, Irvin.
Pfab: Okay.
Vanderhoef: I would move that liquidated damages of $500,000 be placed on the
convention space if converted over to another use.
O'Donnell: Would you repeat that Dee, I didn't hear.
Vanderhoefi I move that liquidated damages be placed of $500,000 be placed on the
convention conference space.
Lehman: If it is ceases to be used as conference space.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#16 Page 44
Vanderhoef: Yes.
Lehman: Do we have a second to that amendment?
Pfab: I would second that.
Lehman: We have a second to the amendment. Discussion on the amendment?
Van I say this not lightly. There are liquidated damages on two other
components on the project. One being the grocery store component
and one being the hotel component. I personally see the hotel and the
conference space as they could be connected, but if the hotel space
would go away then I feel quite likely the conference space would go
away. However, in the reverse if the hotel space is used as an
executive space kind of activity which they are deluxe single bedroom
suites with kitchens, bathroom, etc. But, if the conference space is not
being utilized that it might be converted. So, I think it's only fair that
we put a liquidated damage on both or on all three components.
Lehman: Further discussion of the amendment.
Wilbum: I'd like to ask Staff a question. Karin, I don't know if you're the
appropriate person, was a concept of some type of damage part of the
negotiation related to the conference convention center part, the
conference center part, did that come up in negotiations?
Franklin: In one of the iterations when we were still talking about years
associated with the various uses, we had the hotel and conference
center for five years and the grocery store for five years.
Vanderhoef: Say that louder please. We're not hearing you.
Lehman: A little louder, Karin.
Franklin: In one of the iterations through the negotiations we had the liquidated
damages relating to the hotel and conference center together and the
grocery store separately. That was when we were talking about years
associated with the liquidated damages.
Wilburn: Was that removed as an offer amongst all the negotiations by Staff or
did the Moen's say that particular one out of that?
Franklin: My recollection is that we realized that there would be difficulties in
always linking the hotel and conference center together I mean some
of the things that Dee points out that you could change the hotel and
still have the conference center. You could change the conference
center and still have the hotel. And so the point that we thought was
importance to Council was the hotel since that's mentioned in the RFP.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#16 Page 45
But, I think that's how we got to where we are right now with just
pulling out or just calling out the hotel and the grocery store.
Lehman: Other discussion on the amendment? All in favor of the amendment
hold up your right hand please. Those opposed the same sign. The
motion is defeated 4-3, Kanner, Vanderhoef and Pfab voting in the
affirmative. Further discussion?
Pfab: I would move that we amend the contract that 2 million dollars be used
an early childhood education center and with 20% of slots be opened
for people with...
Lehman: I think that's an inappropriate amendment. That's not part of the
contract that we - that this - this meeting is relative to the terms that
we gave them. That what we have is the agreement prepared by the
Staff according to our direction which included nothing to do with
childcare centers and whatever. So, I don't believe that amendment is
in order.
Pfab: Well, you may be right but let me just clarify something. In other
words...
Champion: (can't hear) second to it?
Lehman: No, no I don't think it's appropriate.
Pfab: Okay. That the funds - the TIF money go to build an early childhood
education development center some place. If it's not in there then
someplace else.
Lehman: Unless someone - Eleanor unless you choose to rule me I think that is
out of order.
Dilkes: It doesn't sound germane to me.
Lehman: Thank you. Further discussion?
Kanner: Yeah. I'd like to offer an amendment. That 10% of the housing be
affordable for people up to 50% of median income. An amendment to
the agreement.
Lehman: Is that again is that appropriate? According to what the proposal
accepted by us?
Dilkes: I think it's probably germane.
Lehman: Alright we have an amendment to require that 10% of the housing be
affordable - is that the term?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#16 Page 46
Kanner: Yes for people up to 50% of median income.
Lehman: Is there a second to that?
Pfab: I would second that.
Lehman: We have a motion and a second. Discussion?
Kanner: I think if we're not going to get that money out of the land for CBDG
we should ask Mark Moen and his partner who say they're looking out
for the benefit for all of Iowa City to put something back and to the
price 10% of their housing units at affordable rates for people up to
50% of median income. Mark, is that something you'd be willing to
do?
Lehman: Mark, I don't think you need to - if you wish to address that you
certainly can.
Karmer: You don't have to answer, you can just sit there. But, it'd be nice if
you'd answer and speak to the people and speak to the Council.
Lehman: Is there any other discussion on that amendment? All in favor of the
amendment signify by raising their right hand. Those opposed same
sign. Motion is defeated 5-2, Kanner and Pfab voting in the
affirmative. Further discussion?
Pfab: I would move that we build a penalty to losing the grocery store into a
20 year - over a 20 year period and start with a 2 million dollar
penalty with the penalty being reduced 5% every year over 20 years.
So, in other words if the grocery store lasts 20 years, there's no
penalty. If it lasts 10, there's a 1 million dollar penalty that should go
to Iowa City.
Vanderhoef: Are you saying that use this to replace liquidated damages of a half a
million dollars?
Pfab: Right. I say that's too small and it should be prorated over the life and
if it's not there rather than a good faith effort just make it real as their
RFP that we sent out said it should be.
Lehman: Is there a second to that amendment?
Kanner: I'll second that.
Lehman: We have a second. Discussion?
Champion: I find that impossible to support, because I don't see how you can
expect a business to stay in business that's losing money. I mean you
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#16 Page 47
can't...when you put a business anywhere - I'll just use my dress shop
- I can't guarantee anybody that that business is going to be
successful. And so how can you guarantee that the grocery store is
going to be successful. You can't guarantee that.
Kanner: Connie, we're not giving you 6 million dollars in tax abatements for
that. If we did I'd expect you come back with some guarantees and
now...
Champion: My little dress shop is not worth 25 million dollars either.
Kanner: (can't hear) Iowa City. I know a lot of people that (can't hear).
Champion: I mean I wouldn't (can't hear) but it's not.
Pfab: Okay let me ask...direct a question to you, Connie, and that is does
your dress shop make a profit every year since the day you opened the
doors?
