HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-06-10 Transcription June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 1
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session 6:30 PM
Council: Lehman, Champion, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilbum, Pfab, Kmmer
Staff: Atkins, Helling, Kan', Dilkes, Franklin, Fowler, Morris, O'Malley, O'Brien,
Humston, Scott, Davidson, Craig
TAPES: 02-44, SIDE TWO; 02-51, BOTH SIDES; 02-52, BOTH SIDES
Planning & Zoning Matters
A. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JULY 2 ON AN
ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM
NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, RNC-20, TO SENSITiVE AREAS
OVERLAY-NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, OSA/RNC-20 FOR 0.41
ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 341 NORTH RiVERSIDE DRIVE.
(REZ02-00004)
Franklin/Okay first item is setting a public heating on July 2 on an ordinance changing
the zoning designation from neighborhood conservation RNC-20 to Sensitive
Areas Overlay OSAdRNC-20 for 0.41 acres at 341 North Riverside Drive, this is
the (can't hear) house too. It is in the Planning & Zoning Commission's still, it
will deferred at their last meeting to enable engineering to closely scrutinize their
grading plan, it's expected that the Planning & Zoning Commission will vote on
June 20th. You've been asked by the applicant to expedite this setting the public
hearing for July 2, since you do not have another meeting before then your being
asked to set the public hearing tomorrow night.
Lehman/Okay.
B. A PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SENSITIVE
AREAS ORDINANCE TO REGULATE ISOLATED WETLANDS.
Franklin/Item B is a public hearing on the ordinance amending the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance to regulated isolated wetlands. As you recall this was a referral from
the City Council, your decision was after the SWANCCC decision, the Solid
Waste Agency of Northern Cook County versus the Army Corps of Engineers,
after that Supreme Court decision your direction to us was to continue to include
what have been termed as isolated wetlands in the sensitive areas ordinance.
That is what the ordinance that is before you does, this has gone through the
Planning & Zoning Commission and has been recommended for your approval.
What the outcome of this is is that our handling of wetlands will not change as a
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 2
consequence of the Supreme Court Decision, in Iowa City we will continue
wetlands as they were handled before the SWANCCC decision.
Champion/My question is Karin we have used in the previous U. S. Corps of Engineers
to regulate our wetlands?
Franklin/We have used them to define it and then to do the actual regulation for
compensating mitigation.
Champion/And so what happens now, how do we get that done if we would go through
with keeping the old norms?
Franklin/Okay what we have done is we've included in the ordinance certain thresholds
above which one has to come in and have a wetland designation made and then
those wetlands would be regulated and those are cited in the ordinance of the
quarter acre, the half acre, those were not included before we just referred to the
Corps of Engineers definition. Secondly when we are aware by looking at our
sensitive areas ordinance map as we did before the Sensitive Areas Inventory map
that there were hydrec soils on a site then the developer was directed to engage a
wetlands specialist to make a determination as to whether there was in fact a
wetland on the site or not. Remember the wetland is defined by three
characteristics, the hydrec soils which is shown on our map, hydrofit vegetation
and a certain period of inundation in a year. Those criteria would not change,
those still are what define a wetland scientifically. And so the developer would
need to hire the wetland specialist to make that determination when we found the
hydrec soils on the site just as we do now.
Champion/So we would not need to hire a staff person to follow through with that?
Franklin/No, no.
Pfab/What about mitigation, how's that processed?
Franklin/The compensatory mitigation, is that what your referring to between the 1/10
and one half, is that or general mitigation?
Pfab/Well in.
Franklin/General mitigation will occur just as it happens now.
Pfab/Who are the parties going to be?
Franklin/The parties that involved are the developer, the wetland specialist that they must
hire, Julie Tallman our development specialist who is the person that is in charge
of enforcement of this now so nothing changes there.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 3
Pfab/All right then what about the dividing up and having the wetland just to verify
chopping (can't hear) by?
Franklin/You mean by subdividing land such that you have no more than a certain
amount on one piece of land?
