Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-01-12 Agenda r I I , --. .;1 p~ ::? &<<Mot (~ ~ AGENDA IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING. JANUARY 12, 1993 5:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS ITEM NO.1. CALL TO ORDER. /fw.6~ ' r ' ROLL CALL., " . ' fb,td 51, , [\1(.( U. tiue 6'et>S'IVY\ cp€ltd'!19 II~i'l. ~'Olt /IJ t ., CONSIDER A RESOLUTION DIRECTING SALE /Ilc.f) $38,000,000 SEWER REVENUE BONDS. ~., Comment: This resolution ratifies and confirms the actions of the S;31 , Finance Director in the determination of the most favorable bid /?o.Ir 'n which was received on January 12, 1993 at 12:00 noon. These "'<- bonds are being issued to finance the advanced refunding of the . ~ 1986 Sewer Revenue Bonds. 7T~:i3 Action: ~ 1/' .1-e 6v-u.hP-:r. f~ CONSIDER A ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 34, ENTITLED .VEGETATION,. OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF lOW A CITY, lOW A, BY ADDING A NEW ARTICLE IV, DIVISION I ENTITLED . .COMMERCIAL PESTICIDE APPLICATION;. WHICH ARTICLE SHALL PROVIDE FOR REGULATING COMMERCIAL APPLICATION OF PESTICIDES AND PROVIDE FOR THE ENFORCEMENT THEREOF. (first consideration) . ITEM NO.2. ITEM NO.3. 93-"-/ ITEM NO.4. Comment: Based on discussion with City Council on October 12, 1992, the commercial pesticide application ordinance has been redrafted to include only four issues: a larger, bolder and brighter sign; of a size at least 8 1/2 X 11 inches; which must be placed on the property to be treated by the commercial applicator prior to treatment; and including a logo, warning against entry onto the property . Action: ~ / ~~ J('7o--, ADJOURNMENT. n4~~ . MlD ftr.t.6 ~ ~) m.cD ~ : 43 p. rn . OQQ.~ '" 112 page 1 Courtney/ Moved by Ambr, seconded by Borow. Discussion. Yucuis! You all know Dave Dl1rks, Senior \I-P Ji'om Evenson Dodge. Dave wanted to make a little presentation to you. Dave Di~rks! Mayor and members of the council, you will recall approximately a year ago we set in motion thIs process and due to changing market conditions we left in place the ability to go ahead with this refunding when the market would improve. We canceled or derailed, so to speak, the proceedings at that time. In fact. in the little pamphlet we put together for you giving you the results of today's sale. If you go to the first red page, you will see last January 23 of '92 when last we talked about this as being a possible candidate for refunding we were looking at savings from the refinancing at the amount of $2.1 million. The sale that was conducted today brought in sa\~ngs of $3.008 million dollars. I wanted to emphasize that at the time that we suggested we cancel the proceedings at that time you have been very well rewarded for that. And that was very important because the market had dipped and it went away and the other impact that selling last year would have done is the other obligations that you incurred last year would have taken you over the magic $10 million per year. A number which would have created a higher interest rate in all of your other issues last yem'. So you had even more savings that would be realized because of this. That is part of histOlY. We did take bids at noon today. We received four bids. The low bid was that of Lehman Bros. of New York. It's contained in your material there. But we would recommend award to them. Their net interest rate was ().071 18%. The final issue size because of the nature of tl1ese f1nancings, you've really structure the final. Courtney I You gave the wrong answer. 6.04. DI~rksl Oh, I'm sorry. I'm looking at the. 6.04374% which is the. The final issue size is $37,300,000. Courtney! Do you want to want to explain net interest cost. twenty- eight million. I mean, what goes into that figure? Di~rksl The net interest cost is the amount of money is the amount of money that will be paid over the life of the new issue going out from now to 2012 would also in this calculation Include the underwriter's discount. Kubby! That's an incredible amount of money. Di~rks/lt certainly is. Courtney/ The miracle of compounding. --_._----_._.~_.._- ....-.....-- ~ ..............._...~...-~.:alK__ ..----"~~'t!l'Ml'III~1 fl"~ :", ,~~. i.:;" .;,:.h" ~ '.; ,.' '. . j' .., \.' ,,: :":'_,' ~ .,;..... .r,!.': ' . "', ." ,,~. . ~:'>f'~I;'<;>i:S";":'rfi::!"/'.r0!;' ",'" t.:',. ".' :~ ',\;.~. ", ~.:\, ....." .'.r ,"~, 1r: :'..., .' '.J~;,\u ., ~";,,;.;:~"""" - '.,:'t:':,.. ",\' ,~"'.. ..' ~:"'" :.;' . ,-- ".,<\~;;h{~~;~.:,~,::!,+/:',_\; ", .,,/,"~ .,' '. .. ",'. " ' .' .:'.!'.':'.,:.:/,-';::':.',:':; ..~, ::;',: ,,:~,,::,'.;:'.. : ./i.:".; ,J,'.' .'. _ >- .",' ,. :'! : " .'J, ,;:'.i:. :.,.-'.... '" #2 page 2 That's why we tIy to I1nance most things on a ten year basis. We can't do it on this one. Kubby / Why? Courtney! Because we pay less in total interest. Why we can't on this one, because two locU1s were longer than that. Di~rks! These are revenue bonds and the incremental increase in your sewer user fees would've been astronomical to finance these over a ten year basis. Larson! There's some equity in that. People who use these things over a period of years ago, rather than this generation paying for stuff others would use and their not paying for it. Stretching the payments over time does make some equity. Di~rks! That's correct. Courtney! Any other discussion? Rollcall. resolution adopted. '.';"~"~"-"'_'.""'-or...~-'-- ~--"---1"'---'-1IU~1I~-'I-11\\J L ~-...m"'IIIW1ill_lli. ,I . '1 I ;'1 I I I .1 't. :.-\,.':"," :.'", ~ \,;:.!,.:, .; ,:' ' . ." ' ,~,',";'" '; .., ,:"., n;.(;:'M~\":;"':11 II" ,< 1'\l-<!I',":(I,<,j, rr,.. ' , , J1\~~! ~,l< " , ~ ' ~~~I'}hf~,r~,f,~,!/, 1\>;1", ' : , 1 l.t\: Il'/\ ~\'I , " '"' I ',', .~. ;; , ~ " Jlt '~~:{ (:., \l/~ \ 'I,.:,!: ".~...--'."