Champion: I don't think that's any of your business.
Pfab: Well, okay. Either if it does then that's fine. Then it's not a problem.
If it doesn't then it has to be subsidized from someplace else just like
this grocery store should be if you agree to do it and you take the
City's money.
Kanner: And I venture to guess that you're property owner is going to pay
more takes proportionally in the next 20 years then the Moen project
will for the general fund use.
Lehman: All in favor of the amendment please indicate by raising their right
hand. All opposed same sign. Steven I did not indicate a vote from
you one way or another.
Kanner: I'm in favor of the amendment.
Lehman: The amendment is defeated 5-2, Kanner and Pfab voting in the
affirmative. Further discussion?
Kanner: I'd like to have a schedule 0f penalties over - I move an amendment
schedule a penalties over 20 years of the TIF life for losing the
conference meeting space starting at 1.5 million dollars and going
down in penalty 5 percent every year till it would reach zero at the end
of 20 years.
Lehman: Is there a second?
Pfab: I second that.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#16 Page 48
Lehman: Okay. We had a similar motion as I believe the first amendment. All
in favor of the amendment signify by raising their right hand.
Opposed same sign. The amendment is defeated 5-2, Kanner and Pfab
voting in the affirmative.
Vanderhoef: I would like to propose an amendment that the contract that designated
commercial properties in this proposal that these designated
commercial properties will remain commemial properties over the life
of the bonds.
Lehman: Do we have a second to that?
P fab: I'll second that.
Lehman: We have a motion and a second that the commercial portion of this
project will remain commercial for the life of the bonds which will be
20 years. Discussion?
Vanderhoef: Why I proposed this is that yes there will be some conversions
happening within the building. The mix is one of the important things
that we chose in putting together the request for proposal. To keep
that mix and to keep the tax base that we envisioned, or at least I
envisioned, on the whole property would be a mix of residential tax
rates as well as commercial tax rates and I think this is one way that
we protect our tax base and our taxpayers by keeping this in
commercial in the same percent that what it was originally designed.
Lehman: Dee, you are aware that there is a guarantee by the builder of the
assessed value will not go below a certain amount whether or not it is
commercial or residential?
Vanderhoef: I am aware of that.
Lehman: That the tax base wouldn't change whether it was commercial or
residential.
Vanderhoefi Okay. I am aware of that and in response to that what I would say is
that the commercial property creates a different environment for
downtown and brings more things to the downtown in energy and
different folks whether it be an office building or whatever it might be
- convention space obviously brings in folks from out of town, a
lawyer may bring in people from 60 mile, 100 mile radius, who
knows. So, rather then have this move to a residential nature where
it's a static group of people living in the building, I think it's important
to keep that mix of commercial.
Lehman: Other discussion of the amendment?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#16 Page 49
Kanner: So, by commercial that would mean possibly hotel space, grocery
store, everything but...
Vanderhoefi Everything that is taxed would be taxed when the building is first
occupied as commercial which would be the hotel, the apartments
unless they are condominiumized, the conference space, the ground
floor commercial area. There is a spot in there that was designated
retail up on, I believe, the second floor walkway comes through from
the parking garage. So all those spaces would remain commercial and
taxed at a commercial rate rather than taxed at a residential rate which
we recognize in present day we're talking about 100% on the assessed
value of commercial whereas residential we're talking about - the last
few years we've been between 51 and 54% of the best value.
Lehman: But, that wouldn't apply to this project.
Vanderhoef: The square footage within the building.
Lehman: But, the assessment wouldn't apply. The change in assessment would
not apply because of the agreement that they have with the City and
their agreement is not to change.
Vanderhoef: Oh, that assessment.
Lehman: Yeah.
Vanderhoefi Yes. No, I understand that. But, I still think it's important for
downtown.
Karmer: I have a question for Karin or Eleanor on this. It says that the residents
cannot contest - essentially saying they can't contest in court this
agreement that was reached about the minimum assessment. Is that
recorded on Dee's?
Dilkes: Yes.
Kanner: Thank you.
Lehman: Other discussion on the amendment? All in favor of the amendment
please indicate by raising their right hand. Opposed same sign. The
amendment is defeated 4-3, Vanderhoef, Pfab and Kanner in the
affirmative. Further discussion?
Pfab: I would make a motion that we have a penalty if we lose the hotel
space starting out with liquidating damages of 1 million dollars
reduced at 5% over a 20 year period.
Lehman: Okay. Do we have a second to that amendment?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#16 Page 50
Kanner: I'll second that.
Lehman: We have a motion and a second. It is presently in the agreement at a
halfa million dollars of liquidated damages. All in favor of the
amendment indicate by raising their right hand please. Opposed same
sign. The amendment is defeated 5-2, Kanner and Pfab voting in the
affirmative. Is there further discussion on this?
Kanner: Yeah. I'd like to offer an amendment. If Marc Moen and his partner
and company sell the property/land that he will pay us the assessed
value of the land at the time of the sale in the future minus the cost that
he paid for it today.
Pfab: I would second that. A way of discounting they're getting the price of
the land that should go to low-income people.
Lehman: Is there discussion on the amendment? All in favor of the amendment
signify by raising their fight hand. Those opposed the same sign. The
amendment is defeated 5-2, Kanner and Pfab voting in...I'm sorry Dee
you're voting which way?
Vanderhoef: Against.
Lehman: It was defeated 5-2. Okay folks?
Kanner: My final amendment that Marc Moen and his company pay for the site
survey which my understanding the City is obligated to pay this.
Lehman: Is there a second?
Pfab: I'd second that.
Kanner: Isn't that correct, Karin? Or I read in there that the City is obligated to
pay for the site survey.
Franklin: If you read it in there then it's in there. Site survey is a fairly
minimal...
Dilkes: You're talking about an environmental survey? Or a site survey?
Franklin: I would have to look it up the page that you're referring to.
Kanner: I forgot what page it was on.