Pfab/I think that's been, I've seen instances where that was done very skillfully.
Franklin/I'm not sure that this change in ordinance would affect that one way or another
because the ¼ acre and the half acre are the measures that we are using that
previously the Corps used, we're not creating anything new here so there
shouldn't be any difference, before it was under the Corps definition and now
we're just defining it explicitly as opposed to just referring to the Corps of
Engineers.
Pfab/Is this something we should allow to continue on to just say, run this a slice in the
middle and then it no longer?
Franklin/We haven't had that issue come up.
Pfab/Well it came up at Planning & Zoning.
Franklin/It came up as a hypothetical, as you are suggesting as a hypothetical, I'm talking
about specific instances in which we know that a subdivision occurred just to
avoid wetlands mitigation.
Pfab/Right so how are we going to (can't hear) that?
Franklin/The same way we would have before as we look at the subdivision, I don't
know it hasn't been a circumstance (can't hear).
Lehman/This doesn't address this at all.
Dilkes/This really doesn't deal with that issue.
Pfab/Yes it does.
Franklin/No it doesn't because what's changing is that instead of referring to the Corps
of Engineers definition.
Pfab/I agree, I understand what your saying but we're in the process of changing the
wetland ordinances, we're shaping them for Iowa City's use, at this point I think
we also ought to address that subdividing to get rid of them, dividing them up.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 4
Franklin/That's another issue then.
Lehman/That's not on the table though.
Franklin/Help me Eleanor.
Pfab/Well I don't think, I'm reluctant to support this unless that's addressed.
Dilkes/There are a number of issued raised at the Planning & Zoning meeting, you can
tell by looking at the minutes that really are not affected by this ordinance change,
what we're trying to do with this particular ordinance change is make the
ordinance have the same affect it did before the SWANCC decision, if there were
abuses as Irvin suggests and I don't know that we have documented such abuses
and that would be an issue for another day I think they, if they existed then they're
not changed by these ordinance (can't hear).
Pfab/Well is there any reason we should address this at this point?
Dilkes/Well Council can address that.
Kanner/Well there are some things that are changing, and so I'm going to follow up on
what Irvin in saying in the previous exemptions 14-6-kl-D, you might want to
look at the red line version, in our packet it's page 129, it talks about maintenance
expansion for single family or duplex residences, it doesn't list an acreage there
and for construction it doesn't list an acreage either and so the way I'm reading it
is that this is new language for the acreage.
Dilkes/Under exemptions it does in 14-6-K-ID.
Franklin/It previously said a jurisdictional wetland, and jurisdictional wetland refers to
the Corps of Engineers, jurisdictional wetland was defined as a wetland that was
under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers, what has changed is taking out
jurisdictional because we are no longer referring to the Corps definition which is
only the blue line wetlands. And indicates that it is a wetland more than a quarter
of an acre, and that is consistent with what the old definition was under the Corps
prior to SWANCC.
Kanner/Well when I talked to you and also talking to the wetland specialist it Rock
Island it's not quite clear that there was a consistent acreage that was used for a
standard of when they would say it was considered a significant wetland or
mitigation was confirmed. And the point to follow up on what Irvin is saying that
the way to solve the problem Irvin is talking about is to lower that to perhaps a
tenth of an acre, to say that a tenth of an acre and that way to make sure that we're
catching all the wetlands. I would be happy with a tenth of an acre, and besides in
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 5
number 6, "other activities" where besides construction and maintenance
expansion that's the only place it lists acres, there it said it had one acre previous.
Franklin/Yes and now it's half an acre.
Kanner/Eleanor the previous, I'm talking to the previous definition, it didn't list acreage.
Dilkes/Right but I think what happened is that our old ordinance said one acre was the
exemption provided it was approved by the Corps, the Corps exemptions went to
half acre for most activities and a quarter acre for the single family duplex because
of the language in our ordinance, an ordinance amendment wasn't necessary, now
we have included those specific acreage exemptions.