._'"'' "' - - - - 'i' - . it3 page] Courtney/Moved by Kubby, seconded by Larson. Discussion. Kubby Il'd like to enter three amendments to tlle ordinance. And the first one is on page three. and section, all of them are in section A. And the basis for these three dil'ferent amendments are to help tills, make this ordinance fulfill its purpose which is to make sure people see the signs. And for that it seems that we need consistency and the way the ordinance is currently drafted, however many companies you have in town you could have that many number 01' difl'erent signs. So the first amendment is to change "brightly colored background" to a "bright yellow background with black letters." And I picked these colors I'rom many studies that have been done and these colors have been endorsed by the Alliance for Environmental Concerns that they are veIY visible kinds of signs like warning signs you see on the street, deer signs, other kinds 01' warning signs. The second one is having these cautionary statements and it says here 1'01' example. What tllis does is it causes the possibility of two different signs, one with the state language and one with whatever sentence X number of companies come up with. So it makes sense to have the state language in the ordinance so that the companies have one sign. People see one statement culdthey understand what it means and that statemen tis, "Keep off this property has been chemically treated with pesticides." I think that is all of it. Gentry lIt's in- Kubby I It says do not remove signs for 24 hours. So it has to say, "Keep off. Chemicaily treated" and "Do not remove sign for 24 hours." Gentry lIt's attached to my memo. Larson/The next page of the memo. Gentry/The ncxt pagc, Karen. Kubby I Yeah. Okay. Andlhen the third, it says, "Such signs shall include a logo." I think wc need to specil'y the logo as in the state law, ~vhich looks like this. It's a generiC adult, a generic child, witll a generic dog on a generic lawn with a slash through it. And tllis is about what the sign would look like. I mean if different companies can lay it out c1ilTerent ways but this is the consistent information that would be on the sign. Larson/ Linda. of those three, I gather the last two of Karen's suggestions are consistent with your memo of today. ,....-"..--..-....................,/,.. - ... ~ .. - --. .. '1 , , ,," ....:..;..,...... i'~,''':'-''~ ".0.2j'- ',-". ":--:"\--:;}j0:~. :::"'~:'-::,::'::' ~.-~'~-:'. ::,:',')".. .:.T~<:,;. ~.. . ...., j "".J : ,,' ;, ". ':. ,..,.. . :,'" ',' ','; .','., )":, ':^i:':~-":, ,', '~':, ' .'::';. ,: "/," '{.::1hzl,; ;,:( :..,..}~{~,(;/~~,;,;.' .>:, , ,,);. \,~":-', ~;":'."~'::'_"'-" . ~,;I.. t." ,. . ;';"," ~. :.\ ,. :.:,}/;: ",,'. :,):'. " I , .., .~, . ",-f} 't','_:',_.;.,;., .~ ',~": :': '.. ... -.: .," . ::,\:'~:'t;\!!,:: ;~ "-', ::,,"':':';\A',:>:-.. '" #3 page 2 Gentry! Yes. Larson What was the-her first snggestion that they be black on yellow. You just haven't specified in the ordinance tlV2 colors. But that would also keep us-that wouldn't be contradictory in any way to state law, would it. Gentlyl No. Larson! So. I gather the thrust 01' your memo was that some of the same concerns but lets have the signs not be dilTerent so that they have to have two signs for Iowa City properties and- Gentry I My memo came after a long conversation with the state person, Mr. Eckerman, from the Ag. ~partment and he thought my idea was novel to just have one sign and certainly would save the companies a lot uf money. And I don't see any language tl1at we have talked about over the last year and a half that would be an improvement on what the state has already done and there is no use reinventing the wheel. So if we use their logo and their sign it will do what you are trying to do and not create addiHonal expense for tllem other than the larger sign. Larsonl So, to incorporate Karen's suggestion on your ordinance we need to say black and yellow on the sign. Black lettering on yellow background and then we would have to say that the logo shall be the state approved logo and then have an example with our ordinance. Is that what you have in mind. Gentry/There is notlling in the ordinance as it is written now that has to be changed. Larsonl What I am saying is that if we follow Karen's suggestion which would be to say in the ordinance that not only should you have warning language but it be this specific language. Do we need to change some lettering on your ordinance. Gentry I Yeah. II' you want to tighten it down to require that, yes. Kubby I I want it to be really specific that every sign that is up in Iowa City is consistent. Because part of our purpose is to have people recognize the sign and be able.first of all to see it and second of all to know what it says on there. If every sign is dilTerent in town, different lay people, diflerent colors. how are people going to know what it is. Consistency is vital to our purpose. Larson! My understanding is that the logo and the language or the state law are set. So all we wouid have to do in our ordinance is say that ours should be black on yellow and should use the '1 i , I '-. 113 page] logo and warning words set out in the state law. So we could just change the language that way and that would keep the ordinance still simple and keep the signs consistent. Gentry I Yes. If you want to do that I can- Larson! I seconded the original motion but- Novl Do we want to eliminate the date requirement which is in our ordinance and not in the state ordinance. Gentryl The date requirement is not in our ordinance. My language says for example, quote. It is not mandatory. The way it is drafted now that date is not mandatory. Novl Do we want that mandatory. GentlY I That is up to you to decide if you want the date in there. Kubby I I am not concerned about that. Unless-if this were a pre- notification sign I would really want the date on it but because it is not I am not interested. It is not a big deal. Gentry I Doug may have some thoughts on that. Boothroy / I agree with the uniform signage. One of my concerns because If this were going to be enforced in a reasonable manner we have to have some way for the inspectors to understand what kind of signage is suppose to be posted on the property. I think that-my real concern about this document is the difficulty we are going to have enforcing it because we are going to be dealing with trying to find facts about when it was sprayed and we are going to have to rely almost entirely upon the neighbors to testily and we wiII probably have to go through some kind of process where we even get documents from the chemical applicators tllrough a discovelY method so we can find out when in fact they were actually out there. This is information that none of us have at the city on hand. This takes time and this takes a lot of effort. And the more complicated this gets for us to enforce the more difficult it is for us to enforce, the more likelihood that there is goIng to be more frustration. There may be fl11stration on the pm1 of the citizens who feel that we are always saying our hands are tied or we are having failure in court. There may be frustration on the part of council because it is not getting enforced according to your level of expectation and it may be frustrating on the part of the inspector because they feel that they are not gelling the job done. I'm not sure what your level of expectation on the enforceability of this document. But I can tell you that they way it is drafted right now your level should be very low. I , , , '-. 