Franklin: Either the survey of the site we already have a plat of survey of the
site. We've already engaged environmental assessment whenever you
sell a property you have to do an environmental assessment under
urban renewal law.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#16 Page 51
Kaimer: This was separate from environmental assessment listed in the
agreement as a site survey.
Lehman: We have a motion to amend by asking the developer to pay for the site
survey. Do we have a second? We sure do. Discussion? Those in
favor of the amendment, please signify by raising their right hand.
Opposed same sign. The motion is defeated 5-2, Kanner and Pfab
voting in affirmative. Are we ready to vote?
Wilbum: The only other piece that I would add is that currently the property is
not bringing in any tax money and this plan was to bring in a tax
paying entity and they're...I'll point out the minimum assessments
will bring tax money into the City initially to retire the debt and then
once the period is over there will be tax funds coming into the City so
we go to zero to worth something. There is, although not what some
would hope there is some money coming in for CBDG and it will add
this multi-use mix to the downtown area.
Lehman: Okay I would like for each Council person should if you would like to
take a couple and I would really like us to use no more than three
minutes to each of us who choose to indicate to the public why we are
going to vote in the manner in which we're going to vote. And would
you care to start? I'm sorry go ahead.
Vanderhoef: I have just one question if Kevin O'Malley will help me out please?
My understanding on the financing for the agreement we're borrowing
for the agreement 6 million dollars and because them isn't any tax
payment on that for the first year or two and then it is a minimal
payment, my understanding I got from you was that in essence the
City will have to borrow somewhere in the neighborhood of 7million
to cover the 6 during that time period that we haven't any tax coming
in.
O'Malley: That' s correct.
Vanderhoefi I'm still on track. Okay. Then following one piece further then if this
tree we are setting that minimum assessment value with this proposal
right now. However, we won't be selling the bonds until March of
'04, '05.
O'Malley: That's correct '05. March of '05.
Vanderhoef: March of '05. At which time the interest rates could well be different
then what you used for your figuring of the assessment.
O'Malley: That's correct. There's always a chance of interest rate risk.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#16 Page 52
Vanderhoef: And if this were to happen would the minimum assessment put in
place today cover that 7.1 million or whatever it is if the interest rate
were to go up say 2%?
O'Malley: No. Assuming no other assumptions change, the tax revenue would
not cover a 2% in interest rate. But 2% you mean 200 basis points?
Pfab: Yes.
O'Malley: From like 6 3¼ % to 8 3/4%. That would be roughly 25% increase and
from 6 3¼ to 8 3A and there would not be enough tax revenue to cover
it.
Vanderhoef: Would it cover a 1% increase?
O'Malley: No it would not. We about $45,000 surplus based on our assumptions
over 20 years. It is very thin over 20 years.
Vanderhoef: And that was based on what pement?
O'Malley: 6 3A
Vanderhoef: 6 3A. Okay is there any way in the financial document that we can put
in a float that raises the amount of the minimum assessment so that we
would be covered in the event that interest rate for bonds in March of
'05 would increase by 1 or more percent.
O'Malley: I can't answer that. It's a negotiated item.
Vanderhoef: I understand that it's a negotiated item. But I feel the risk when we
say we're not covered in this and as I understand G.O. TIF bonds they
must be retired in 20 years.
O'Malley: That's correct.
Vanderhoef: So, it isn't like we can extend them another two or three years to pay
offthe bonds.
O'Malley: That's correct. They can only go 20 years.
Vanderhoef: So, in this case the bonds to be retired would have to go onto the City
debt service and the taxpayers would pay for it?
O'Malley: In your assumption or your assumption of interest rate risk going
against us any excess debt service needs would come from the TIF
district first - other properties within that TIF district. And my
assumption at this point in time is that TIF district would be able to
support one or two percent or 100 basis or 200 basis point increase.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#16 Page 53
Vanderhoefi The TIF district?
O'Malley: The total TIF district. Barring an unfortunate occurrence in a TIF - in
the whole TIF district.
Vanderhoefi So, what we're saying is not only in this contract we are plunging this
assessment off of Plaza Towers, we are plunging the taxes off of the
Vogel House and if we have a rise in bond interesting '05 we will be
plunging TIF district monies again to pay off one building?
O'Malley: Under those assumptions, you're correct.
Kanner: And Kevin, in your professional estimation, what is the likelihood of
interest rates going up in the next couple years.
O'Malley: Steven, I cannot answer that. IfI could I would not be working here. I
truly cannot answer that. I've seen interest rates go from 18% down to
12% in one year's time. And I've seen them go up not quite that
dramatically. And I cannot venture a guess on that.
Kauner: So, then let's put it another way. There's always a pretty decent
chance that they would go up and the scenario that Dee describes
could take place very easily.
O'Malley: That' s a plausible assumption.
Kanner: Very plausible sounds like. Very plausible. And I think we need to
offer an amendment to cover this. This puts us in a bad situation.
Vanderhoef: I would offer an amendment that requests Staff to reopen the
negotiation on the minimum assessment to cover an eventuality this
change in interest rate in March of '05 and be triggered at 1%.
Dilkes: Dee, I don't think that's a motion to amend. I think that's technically a
motion to defer and send it back for further negotiation.
Vanderhoef: Okay. I will move to defer and send this back to Staff to consider this '
issue.
Pfab: For (can't hear) fabrication.
Lehman: We need a second before.
Pfab: Okay. I'll second to defer it. Dee is...would it be improper or is it
that the sense of your amendment that if interest rates a proportionate
amount...percentage amount of the total interest rate. Say interest rate
goes up 20% that you would want to see that guarantee assessment to
go up also 20%?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#16 Page 54
Vanderhoef: To float. To work and negotiate with the developer in good faith to
make it fair to the City. My whole point is I do not choose to
encumber all of the TIF district dollars to one building. We may have
other developers who come in who are going to be asking for TIF
dollars and if their all pledged to one project I think there also ought to
be some right to the developer as well as the City and I'm not willing
to take that risk for the City at this point in time.