Kanner/What I'm saying is it's not quite clear that it was a quarter or a half an acre that
the Corps uses as a standard, it, they use, it was hard to determine what's standard
and I think the standard we should use to be clear is to get the minimum amount
that we can, one tenth of an acre.
Dilkes/Council can arrive at it's conclusion about the acreage and that's an issue that's
been discussed at P & Z and is addressed in Mitch's memo, but what we have
been able to determine by reviewing, by not only talking to the Corps but by
reviewing their regulations is that the one quarter and the one half acre are the
exemptions they use, they do engage in compensatory mitigation's sometimes
between one tenth and one half of an acre. We asked them to identify the extent
to which they've done that in Iowa City and they did not do so, they indicated that
perhaps a freedom of information request would get that information, but that's
the extent of the information. We, as I understand it have not as a regulator as
opposed to a developer engaged in compensatory mitigation and so that's the
information that staff has, that's the information that we have drafted the
ordinance based on and I guess now it's for Council to discuss the policy issues.
Kanner/Yea, I'm going to offer an amendment to bring it down to a tenth of an acre, I
think a half an acre is way too big, but I was wondering if you could give me some
of that information you have from the Corps that says that they used a quarter and
a half an acre as their standard.
Franklin/I would have to get it from Mitch Behr.
Dilkes/Mitch Behr has been.
Franklin/Who has been doing the research with the Corps.
Karmer/Yea okay I would appreciate seeing that if you can get that by tomorrow.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 6
Lehman/Well all we're having is the public hearing tomorrow, we're not taking any
action, when it comes up for action is the time we would endorse, we would
entertain amendments and changes but the heating tomorrow is on the ordinance.
Dilkes/You know what I would suggest Steven is that you contact Mitch and talk to him
about that.
Kanner/Well I've been contacting people, and if, you know I contact you and then you
send memo's out to everyone, this one I'm asking in public if you can just send a
memo to me from Mitch Behr, it's not too hard to do if you can get it to all
Council.
Dilkes/Is the Council interested in having a memo from Mitch?
Franklin/What is that you want?
Champion/I'm not.
Kanner/So if you could just send it to me that's fine.
Dilkes/I'm suggesting you might get better information if you sit down with him and ask
him and have a dialogue with him about the information you want, that's all I'm
suggesting.
Kanner/And I might do that but I would appreciate if I could just get the memo, it's not
that hard a thing Eleanor for someone to just send me the memo so I can have it so
I can give it to the public to have that memo so they can react to it at the public
heating.
Dilkes/At Council's pleasure.
Lehman/What's your pleasure? Are we interested in a memo on this?
O'Donnell/I'm not.
Champion/I'm not.
Pfab/Well I think if we're going to protect our wetlands now's the time to do it.
Kanner/It doesn't have to be a memo, just the information you got, whatever your basing
this on, I'm sure you have communication between yourselves.
Franklin/I don't know if it was written or verbal, I mean that's what I would have to talk
to Mitch about.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 7
Dilkes/Mitch has communicated with the Corps on a couple of occasions, I do not know
whether it was verbal or written.
Kanner/So I would say that it's not true this information, I've heard contrary information
and I think it's bad policy to not have you give us that information written down.
Franklin/I object to that Steven.
Kanner/Well I object to not being able to get this information, I've asked for it a month
ago.
Franklin/We have told you what we have learned from the Corps of Engineers, you have
chosen to talk to somebody else and evidently get some other information, all we
can tell you is what they've told us.
Kanner/And you can put it in writing.
Franklin/We can put it in writing.
Kanner/You can put it in writing too, it's not that hard to do.
Dilkes/Steven I'm offering the best source of information and that is to come to my
office tomorrow and sit down with Mitch and have a discussion about it.
Kanner/Eleanor quite frankly the best information is to put it in writing and that way we
can share it with the public.
Lehman/I don't sense there's an interest in putting it in writing but I do sense Steven that
it might be well worth your time to sit down and talk to.
Kanner/Could be.