113 page 4 Larson/ I am not too worried about that because sometimes you have to have a law that you know that you are not going to go out and catch every single person who \~olates it but you are trying to set a standard for people to follow. I think that most people are law abiding. The point that I wanted to make is that if you have the date on it then all you have to have when the complaint comes in is that complaining person take a picture of it from public thoroughfare and be able to then show that- Boothroy I Right. That would make it easier for us so that they could verify. That doesn't say that that was applied on that day and therefore you don't know whether the 24 hours was met. Larson! But I think there is some advantage to having a date on it. It celtainly doesn't add much trouble or anything and you know it kind of lets people know. Some people may think-] am just worried the signs may not come up exactly at the right time. I just don't think it hurts anything to add something to it. Kubby! So it would be as easy as canying a permanent marker with you and putting the date. Larsonl I think that all you have to do Witll the language here is to say it should have lettering black on a yellow background with the state statute waming and logo period. Then you are not changing too much. With a date. Courtney II am not as concerned about the enforceability of this one as I am the one that was proposed before with the private applicators on that. I can't imagine there being hardly infractions of this particular ordinance-commercial applicators, they are no fools. Boolhroy I I think the pre\~ous commercial one was a little easier to enlorce than this. I am concerned also, another issue that I had raised with Linda, is we don't have any ,,,ay-we don't have any designated agent to deal with in terms of contact. llooked through the phone book and many of the applicators have a p.o. box office and a telephone number. They don't have addresses or they may not even be Iowa City firms. What that means is that if we don't have designated agents to contact and serve papers on then we have to do the worl<. We have to trace these people down. We have to find out who we make contact with. It just makes our job that more difficult and I am back to , you knoll', going into this whole issue that was raised with licensing. But there is a reason lor it. I think that we can I I , ' if3 page 5 have on me who the contact person is so wee can make contact easier. It just Jllakes my job easier. l.arson! And that is just a paragraph to add in that says anyone commercially applying pesticides in the Iowa City area has to- Boothroy I Has to register an agent. Larson! Needs to register with the clerk of courts. Boothroy/ Hegister an agent with the city. Someone we can contact. I don't know if that is reasonable. Ambr Ill' there was a charge and I assume that that could be made by anybody just walking by or going by on their bicycle or however they go by. Boothroy! Well I think we would have to evaluate the- Ambrl Are you going to name the homeowner as well as the people that m'e suppose to put the sign up as the defendant. Boothroyl That was a question that was raised in my mind. It says that at least the sign initially is responsible to the commercial applicator ,md it appears to me that the commercial applicator is responsible to ensure that the notification is left in place. I don't know what happens if the customer takes it down. Is the commercial-that was an issue that I had raised. Is the commercial applicator llable in that situation. Do we take the commercial applicator to court and we find out in this process that Sally took the sign down and we didn't knoll' about it. The thing gets thrown out of court possible. Kubby / You could come up with a tllousand hypotheticals like that. For every law that we have. Larson! This ordinance as it is set forth wouldn't expose the homeowner to liability, would it necessarily. Criminal liability. Gentry! No. This is against the commercial applicator. Ambr/ That sign could disappear lor a number of reasons. Boothroyl Right and I don't know at that point-I think there is a lot of opportunity lor Ihilure because there is a lot of reasons for that sign disappearing. It may leave the commercial applicator let them get olT the hooJ<. Kubby! Then it's their responsibility to educate their customers about how important the purpose of the sign and the retention of the sign/or the 24, or 48 hours afterwards is. The 24. Boothroy I True. But I'm talking about the investment of our time to file the citallon, to have the neighbor lake time off from work, to go down to court, and to have possibly the whole thing thrown out. You have, ii's very difficult to have anyone want 10 ,', ~-" .. '1 I , I '-, 113 page 6 go through the process to begin with. Even if it's been a misapplication. But if there's reasonable ways to get cu'ound this, I don't know at this point what IVould happen. Kubby / So you're in litvaI' of a date and of having peopie like, have a designated person for each business and if they're doing business in Iowa City applying lawn chemicals. Boothroy! I think it's really important to have an agent to contact. Someone to serve the papers on, attorney or somebody else. Horow! In other words the precedence IVould be similar to what we have for absentee landlord. Boothroyl