Pfab: Okay. Let me...maybe I'm not making myself clear and I think that
we're on...that we're both trying to say the same thing and I'm not
sure if what I understand is correct. So, let's say that the interest rate
was 10% as of this discussion. It went up one percent. That would be
a 10% increase; you would want to see the assessed valuation go up
10% also fight? So, whatever the interest rate goes above what this is
calculated at you would want that minimum valuation to go up the
same percentage.
Vanderhoef: I want the minimum assessment of the Vogel building and the Tower
Plaza to continue to pay off the bonds for the Tower Plaza.
Pfab: So, okay. Alright.
Lehman: So, the motion is the defer and instruct Staff to negotiate with the
developers to make whatever adjustrn~ents would be required to
accomplish what Ms. Vanderhoefhas suggested. All those in favor of
deferral raise their right hand please. All those opposed raise their
right hands. The motion is defeated 4-3, Vanderhoef, Kanner, and
Pfab voting in the affirmative. Now can we proceed with...I would
like each of us if you have a statement as to why you will vote the way
you will vote fine. If not I would like to go through the Council and
proceed with a vote.
Pfab: I would like to make a short statement. And I'm going to pass it out so
everyone can follow it.
Lehman: Okay. Irvin is first.
Pfab: This statement is coming out of book out of the public library. It's the
Silent Theft, the Private Plunder of our Common Wealth by David
Bollier. And this is a...it's an English folk poem written about 1764.
So some people will understand it, some won't and that's okay. So
this is the way it goes. (Reads statement)
Lehman: Connie?
Champion: Well, this has been a difficult couple of days. I think it's important
that the Council decided to send out a document asking people to build
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#16 Page 55
what we wanted built on this site. Marc Moen or the other people who
made presentations did not come to us and say we want to buy the
property and build something. That doesn't mean that somebody
wouldn't do that. In fact one of the proposals was willing to pay full
price and develop a project. What I hope we get with this project is a
future vision for Iowa City. This is not just a hotel and a
condominium and a grocery store. This is a vision of what can be in
Iowa City and we're constantly working toward that vision to keep our
town vibrant and viable and why this is costly. But I think the risk is
not that great and I guess I'm being Pollyannic about this but I think
it's important that we maintain a vision of what we want and not what
developers want. This is something we wanted and we had to get a
developer to do it for us. I feel privileged that Marc Moen is the
developer. I'm happy that it's somebody local. I think his record in
town has been pretty good. His properties are beautifully maintained.
They're well taken care of. He's diligent about that thing. I know he's
not buying this as an individual, but he will see that these things
happen. I think we've had ora-of-town developers with major projects
in this City that haven't been quite as good as we'd like to see them.
And I think we have some local, some local control when we have
somebody local doing it. I can't expect him to build this huge
expensive building and keep it the way we wanted it if it's not
economically feasible then we'll be left with whatever. I don't know
what. A big building. So, I'm totally going to support this project. I
do have some objections to it. I object to the amount of TIFing we're
doing. I object to the fact that we can't guarantee that it will hotel
rooms. I don't... But, I'm going to support it. I'm enthusiastic about
it. And I know ideally we could get all this down and say, "This is
what you have to do, this is what you have to do." But, he's basically
doing...he's willing to take the risk to do what we ask. And I'm
willing to give him that risk to do what we ask. And I'm going to
definitely support it.
Lehman: Mike?
O'Donnell: That was very good, Connie.
Champion: I just thought that up. Pretty good.
O'Donnell: I'm also going to support this project. We have a proven developer
with a proven track record. He develops very well in Iowa City.
Increases our tax base. In a perfect world we could get everything we
want. A guarantee on a grocery store so that it would last 20 years.
However, if the grocery store is not financially feasible I think it's
absolutely absurd to require somebody to stand there and go bankrupt.
There's a lot of terminology in the contract and many pages. Good
faith is also used. I have faith in the developers that we've selected
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#16 Page 56
and I'm going to vote for this project. I fully support it. We've had
161 amendments to this project tonight and I think it's time - it's time
to vote on this.
Lehman: Well, I guess I'll take my turn.
O'Donnell: Go ahead.
Lehman: We have a block downtown. The last piece of urban renewal property
that has set vacant for 24 years. For 24 years it has produced not one
dime of tax revenue. It has produced some revenue in the form of
parking for the City. But, for 24 years has produced absolutely
nothing. We have an opportunity for that property to literally pay for
itself. Now, I've heard comments that this is the taxpayer money.
This is no tax on that land today. Not one nickel. There will be no tax
on that ground until somebody develops it. My suspicion is that a
development such as the one being proposed here, one that was
selected by the Council would not occur unless we have the ability to
partner with the developer and offer TIF. And I have...
(End of side 1, tape #02-55. Beginning of side 2, tape #02-55)
I do share some of the concerns that have been voiced here tonight.
On the other hand I don't think there is such a thing as a perfect
agreement. I think this is an agreement that has been worked very,
very hard between the developer, between the City attorneys, our City
Staff people and I'm very proud of that. I think it's covered a lot of
areas. This involves a local developer, a local contractor, a local
architect. These are local jobs. I can't see anyway in the world that
this is not a good thing for Iowa City. And we talk about vision and
Connie I agree with you, but I really feel in this case that the vision
much of it was on the part of our Staffwho helped write the RFP, but a
tremendous amount was with Marc - you and your folks. This
proposal was far grander, I believe, than anybody on this Council ever
dreamed we would get. And I thank you for the proposal and I support
it proudly.
Vanderhoef: I love what you folks have said. I also agree with many of the
speakers who spoke this evening on specific parts of this proposal. I
have three philosophical points that get in my way of supporting the
project. Even though in the late '90's the State legislature allowed for
TIFing of housing projects, they did it in a way that addressed it to
blighted areas and it's been used a lot I understand in small rural cities.
I personally don't philosophically agree with TIFing for residential.