Pfab/I still, I would support that we, this is the time to address that and I don't know
what shape or form or what date but I would be reluctant to support this without
that being defined.
Franklin/I hear two, I'm sorry Irvin we're you done?
Pfab/Go ahead, yea.
Franklin/I hear two issues here, one is Steven's to reduce the acreage to one tenth, and
the other issue is Irvin's to address of dividing land in the development process
such that you get below whatever it is the acreage. And we need to know whether
there are four members of the City Council who wish us to pursue either or both
of those options.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 8
Lehman/This is before the hearing?
Franklin/Sometime.
Kanner/Well actually mine is sort of a piggy back on Irvin, I think he might agree maybe
not that if you get down to a tenth of an acre your not so concerned about
developer's subdividing so that they avoid the acreage limitations.
Pfab/I would be interested in both issues, both getting it down to one tenth of an acre and
also it's, your unable to subdivide your way out of the wetland.
Lehman/Is there interest on the part of the Council on either of those two?
Champion/No.
Dilkes/Could we have a show of hands please?
Lehman/All right those who are interested in the proposals by Steven and Irvin please
indicate by raising their hands. Those who are not interested raise their hands.
Wilburn/Not at this time.
Lehman/Okay.
Franklin/Moving on.
Lehman/Yes.
C. A PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING
DESIGNATION FROM LOW DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
RM-12, TO SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY-LOW DENSITY MULTI-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, SAO-RM-12, FOR LOT 2 OF FIRST AND
ROCHESTER SUBDIVISION, PART 1 A 38,041 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY
LOCATED WEST OF FIRST AVENUE, NORTH OF ROCHESTER STREET.
(REZ02-00003)
Franklin/The next item is a public heating on an ordinance changing the zoning
designation from RM-12 to SAO-RM-12 for lot 2 at First and Rochester
Subdivision. This is a project in which there is an apartment building proposed, a
12 unit apartment building on a lot, it has been reviewed for, it's compliance with
the Sensitive Areas Ordinance and attempts to minimize the grading to the extent
possible, adjustments have been made to pull the building out of some of the
critical and steep slopes as sun~nafized in a memorandum from John Yapp dated
April 26. The project now, the disturbance is approximately 35 percent of the
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 9
critical slopes and 55 percent of the steep slopes but much of the steeper slopes to
the north and west are protected. There's been a recommendation from the
Planning & Zoning Commission on a 6-0 vote to approve this.
Kanner/Karin.
Franklin/Yes.
Kanner/The staff report of the RM-12 says Sensitive Areas Ordinance states that grading
and excavation shall be minimized on steep and critical slopes. How do you
define minimize? It seems 35 and 55 pement is not minimized.
Franklin/It's a judgment call and I mean that's a tough one because of what it says in the
ordinance, there isn't any particular percentage and we've had discussions of this
as to exactly how to define that and so as it goes through the process of the
Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Council your judgments as to
whether you believe it's been minimized or not need to brought to bear.
Kanner/Before we vote on this do you have any kind of pictures of it that we can look at?
Franklin/Yes, this is the drawing that was in your packet, the steeper slopes are to the
north and west on the site that would be the upper left hand comer of this picture.
They've tried to pull it as much out of there as possible to get the garages, and
parking lot and building as far, as close to First Avenue and as far south on the lot
as they can. What would be necessary to do that further would be either putting
the parking underneath the building or decreasing the number of units in the
building.
Kanner/Where is the outlot to access the park that we've got (can't hear)?
Franklin/It's north of this area, you see where it says lot 3, that's the next, which is at the
very top, ! think that's a three. That lot is a development lot and then it's north of
there, it would be somewhere up in here.
Kanner/And is the park to the west of the trees there?
Franklin/No that's Regina.
Kanner/That's Regina, so it's to the north of Regina.
Franklin/ Yea up in there.
Vanderhoef/Karin where's the driveway (can't hear)?