For the housing code, right. Larson! And the state laIV for corporations that are registered agents so that you know. Boothroy! fvr condominium associations. Kubby! Do we want to deal with these changes one by one. Horow/l would like to entertain another change though. I would really like to see this a little bit more compact than the 8 1/2 by 11. This is 7 x 7, the one that I've drawn here. And that seems to me to be a sign that I wouldn't mind having on my lawn. And I think that we could get evelything on there in terms of the homeowner having the sign for reuse, it seems to me that this would be a discrete enough sign that you could keep and not be buffeted by winds or rain or whatever. Even if it is rain. And I'd like to see whether anyone would be interested in going along Witll 7x7. Kubby / Well I brought a good example of what 8 1/2 x 11 or the 7x7 would be. This is a stick that is available all over the place and you can get three sticks for a lawn sign per one of these sticks. If you put it In the ground thatlllr, which inmost times of the year except for winter when you don't apply anyway, it's really easy to put it in that far. And you put a sign, it has to be at least 12 inches but I think in ~'Ionica's memo to us it was 18 so that's another 6 inches up to here. Hol'Ow/ 12 inches can either be the bottom or the top. Kubby! Right. So what I'm sayIng is it can be here or you can be here. Either direction. This cloes not seem to me for 24 hours after application 10 be u11\vieldy in the weather. You're clown low so the wincl's not as bustling around. If it's water resistant, it's got to be able to. high enough bond paper that it will be rain resistant or whatever coating is put on it. This does not . "1 '1 . , 113 ~iage 7 seem unreasonable to me. you're going to be like this if this is the ground. I like it betler the other direction. Horowl Is the smaller size, is that also 5x77 Is the inside line 5x7? Kubby I I don't know what it is. GentlY I The only problem with placing it that way is the fellow from the dept. of Agriculture was siting me the minimum restriction of the, the sign has to be twelve inches above the ground. l.c'U'sonl The top of the sign. Gentry I Well he said it's always been interpreted. Ambrl The bottom of the sign. Gentry I To be the bottom of the sign. NovlOh they've never been twelve inches above the ground. Larsonl That's what I don't like about them is if they're down there next to the grass, you can't see them. GentlY! Twelve inches plus 8 1/2 is only 20 inches above the ground. Kubby I Should we do that Sue? Then more like this. Or this. I just contend my argument's the same. Horow! Mm-huh. Gentryl See and that's more than twelve inches. Kubby I If I'm like this. I measured from (inaUdible). Gentlyl Oh. Okay. Kubby I So jf you're saying that the bottom of this thing is like this. Gentryl And the fellow Ji'om the Dept. ofAg said well it's never really been challenged whether It has to be the bottom or the top of this Ji,lme. Larson/Is there support from anyone else to make the sign smaller? Ambrl Yes. Larsonl Is there four lor that. IvIeDI If we're going to do it, that's fine. Ambrl I guess maybe that questions being asked (00 soon. Larsonl/understand that Kubbyl Can we make amendments one by one so we know what we're dealing withl Larson/ That's what I'm lIying to llgure out, which ones we get rid of and if there wasn't anyone else other tllan Susan then we didn't have to discuss that one but if there's fo!1l' than we can leave that one and come back to if there's any need to. Ambr/ No. Now my point is maybe we ought to have the vote on whether or not we should have the ordinance before you stan fine tuning it. _~...._._._ ,.~.~~'.r.'."" #3 page 8 Larson,' That's what I mean. But once we pass it, we can't amend it, then, so we'd have to take up the amendments J1rst or at least decide are there four people for the ordinance. I would vote in favor 01' the ordinance, and I'd prefer that it be with those minor changes to make the language be what's required by the state law, the language and the logo. And I don't care about the color but I think it sense to have it uniforlll and if the nat'l std is black on yellow, lhat's fine with me. My only objection to this ordinance is I think we ought to regulate private applicators exactly the same way we regulate commercial. But that's, if it is dmlgerous, it's just as dangerous ii' it's put on by private or commercial, probably moreso when put on by private. If we don't have four votes for that, then I would vote for this. If we'd all express our opinion, we'd maybe will figure out what we need to do with them. Kubbyl Are there still four people for the ordinance, depending on the amendments, Sue? Horowl Well, I'm not going to be that picky, depending on the amendments. I think that something that is getting false security, but I think also I just don't want to have to keep dealing with this so yes, I will support it. Kubby I Okay. We've got four, and so I move that we amend the ordinance to have "brightly colored backgrounds" scratched and in place of it, to have a "bright yellow background with black letters." And that UJe otJler things get changed to be in line with the state requirements, but that we have the date on it. Larson/ I think that Linda can put the language together rather than us trying to quote it, just to say that we're using the state language. I second the motion. Gentry/Can I clarify are you using my amended version or the one you got in the packet? Larson/ I'm looking at the amended version. 1l1rsonl All I think you need to do Linda, would to be to say where it says shill have large bold Jellering, just add the word black in there. Gentryl Now I've already rewritten, I've already included Karen's in my version. Okay. Novll would suggest just adding the word black in front of lettering and yellow in h'ont of background. Gentry/ That's what I have. .. 