We have done some tax abatements. Even a very beautiful project that
the Moen's have done and has been a great contribution to the
downtown area. And when we did the building we split it apart and
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#16 Page 57
we gave tax abatement on the conunercial part of the property and not
on the apartments. That would have been my wish for this particular
project. I understand both T1F and tax abatements. My personal
preference is tax abatements because like one or two of the speakers
alluded to tonight I feel it is important for a developer to put dollars in
up front and that we abate taxes on the back end. That's just a
philosophical perspective that I have and that's what I have voted for
previously and probably will continue to do. I don't agree as you
heard probably with one amendment with putting City taxpayers at
risk for debt service of bonds for a private project. We are pretty well
assured that that won't happen, but I feel like if we're taking a risk to
sign a contract now the developer could take a risk to say and we'll
partner with the City so that if an eventuality something happens and
the interest rates go up we'll share part of that burden. And I think that
would be appropriate from the developers and I wish that they would
offer that on their own. I won't support the proposal or the contract. I
like the proposal. I won't support the contract. And I wish the Moen's
well and I hope some day that I can say I was wrong about the whole
project.
Wilbum: Since I already had said something the only other piece that I'I1 add is
recently I had heard from several folks who didn't want anything put
on this site. But in further probing questions with them that many of
them had attended the workshops when the presentations were given
and they said they do like the project. And I do agree, I do like this
project. I hope it's successful. And that's why I'll be supporting it.
Lehman: Steven.
Kanner: Significant tax benefits don't come for close to 20 years. For each
year we're going to get about $880,000 in taxes paid out from these
properties over the next 20 years or so. About $720,000 of that will go
to pay the TIF which will go to pay the bonds which we're floating to
pay for this project - 6 million dollars worth in current term. And all
that $720,000 Iowa City will be forgoing close to $290,000 from the
general fund to pay off this bond to our TIF. Now the $290,000 could
pay for a lot. Operationally it could pay for free shuttle service for
three new routes. Or it could pay for five additional (can't hear) routes
on our transit system per year. It could pay for one-half of the
$450,000 that's needed to staff our new fire station that we say we
don't have the money for in the near future. It could pay for five new
police officers. We could do a lot with that money that other property
owners have to pay. And it's a shame that we won't be getting that.
Now, I'm no expert on these issues, Emie, you're right it is a complex
situation. But, I have studied it. This specific one and in the past.
And in my studies in my heart I know that it's not good. This is not
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#16 Page 58
the way that we should be spending taxpayer money. It does not meet
our...we haven't even to my knowledge done a study on the financial
guidelines using the financial guidelines that we have whenever we
give out money of this sort. The type of jobs that are created. My
understanding is they won't be high paying jobs. We don't even
know. And I think that's a major fault of this negotiated settlement.
Our job is not to comfort the comfortable, but to look out for the
benefits of all of Iowa City. Mike, I think some of the Moen proposal
is good. I think we offered some amendments here that changed some
of the things that were most harmful. But, the majority didn't vote for
those. So, I question who is the rigid person and who are the rigid
people on this and having their minds set and not being able to change
and vote for any of the amendments. The Staff followed the majority
lead I would say shame on the majority of City Council for giving
away this taxpayer money. Shame on Marc Moen for taking the
money away from the citizens of Iowa City. You say you care about
the citizens of Iowa City. Well, I think if you truly did you'd be
concerned more than your bottom line of profit.
Lehman: Steven that really is an inappropriate statement.
Kanner: I think it's inappropriate what's being done here.
Lehman: That's fine to use the word inappropriate, but attacking a private
citizen is inappropriate for a Council person.
Kanner: And I think that the essence of this agreement, Ernie, is between a
private citizen and his partnership and the City.
Lehman: Just say it's inappropriate in your opinion. That's fine.
Kanner: That's fine. And I think we've done this too much. Putting the money
into the rich developer's pockets and not enough into the citizens of
Iowa City. And it's time for people like yourself, Marc, and others to
step forward and say enough is enough. We're not going to do this
anymore.
Champion: Enough is enough. I call the question.
O'Donnell: I second it.
Karmer: And so I'd like to finish off.
Dilkes: It's not debatable.
Lehman: It's not debatable.
Kanner: Well, no according to the by-laws you can't interrupt the speaker.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#16 Page 59
Champion: You quit.
Lehman: You quit.
Champion: You quit.
Dilkes: That's a judgment that needs to be made by the Chair. You're correct
that...let me finish - that motion you cannot interrupt the speaker.
But, remember we don't do things as formally as often as envisioned
by the Roberts rules. For instance we don't recognize a speaker. We
don't have certain time limits. So, that judgment call has to be made
by the Chair as to whether the speaker was interrupted.
Lehman: Well the question has been called. That is not debatable. All those in
favor of calling the question, raise their right hand. I see, one, two,
three, four, five, six. All opposed. Irvin, are you voting?
Pfab: I'm opposed to calling the question.
Lehman: You're voting no then. The motion to call the question passes 6-1.
Irvin voting the negative. All those in favor. Now roll call on the
original motion. Motion carries (4-3, Vanderhoef, Kanner, and Pfab
voting the negative).
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of Junc 11, 2002
#18 Page 60
ITEM NO. 18 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST A LICENSE
AGREEMENT FOR THE TEMPORARY USE OF PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
HELEN AND WILLIAM BYINGTON, AND LITTLE DONKEYS
INC., d/b/a PANCHERO'S MEXICAN GRILL, FOR A
SIDEWALK CAFI~.
Lehman: (Reads item)
Pfab: Move the resolution.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Pfab, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion?
Champion: I just want a just a little, little comment as I'm happy to see a few more
caf6s downtown - asking for permission for a sidewalk caf6. When I
was in Chicago for market last weekend the kind of new revived
theater district which is a big now the big entertainment district in
Chicago and I think our downtown area is the big entertainment center.
The sidewalk caf~ - every restaurant has a sidewalk caf~ and every
restaurant has - I'm hoping we'll get the same thing - flowers along
the sidewalk caf~ hanging on the fencing. And it's just very attractive
and people sitting there eating dinner and having a glass of wine even
after 10:00.
Lehman: I knew that was coming.
Champion: I think that the resolution to allow sidewalk cafes to serve wine as long
as the kitchen is open to midnight will also enhance this and add
another layer to Iowa City that will make it even more attractive for
our citizens and our visitors. So, that's all I wanted to say.
Lehman: Okay. Roll call. I'm sorry.
Kanner: This is - is this a renewal?
Champion: They've had...
Kart: They had one years ago and had discontinued it. So this is a new one.
Kanner: Okay. A couple years ago I think they had one.
Lehman: Okay. Roll call. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#19 Page 61
ITEM NO. 19 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY
CLERK TO ATTEST A CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
THE NORTHSIDE MARKETPLACE STREETSCAPE
PROJECT.
Lehman: (Reads item) Estimated cost was $439,250. The bid came in at
$320,997.81. And the recommendation is that it be let to All
American Concrete of West Liberty, Iowa. Do we have a motion?
Pfab: Move.
Champion: Second.
Lehman: From Mr. Pfab, seconded by Ms. Champion. Discussion?
Vanderhoefi As I mentioned last night that I hope that we will still take a look at
having the pull off place for the bus and I think engineering can work
that one out for us if there's interest on the Council.
Lehman: Okay. Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries 6-1. Vanderhoef
voting the negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#20 Page 62
ITEM NO. 20 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY
CLERK TO ATTEST A CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
THE SOUTH SYCAMORE REGIONAL GREENSPACE
LANDSCAPE AND TRAIL PROJECT.
Lehman: (Reads item) Estimated cost was $752,000. The recommendation
from public works is awarding the contract to the L.L. Pelling
Company of North Liberty for $495,278.01. Do we have a ...?
O'Donneli: So moved.
Pfab: Second.
Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Pfab. Discussion?
O'Donnell: We had really good bids on both of these last projects.
Champion: We sure did.
Lehman: Outstanding.
Vanderhoef: $495 what?
Lehman: $495,278
Pfab: A point of(can't hear) good bids have something to do with great
engineering work.
Vanderhoef: Or poor estimate.
Lehman: We could ask our great engineer, but he's too modest. Alright. Roll
call. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#22 Page 63.
ITEM NO. 22 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY
CLERK TO ATTEST A CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
THE HIGHWAY 1 AND SUNSET STREET INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT.
Lehman: (Reads item) Estimated cost is $50,000. 55% with road use tax,
pardon me, with IDOT funds, 45% with road use tax. The
recommendation from public works is to The Streb Construction
Company for $48,543.90.
Champion: Move the resolution.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion?
Pfab: I have a question. Is this going to be supervised in house?
Dan Scott: We do have in-house staff available for that inspection.
Lehman: That's a pretty small project.
Pfab: (can't hear) when you thinking of hiring outside help I was sort of glad
to get past that. Good work.
Lehman: Roll call.
Pfab: (can't hear)
Lehman: I know it was such a huge project; I wandered who was going to be the
supervisor too. Roll call. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#23 Page 64
ITEM NO. 23 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING, AUTHORIZING
AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AND THE
CITY CLERK TO ATTEST AN AGREEMENT BY AND
BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND AERIAL
SERVICES INC. OF CEDAR FALLS, IOWA, TO PROVIDE
CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR PROCESSING OF AERIAL
PHOTOGRAPHY TO PRODUCE DIGITAL MAPPING.
Lehman: (Reads item)
Champion: Can you explain to me what this...?
Lehman: Rick can.
Karr: Can we have a motion first.
Lehman: Do we have a motion?
Champion: Moved.
Pfab: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Pfab. Rick...
Champion: I meant to ask this last night, Rick and I forgot.
Lehman: These are awfully expensive pictures.
Champion: Yeah.
Rick Fosse: Yes.
Champion: Are they pictures? I mean are these actually put to use or are they just
pictures?
Fosse: The pictures have been taken.
Champion: Oh. Okay.
Fosse: We took the pictures in April of'01. What this contract will do is it
will digitally...
Champion: Feed them. Feed them into the computer?
Fosse: That will be part of it. It will be ortho-corrected and then we'll get
features on top of that - the streets, the buildings, the sidewalks, the
utilities that they can pick out. And two foot contours over the entire
City and that's a component that we really need to get in compliance
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#23 Page 65
with Phase II of the EPA regulations for storm water.
Pfab: One question. Ortho-corrected? What do you mean by that?
Fosse: When you take a picture straight down from above - and these were
taken 2,400 feet above the ground - the area around the perimeter of
the picture is distorted.
Pfab: Okay.
Fosse: Compared to the middle. So you trim down to the middle all of these
pictures overlap and it's that overlapping that allows them to get the
stereo image to create the contours and it's all a part of that process.
Pfab: Okay.
Champion: Will we have GIS capabilities when this project is done?
Fosse: No, we will not.
Champion: I knew it. I knew, I knew it.
Vanderhoef: There's more money involved.
Champion: 13, 14, 17 years they've been doing this. When is that ever going to
happen?
Fosse: When we can afford it. But, what we're doing now is we're putting
things in place for an easier transition into GIS. That is that what
we're doing now we want to be compatible with that evolution.
Pfab: This brings up a good question. Is this every going to be feasible
when we go to assessing for storm water assessment, I guess it is, that
you can use it on a square foot or a size basis rather than just a unit?
Fosse: That will be one of the early uses that we'll look at especially for
commercial properties. You're talking about storm water utilities, is
that correct?
Pfab: Right.
Fosse: Yes. That will be one of the tools that we can use this for.
Pfab: So, is that going to allow us to equitably distribute those costs to the
size of the people who are creating the problem let's say that way.
Fosse: It will to the extent that we want to pursue that and what we've got to
strike the balance between is how much effort we put into delineating
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#23 Page 66
each, the runoff from each site versus what we're going to get in pay
back on it and strike some balance there. So, that we're not spending
more time doing the calculations and we're...
Pfab: Well, do it...with this type of photographing enhancement - photo
enhancement or whatever it is digitally - is that going to make it
easier?
Fosse: Oh, yes.