1 1 , , #3 page l) Nov! And keep the large bold. Gentry! That's what we have. Larson! Yep. And then just the lines that say use the state mandated logo and warning. Gentry/ I can read it to you if, as I've written it if you want me to. Nov! That'd be good. Go ahead. Horowl At section A, 3479. Gentryl Said sign shall be of a material that is rain resistant for at least 48 hours, shall be a minimum size of 8 1!2 inches by 11 inches. Shall have large black lettering on a yellow background. Shall be easily readable and shall contain cautiol1<uy warnings to the public to keep off the treated area with the language and logo approved or established by the Iowa Dep't of Agriculture and stating the rate of treatment. Larson! Perlect. Now are you still going to have that sentence about . how it shall be placed'! Gentry! Then continuing on, Said sign shall include a logo also easily visible, showing entrance onto the treated property is bcu1l1ed and shall be placed in accordance with state requirements concerning location and spacing as set forth in Iowa AdmInistrative Code. Larsonl You've already dealt with the logo. Kubby I Okay, you've dealt wlth the logo twice. GentlY I Right. r can delete all that, the second logo reference. Larson! I believe you can just say, said sign shall show. Gently/Be placed. Yeah. I wanted to reference the state requirements for placement. Larsonl Now that you're saying your using the state language, you don't use some of for examples. GentlY I No r don'l need. Courlney/ [ want to deal with that with a separate look. Gentry I Okay. That's what on tJle floor. Courtney! Susan's going to make a separate motion on that size. Let's go with the language, the color. Far be it from me to ever to object to anything that's black and gold. Never happens. Okay. Larson/Moved and seconded. Courtney/Any more discussion on the amendments that were read other than the size of the socIa All in 1~lVor or those amendments. (passes) ".! . \ '. . ~.....~......~ _'.Im ..'_-....mn.......'-""-..=:.w.li.li --' ..~~-.---. " ,. ' 1 I , , 113 page 10 IIorow/ I would like to amend that section 3479 subsection A, the said sign shall be a minimum size of 7x7. and just continue the way you already amended. Novl Show me what that looks like. Courtney / Can I get a second? uu'son! Not fromme, you can't. Gentry I Do you want my ruler? Larson/ We know what seven looks like. Gentry I I came prepared tonight. u1l'S0n/ Four inches less high and one inch less wide. Kubby I Less readable. Less accessible for our pllllloses. Novl What is the center dimension on that one? Is thaI 6x9? Kubby I That's not the purpose of the lines. Nov/ I realize that. Couldn't we capitalize the 6x9 because that looks so readable from here. Larson! But on a sidewalk you're going to be forty feet away instead 01'5. Gentlyl These signs are 4xS inches. Kubby! Sue, can I hold that up a little further away. Horow! The heavier. now remember, this is yellow and black. Right. Kubby I What's more readable and visible for children, older people from other communities? Horow/ Either one of them, Karen. The ],ids aren't going to read them anyway. larson! This isn't rocket science. That's make up our mind on this, let's get it figures Ollt here. Kubby I This is more seeable. Horowl I differ with you. I think we're getting your sign. Courtney I Well for right now I don't have a second on this so It's a moot point. Any second on the motion? Dies lor lack of a second. Horowl Okay. Larson! Call the question or whatever. Courtney/ Any other amendments to be proposed I Any other discussion on the motion as amendedl Gentry! On the ordinance as amended? Courtney/ Yes. On the ordinance as amended. I think there's some pretty compelling, I think we've had it presented to liS some pretty compelling reasons Jbr reducing the size just from the standpoint of the viability of the sign in C' 'I " , , -. li3 pagc 11 advcrse weather and the fact that you'rc looking at a larger area for the wind to catch and blow over. And you defeat the purvose of tile sign if it's not going to stand-up in the weather. I've seen smaller square footage sign in political signs have trouble standing up and plus it's going increase the cost enough the way it is and if we can get a less rIgid sort of holding you're talking about going from a what's currently used a wire to a wooden stake. And I think we all know that thosc, if you're going to use those dowels, they don't come cheap. There are a lot of, I've always thought the signs are too small. They're not readable from a distance and I wish we could do a compromise on this thing. Thcre are a lot of good points that Doug makes on the enJorceability of this. As r said before, I'm not as concerned about the enforceability when it's just a colllmercial applicators. Larson! Well it would be my druthers to have another amendment that requires just one sentence, or one paragraph that says that anyone commercially applying pesticides in Iowa City should register with the city. Period. Kubby! [vlake such an amendment. Larson! And just add that to it. But I don't want to prolong this. This is a budget meetIng. But that amendment makes scnse to me. It would heip the city, would not have an undue burden and it's somcthing that the good companies are going to want to do anyway. llorow! I don't disagree with the need for something like that, but I also think that will put a burden on the ofJke where they will be registered. Because the telephone calls from the public. The public will expect the elly to do something about it. And I think that's a sense of false security. I rcally do. Larson! Well what, if we're going to have and ordinance that some portion of the public's going to expect us to do something about it anyway. And what I'm trying to do is make it easier lor the city staff to do what they're being asked to do. Horow! But do you find it in the budget? I don't think we have really thought this out. Larson/ I don't care if we evcr cite anybody. This is stilI going to have a lot more vlsiblc signs. What I'm saying is I don't wanl to make Doug have to worry about who hall' these people are. Now understand that six months after this things on Doug's going to know who everybody is that hc's got to cite. llllcan - - - , " 'I , '-. ~f3 page 12 he's going to find out pretty quick who these commercial applicators are. Gentry! He'll know, Handy because thc company name and phone number is on each of their signs. Larson! Hut that doesn't tell him who to file a lawsuit against or tell you