Pfab: Okay. That's all.
Kanner: Are these public records? Will these be public records?
Fosse: Yes.
Kanner: And will people be able to get to them via the web?
Fosse: Part of this contract is not putting it out on the web. We have no plans
to do that initially.
Kanner: So people would have to come in and get a hard copy engineering
office if they wanted to get a copy of this?
Fosse: Yes and that's true with any of the maps that we have now.
Atkins: But, I think that we've made it a goal to do what you're suggesting.
Fosse: Right.
Atkins: That eventually we want to get that on the web because of the very
reasons that you said.
Pfab: But you said it takes more money right?
Fosse: Oh, yeah.
Pfab: Okay. I just wanted to check.
Atkins: The goal is to do that. I want you to know that that's where we're
going with the thing.
Fosse: I wanted to point something out. Janet Lower is one of our new
engineers - or is our new engineer.
O'Donnell: Hi, Janet.
Fosse: And she's been working on this project and I made clear to her that we
wanted to be very careful on the specs on this because the last large-
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#23 Page 67
scale mapping project we did was before she was bom. So that gives
you some idea how often we do this. How seriously we want to
approach it.
Champion: Do you think it's possible that we'll really have this all this GIS
capability and functionability in my life if I live to be the normal
lifespan of a woman?
Pfab: We don't know how old you are so that.
Champion: What's the normal lifespan of a woman?
Lehman: You tell us.
Champion: I don't know. Let's say in 10 years.
Fosse: It all depends on our budget. Right now the obstacle that's between us
and full blown GIS is partially the start up cost, but more importantly
is the staff to maintain it after it's up and running and how we're going
to keep it current so that we maintain our value.
Champion: Okay. Thank you. Wasn't giving you a bad time.
Fosse: I understand.
Lehman: Okay.
O'Donnell: Thank you.
Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#24 Page 68
ITEM NO. 24 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE NORTH DODGE STREET
PROJECT STP-1-5(69)--2C-52.
Lehman: (Reads item)
Vanderhoef: Move the resolution.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion?
Kanner: I think this is ill advised. We have studies that show we're not going
to have the traffic once 1st or Scott Boulevard opens up on this neck of
the woods for the next 20 years and there's really no need to go to the
extensive renovations there. We could do some spot improvements
with some lights at a few spots at considerably less government cost.
So, I don't think this is necessary.
Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries 6-1. Karmer voting in the
negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#28 Page 69
ITEM NO. 28 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION
Lehman: Council information? Irvin?
Pfab: Nothing more.
Lehman: Connie?
Champion: Nothing.
Lehman: Michael?
O'Donnell: Nothing.
Lehman: Dee?
Vanderhoefi Just one thing for Council not next week, but the following week I will
be going to the Iowa League of Cities Legislative Policy Committee
meeting and I would hope that if any of you have ideas that you would
like to have considered for legislative issues for the State League to let
me know. I'll be happy to take it. Right now I have two or three on
my own list.
Champion: Can you give us those, Dee that you have?
Vanderhoef: Okay. The one that - these have already been turned into our State
lobbyist. To look at impact fees that were declared unconstitutional
for taking of lands for parks and our neighborhood open space plan
apparently is in compliance and so were offering that as a possibility.
Once again I think it's time to approach the apartment conversion to
condos that changes them from commercial to residential tax base.
And I also want to look at what we were just alerted to about changing
the tax base for the housing for low-income that we have four projects
that may well have their taxes changed. So, those three are on my list
right now.
Champion: Good.
O'Donnell: Very good.
Lehman: Okay. Ross?
Wilbum: Just congratulations to the Arts Festival folks. It was a good weekend
and just a different note unfortunately there were a couple of people
who collapsed from heat exhaustion, but I was amazed that the ability
of the firefighters to drive through all of those, you know, they got
there and responded.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#28 Page 70
Vanderhoef: One little boy was so happy to see that tim truck right in the middle he
just was ready to climb right in.
Wilbum: It takes a lot of skill.
Vanderhoef: It does. It was tough.
Atkins: (can't hear) That was the new unit we pumhased just two years ago
that's equipped with all the latest. That was one of our big upgrades to
the fire department.
Vanderhoef: I will say Lieutenant Governor Sally Peterson was here and I had the
opportunity to escort her around for a couple of hours and she was
properly thanked by our Iowa City folks for the cultural grant that was
awarded to the City of Iowa City by that State cultural group. And she
was pleased and she enjoyed our global village which our library folks
and their volunteers did a marvelous job and the children were having
a lot of fun and learning at the same time. So, it was a good event.
Kanner: A few things. The first one is an annotmcement invitation to the
Council and to the public, viewing public; the Iowa Chamber Players
along with a number of other co-sponsoring groups are presenting an
event called "Coming Together for Peace in the Middle East." This is
an evening of chamber music, readings, and reflection taking place
tomorrow, Wednesday June 12 at 7:00 p.m. at our Iowa City library
meeting room A. That "Coming Together for Peace in the Middle
East." And so I hope folks can make that. And that's free and open to
the public. Also I'd like to make note that every month we get a report
on how many people are making use of our utility discount. And this
year it's going up to a record number which I believe is more than the
population growth both in ten,as of number of people and dollar
amounts and I think that we need to make note of that and keep that on
our agenda in many different ways.
Vanderhoef: I would respond just one thing. We did make some changes with our
funding for human services so that may be accounting for some of the
changes in the number of accounts.
Lehman: That's after the fiscal year starts though, I think though isn't it?
Vanderhoefi You're right. So, it isn't.
Atkins: It shouldn't affect this one.
Vanderhoef: It won't affect it until after Julyl.
Atkins: After July 1.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#28 Page 71
Vanderhoef: Sorry about that. So we'll see some more.
Kanner: And I read in the newspaper like many of us that the City...Iowa City
School District is thinking of moving the alternative high school into
Coralville for a joint project with Coralville. And it looks pretty
exciting and I do have some concern about losing the alternative
school. I think it's a positive force in our City in the downtown. And
the Council agree that we should put it on the agenda for the joint
meeting that we're going to be having a week from Wednesday and
hopefully we can talk about that and look at the total situation and see
how Iowa City can be part of that conversation for the school - the
alternative high school.
Pfab: I'll offer one comment on that and that is we say we are...someone
made the statement that in Coralville it was closer to the center of the
school district, but 1 don't think it is.
Lehman: Well, we'll have that discussion next Wednesday.
Pfab: It's real close. (can't hear).
Kanner: We also go a note in information packet number 15 in the info packet
about from Andy Mathews regarding the alcohol ordinance
enforcement. And I think there was a questions whether or not we
might want to enact civil penalties under our current ordinance against
that. So I'd like Council to perhaps look at that. Whether we want to
have civil penalties against some of these bars that were caught selling
drinks to minors.
Lehman: We have civil penalties.
Dilkes: I think what we're currently doing is when there is a criminal charge
which...for which a civil penalty either a suspension, fine, etc. can
attach we forward those and keep to the alcoholic beverages division
for follow up. If you...the recent suspension that Vitos was...is
suppose to serve absent an appeal was a result of our forwarding of
criminal charges that occurred here. So, there's...I've had no question
that it's been Council's direction that we are to seek administrative
penalties through the State after the criminal charge. They prefer to
see that there be disposition of the criminal charge because upon
conviction the penalties for sales to under age persons are automatic.
But, they don't have to do it.
Pfab: So, Eleanor does that mean that we will not be pursuing civil
penalties?
Dilkes: No, we are pursuing civil penalties by sending them to the State
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#28 Page 72
Alcoholic Beverages division asking that they pursue civil penalties or
administrative sanctions.
Pfab: Okay.
Dilkes: That's how we're doing it. That's what we understand to be Council's
direction to us to notify the State of the criminal charges.., well, to
engage, for the police to engage in the enforcement effort, to notify the
State of the criminal charges, and to ask that they pursue
administrative sanctions.
Kanner: Another item is we had a letter from James Thomas in regarding to
sidewalks also we had discussed a number of months ago about
putting a sidewalk in front of his property along with along the
adjacent property. And he said that he had not been contacted and as a
Council we had agreed that he would be contacted and I was
wondering if anyone had gone to talk to him. Emie or Steve we had -
this was about 6 months ago I recall at least - that someone was
suppose to talk to him. Ernie?
Lehman: I have not.
Atkins: I have four instances where Mr. Thomas has been contacted. Folks I
really prefer not debating this tonight.
Kanner: Emie, you said that you would talk to him a number of times and that
was the understanding that we would talk and see if an agreement
could be reached through negotiation perhaps of the Mayor
representing the Council and having personal contact.
Lehman: I will visit and I will see to it that something happens between now and
the next meeting.
Kanner: Thank you.
Lehman: Okay?
Kanner: And the final thing is that at our previous work session...at our
previous formal session we voted on an agreement with Southgate in
regards to a memo of understanding for Camp Cardinal Road and
perhaps it was my fault, but I assume that when we pass the
amendment that there was no clear time of when the project would
start in the memo of understanding, but from reading press information
and hearing other people talk there's still an assumption the
understanding is we'll start in 2003.
O'Donnell: I understood all that was to be negotiated between Iowa City and
Coralville and Southgate and Iowa City in particular with Coralville
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#28 Page 73
with the 28E agreement.
Kanner: So, there's no definite date for the starting time? It could start in 2005.
It could start in 2003. It could start later.
O'Donnell: That was my understanding.
Vanderhoef: It hasn't been funded for one thing.
Atkins: Yeah we met with the with Coralville and Southgate maybe two weeks
ago, asked a number of questions, sent them back. They have some
information to provide us. Ultimately you do have to approve a 28E
agreement. It's just simply not ready to come to you.
Karmer: So even though people might hear that 2003 is definite for start of
construction there's nothing...
Atkins: There's nothing planned right now, correct Steve. There's nothing
we've agreed to right now.
Kanner: Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
Lehman: Okay. Two things. On Friday night at 7:00 downtown on the ped mall
there will the first pause for the Pledge of Allegiance with the Old
Capital Chorus where they'll be a couple three songs along in
conjunctionth, with the Friday night concert. And th~s' ~s' obviously the
14 ~s Flag Day and across the nation there are going to be
celebrations with pauses for Pledge of Allegiance. I will be there in
attendance. I certainly would encourage anyone who finds it if they're
available to come down. I think it's going to be a really - very short -
but I think a good program.
O'Donnell: When is it, Ernie?
Lehman: Friday night 7:00.
O'Donncll: This Friday night?
Lehman: That's right. Ped mall. The other thing that occurs to me and I always
think about things I should say after the meetings, but I would like
very much the concurrence of the Council to draft a letter to Mary Sue
Coleman expressing at least my appreciation for the manner at which
she has worked with us over the years she's been her. I personally
have found her a delightful person to work with. I think she's been a
real asset for not only the community, but for the City of Iowa City
and with your permission I would ask that we draft a letter on the
City's letterhead expressing that to her.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#28 Page 74
Vanderhoef: Please do.
Champion: Temfic.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002
#29c Page 75
ITEM NO 29c REPORT ON ITEMS FROM CITY STAFF
CITY MANAGER
Lehman: Okay, Steven?
Atkins: One item. Tomorrow morning you'll likely (can't hear) as well as the
things you did tonight. We have a new company in town. I know
you've heard a little bit about it. It's called Alpla (A-L-P-L-A) is an
Austrian company bottle manufacturer out on Heinz Road and will be
supplying Procter and Gamble's. Something we've been working on
for awhile and they've taken out their building permit so it's for real.
Lehman: Good.
Champion: (can't hear) last year.
Atkins: What's that?
Champion: They were here last year or?
Lehman: No, this is a new one.
Vanderhoef: No, this is new.
Atkins: No, this another one. Owens Illinois is up and built. Now it's Alpla -
I gather how to pronounce it and Austrian company. So, that's a new
business for us.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of June 11, 2002