to file a lawsuit against. He needs that. Gentry! Well, the registered agcnt aren't that hard to fincl. If they're a corpomtion. Boothroy! They do change. Larson/ Well. I'd make that motion then. And let it live or die and not debate it so much. Kubby! I second. Larson! Just one sentence that says what I said, that evelyonc commercially applying pesticides in Iowa City shall register with the city and we can set up procedures without them bcing in tlle ordinance to do that. Courtney! Moved and seconded for further amendment. Discussion? Horow! I disagree with that. I'm having enough problems just going a long with the fact that we're going to put these signs all around. Any more cost to the city, ,my more lillse expectations on the part of the public, I think it's derelict for mc 10 go along withir. Larson! I can't arguc with the assumption the public, but Doug, this would make it cheaper for the city, not more c,xpensive. Because it reduces thc amount of time Doug has to spend chasing after these people figuring out who they are. I'm oJTering it as a way to make it more efficient and less costly for the city rather than more. And that 's a matter of opinion. I understand but that's my intent and that's what I hope and that's what our staff person has told us is he wants it. McD! Yeah. hut you just got through saying a few minutes ago that you don't care if anyone ever gcts cites with this ordinance. Larson/ [ really don't. McD! That makes absolutely no sense to me at all. Larson! The reason it makes sense is because they're going to comply with the law whether we cite people or not. These commercial opcrators are not going to ignore the law. Having the law on thc books will be its oIVn enforcement by ancllarge. . . _0__ __.. .s"-~- RaI -- L_ ...- IJjtll-....-r-'...- '-"'"Idilll.....- .0___.. ..........'m - ~ WW"f I I , ' '-. #3 page 13 Kubby! Our staff person is telling us it will take them less time and human resources to make this ordinance serve its purpose by enforcing it. We should do that. Karr/ But I have to clarify that that staff person may have less time but you're invohing another department in the registlY. Boothroy! The registration can occur in my olTice. II' that's a problem. We register people now and it requires no time. And I don't see any problem with registering these people in my alIke. I mean they can register anywhere. As long as they have it on file. Kubby! I feel like we're just finding excuses, you know, when people don't want to do something, we're just finding, instead of finding reasons why we don't want to do it, let's find a way we can do thillgs. Boothroy! I just think it would make it, well I've already explained. But the registraUon can occur in my office. We can keep on the computer. it's no problem. Court]]ey! Okay, the motion is to create a registration. Any further comments on that amendment? Nov! We're going to register just commercial applicators? Okay. Iloothroy! And it's really just an agent. It doesn't have to be, just so we know what the mailing address and the person to send it to. Courtney! Any further discussion'! All in favor? Opposl'(l? I'm going to have a show 01' hands then. Larson/ I request. Courtney! Amendment passes, 4-3. Okay. Now, any further discussion on the amended ordinance before we have a roll call? Ambr/ Is this a final vote? Courtney/Final vote coming. Gentry! FIrst 01' three. i\mbr/ Well I think like a lot of things that we do in this hall, we tend to create some monsters and some headaches for our stan', and for just the ordinary people in town. I made a couple of statements in the past and Ms. Kubby and your cohorts made a point 01' telling the rest of the world about that where I have changed my mind a couple 01' limes. I do that a lot. I did that in 1951, I changed my mind on the girl r was going to many. And I am very happy thai I did that. So there is an awful lot of people that do those things. But this is another one of those .".....~.....<.~'...-.'r.... :'i:.IU .-..-......-----."'--....--~--. --- ---.........~...". I , , , #3 page 14 ordinances, There has been some discussion around town that kind of reminds people what was done back in '84 or so when a nuclear free zone ordinance lI'as passed with Ambr and Zuber voting no. I see this somewhat analoguish but not quite tl1at. Somebody is tlying to make another statement. I really feel that the people who are in this business and I don't have any ax 10 grind for any of them. That they really ought to be able to have them in and have a session and set down as ladies and gentlemen and work it out and say look, make a bigger sign, be more sophisticated about your scheduling so you totally avoid those mistakes. And that is the whole reason we are here bccause a coupie of mistakes were made and you had a few citizens in the community put up a human ny. I really don't likc to pass laws based on that. Very very vocal minority tries to impose their will on 60,000 citizens that I am duly bound to serve. And I will vote against this and anything like it but the main headache that I see coming down the pike is trying to enJorce CUl ordinance like this. It is just going to be a nightmare. I see us pitting neighbor against neighbor and that I don't like. Karen and I have had discussions earlier. The Ambr. family had what use to be a beautiful Honeysuckle bush. But through the years it just got to be a pain. Thc aphids loved it more than I did. And I would wither have to spray it or hire a professional to do it. Whenever that was going to happen I went around to each one of my neighbors and asked them if they mindcd. If they did we wouldn't do it and we would find another solution. We make such a to do and we spend a lot of money in having a full-time staff person called Neighborhood Sen~ces Coordinator to tlY ad build homogeneity and good feelings amongst our neighbors and I don't think this will do it. llook at the ____. I talk to SOllle medical people about it and thcy really don't think that this is a major problem. I don't see anything in here that addresses. We have just one golf course now within the city but we could have more. How do they handle that. Do you have to put a sing like that up on every tec box or every 50 yards oj' Jllinvay or just how do you handle it. There are so many nuances and what ifs in an ordinance like this that I just rcally can't support it although I do think that the industl}' has some things to do to clean yourself up. And that is the way I prefer to do it. To sit down across the table from them and 1I'0rk it out. ! . " " , ' 1/3 page 15 Kubby/ You knoll', Bill, In the past when pcople have been looking at thc state pesticide legislation and the industry did sit down with pcople from the Peace Institute and they said largcr signs no problem. They havcn't done it. They have talked about it in a sit down situation. Thcy made verbal statements saying that that wasn't a problem. [t is something that they could do and they haven't chosen to do it and to me that is one of the functions of governmcnt. When something is not working right. The state laws is not working and it is not just because a few people got wrongly spraycd that this ordinance has come up. It is a lot of different issues. It is protection of water ways for the original ordinance. It was much more comprehensive and dealt with those issues of golf courses and how often you put signs up. And people-the industry had a chance to do some of these things. Just last October of '92 you said that if the industry doesn't do it voluntarily that you would be back in a year. I will be waiting to see in October on how things are dilTerent and I hope that they are voluntarily. I am skeptical about it becausc of past statements made that people haven't come through on and as I have said before and so in a year 1 will be probably wanting to have a discussion with you about a pcsticide ordinance. So I hopc that the industlY will do some things voluntarily. They said they would. Thcy are not. And that is why we are here talking about this. Courtney! I think I have to differ just a little bit. The industlY, at least the company that I deal with, has done a lot over thc years to change the Ivay that they do business and change the things that they are applying to the iawns and 1 scnse that there are several of them that has. There has bcen a big movcmcnt over the years voluntarily. Now maybe they haven't made the signs any bigger and I would encourage them to do that. Somebody needs to take the lead in this city at least andmakc them bigger to the point of whcrc they think it is reasonable to make it at least where it is practical to keep the signs standing and practical to cvenmaybe rc-use the signs. They have come a long ways. McD! Whcn I came in here tonight I was really thinking that I was probably going to vote in f~lvor of this ordinance and I was going 10 vote in favor of il for the wrong reasons. I think as someone said at one of our meetings [ think we have spent too much time and 100 much CmJrl on this and really I really had \.. . _.._._.~____.____.___ -, . '.ill. -_._-x~r"'''''--'''''.'W''~'''''''..:>.:I~.,I;Il""....uUllI/III~ r _M~"."iill.., I , , ' 1/3 page 16 the altitude that I wanted to get rid of it. Well as IVC have sat here noW for an hour and rchashed everything that wc did over several months ago it all started coming !Jack to me and I can't support <1n ordinancc that in my opinion whcre the council can sit up here and beat our chcsts and say oh look at us and look how we are protecting the people of this community. I think it is a bunch of crap. j;irst of all if there is a problcm that exists out there by passing an ordinancc that is going to put up a little largcr sign is not really getting to the 1'00101' the problcm. 'vVc are all very much awarc if there is a problem from pesticide application it doesn't comc from the commercial applicators. It comes from everyone using it and misusing it. The commercial applicators would do the best job probably of anyone that uses this kind of stull The second part of it I don't know if you werc talking locally or you were talking state wide. But I do knoll' locally last fall when we werc going through this wholc discussion that there was a willingness by the local association to put together a package. Sort of a self policing package that they were going to present to us if we gavc them the opportunity to do it. You say they didn't do anything. We never gave them the opportunity. At our last meeting on this we were never willing at any point. A majority wcre ncvcr willing at any point to back off and say okay put something togethcr and come and s<..>e us. We ncver did that. At our last meeting we gavc Linda, the last time this was discussed, we gave Linda direction, a majority gave Linda direction to write an ordinance. SO if there was a willingness to do it and I don't blame them. I mean here we arc silting up hcrc. Well we are going to pick and choosc certain areas that we don't think that you can do vcry well in and then we are going to say that you are not willing to police yourselves or put togethcr any type of program. And I think that is unfair. I don'tthinl< wc gave them the opportunity to do it. Nov! John, I think we die!. I think they got togcther and decidcd they couldn't agree among themselves and that is why they didn't comc back. ~'lcl)/ If that is true then J am wrong in that respect, Naomi. I don't think-I thought at one point that wc had an understanding that we would not necessarily pass legislation if t hey would come forth with a package or program that we fclt would improve the business would be conducted. '!:! '.' -' . .....--."'--~- .-' __~NII,.lIlllOlfll.lAWII""'~ .,. #3 page 17 Larson! Thc onc thing that has to be forced- Courtney! The one thing that thcy agreed to at that time that has bccn thrown out is the registration that tlJe com panics themselves would monitor anclmaintain and I think that came from legal advicc that one company should be themselves up as he was willing to do to run that and be responsible for evcrybody else and I can understand that. Now thcre are other things that I think they ought to be willing to come together and do. Larson/ J don't blame these companies for not coming fortll voluntarily. There is no part of that is my rcason for voting for this. Sometimes you just can't do something voluntarily. It has to be force upon you by law because what if one company decided okay we are not doing it and they have a competitive advantage by being allowed to stllluse smaller signs. That is what the homeowner wants. The smaller signs that makes it sound like there is no problem and no hazard. I don't view this as any punishment on anyone. I do think it wouid be better if we regulated all use of pesticides and I don't mean regulate the use. I just mean that thcre is a significant portion in the conllllunity. Whether it is a vocal minority or an uninformed majority or what it might be. There is a ccrtain portion in the community that feels that they have a right to know when pesticides are being put on the yard because there is significant scientific evidence that suggests that it may cause a long term heath problem. Or even short term in some instlmces. Whcn some members of our public feel they want protection of more noticc thcn I think that is all we arc doing. Is giving them a lillle better sign and I think it is ridiculous that we don't require 24 hour advance notice. I think it is ridiculous that we are llying to hurt commercial applicators instead of making all pesticide application live by these rules. I hope that the commercial applicators will come to us and lobby us as a council to apply this to cvelybody. This is a step. Sometimes you have to move environmentally in steps. It isn't punishment or anything of anybody. It is just gi\~ng notice to that segment or our community that thinks they want better noticc. MclV \Vhal you say you are not wrong, Handy. But al the same time r clon't .-....--.... ..,..__....~.- -,....-..-----.....y.-- ..------ ..,...-. ."Ml 1 I allliWll.L~ //3 page 18 CHANGE TAPE TO REEL 93-4 SIDE 2 McD! I don't care if anyone is cited. I don't think or see any reason to pass the ordinance that is unenforceable. And I don't think that this Is enforceable. One of the other things as we went through this last fall. One of the things that I was so very surprised. We arc not talking about [m unregulated induslIy here. I was amazed at the regulations that cxist out there that control these people and that control these companies. And I gotlJuite an education. So by, again, us spending this great amount of time to come up with an cight and half by whatcver sign-well, the bottom line is is I am not going 0 vote for something to get rid of it. Il is a poor reason to vote in favor of it. I am not going to- Larson/ You are right. You are right about tllat. McD! I am not going to vote for it. Nov! One more thing tlmt t11is gives us is a local ordinancc to enforce. Thc state ordinance, though it exists, is not locally enforceable. Larson! Or enforced. Horow/ Il is locally-it is capable of being locally enforced. However the statc staff doesn't have enough staff to even answer the telephone but the process does exist. So it isn't as if it isn't locally enforceable. Nov/ It isn't. Because you have to call the Dept. of Ag. in Des Moines and they have to send somebody here to do it. They can't do it with a local call. Horow! The person comes from Cedar Rapids. I went through the whole thing with the Dept. Of Ag. From a public heath point of view I think that this is a minimal step whose results are going to bc woefully inadequate. I don't think- Kubby! That is becausc we couldn't gct people to agree to a more comprehensive ordinance. One of the things that both John and Bill said tonight that I can't support this because it docsn't do very Illuch. Well they wouldn't support something tat IVould have done something. Il would have protectcd public health by letting people have the individual control over cxposures. Whether if you believe one scientific group A or B. Whethcr it has public health effects or not. We start dealing with managing storm water and having to clean up storm water we may end up wanting to revisit this because we are going to havc to deal with some of these issues heforc we put it hack - . f . . 'IT r , , 113 page 19 into our water ways. The Nationall.eg. of Cities recommends Ihat you deal with urban pesticide ordinances as part 01' your storm water cleaning. Mandates that are coming down on us. So I mean there are publIc health issues here and when people are saying thaI they don't want to vote t()r this because it is not comprehensive enough and they weren't supporting it before that's crap in my eyes. I mean it just doesn't make sense. McD! We have a difference of opinion. That is what it boils down to. Noll' I appreciate where your position is and you must also must respect my position. SO we will stop at that. Larson! One last thing I want to say is this is a very small burden. They have to put a sign up already. We just changed the sign. We are just talking abut nickels and pennies and things like that It may make them go to a permanent long lasUng sign that the homeowner keeps there and they get and put it back up each time rather than the little temporary signs that they use right now. But I think that they can handle these things. This is not going to raise eachmontllly \~sit J1ve bucks a shot or somelhing. The compeU!ion 01' the companies will handle I1mt. I wouldn't be-I am so displeased with nor regulating the private applicators that I wouldn't be willing to make the commercial applicators that is going to he grossly expensive. I don't think that this is a tremendous burden. I CCUl understand competitively and business wise why they would urge against it but this is not something that is doubling the cost or anything. Kubby / We could tali( on this all night. Courtney IAny further discussion on the ordinance. Roll call (Yes: HoJ'Qw, Kubby, Larson, Nov. No: IvlcD, Ambr, Courtney) The ordinance passes first consideration. Karr! Mr. Mayor, would you like 10 decide when you want second consideration on this ordinance. Courtney! Il'we don't have enough votes 10 collapse the readings /in our regular meeting on Tuesday, we will need to vote again on this on Thursday night. Three separate readings. AllIbr! We got to be careful though 01' collapSing readings the night Ihal we talk about it. non't we. Karr! Do you want to call a meeting right now, Mr. Mayor. Courlney/ We will schedule a jormal-a short j()J']nal meeting for Thursday night at 5:30 to take second consideration on this.