Franklin/Actually, the driveway in the project is right in here.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 10
Vanderhoef/Okay and there's some discussion about site distance at that location, how
was that resolved? There's still one building to the south of this building correct?
Franklin/Yea there's a building right here which is already there and there's the garages
and their drive is right there, yea.
Vanderhoef/So there's two driveways in a row.
Franklin/Yea initially these two lots, well they were, are owned by the same people and it
came in together and we tried to get them to combine the driveways, we couldn't
work through that and so they chose to develop each lot individually and First
Avenue is the only access this lot has, they are entitled to an access and this is the
best location given all of that.
Vanderhoef/Given this is an arterial, this doesn't necessarily work for the project but for
future planning in there it would seem to me that we have condo's across the
street plus these two right (can't hear) west side of the street that perhaps this is an
area where the three lane for the turn lane possibility to the traffic flow because of
the hill, people who are stopped there (can't hear) intersection could create some
problem (can't hear) will be getting left mm or both directions on those (can't
hear) multi-family building.
Franklin/Yea usually we get into those circumstances with higher density or commercial
but you know I don't know, possible.
Champion/We have a lot of arterials that have a lot more driveways than that (can't hear)
smoothly.
Franklin/I mean we try to minimize the driveways and what's on the other side of the
street here is not ideal for an arterial street but it's there.
Champion/I mean I certainly don't, I'm not questioning the stafffs judgment on the
intrusion into the sensitive areas, but what is done, just tell me for my own
information, what is done then when you go into a steep slope 55 percent, what is
done to keep that from eroding? Just do you know, and do you know construction
wise?
Franklin/Well of course the steep slopes are not as critical as the critical slopes, they're
not as steep as the critical slopes. They are required to be identified, they have to
submit a grading plan. I can't tell you specifically in terms of how it is engineered
what that means on the steep slopes, on the critical slopes they do have to be
addressed by an engineer.
Champion/I see.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 11
Franklin/And certified that they are stable.
Champion/Okay.
Vanderhoef/Okay there's something in the plan that talks about retaining walls to the
south side of the parking area, will there be retaining walls back at the back of this
building where we are actually involved in the critical?
Franklin/Right there.
Vanderhoef/That's a retaining wall.
Franklin/And so is that.
Lehman/Oh two of them, terraced.
Franklin/Yea.
Kanner/That human made mound of dirt in recent history or we know the (can't hear).
Franklin/No, I don't think so, no.
Kanner/And with sensitive areas ordinance they're allowed to have some leeway in
density aren't they with the remaining, if they.
Franklin/They can do a density transfer.
Kanner/Transfer.
Franklin/Yea it's just that on this property there, it's not big enough to have much space
to actually transfer, but yea, they could have, well in a 12 plex to go higher, the
way we would normally do it is you go a smaller footprint and then you would go
higher to stay out of the critical and steep slopes. How you would configure that
for this density of development on this size is I can't say right off, what it would
result in, if it would result in anything practical.
Kanner/Was it suggested to them to do something?
Franklin/Whenever people come in with something like this and I mean it didn't start out
this way, it started out farther back on the lot, and we're dealing with the same
issue on lot 3 only it's a more severe situation on lot 3. When it comes in we
point out to them the sensitive areas ordinance and the necessity to minimize the
grading and the disturbance to the steep and critical slopes and suggest to them
ways to move the building around or just tell them you've got to do something
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 12
because this isn't going to work. And on the one to the north that's the point
we're at now, that not even at Planning & Zoning yet because it has difficulties.
Pfab/How many driveways on that very heavy arterial will be in block?
Franklin/Well let me show you the, it depends on how it's platted, now the way this is
platted right now that's why all of these lots, I think this one comes off of Stuart
Court, but these all come off of First Avenue because that's the only access they
have. What we should have done when this whole area was platted low many
years ago is not had all these individual lot accesses to First Avenue. As we have
looked at development plans on this piece right here which is zoned RM412 we
have talked to the developers about the limitations on access, heavy access off of
Rochester as opposed to First Avenue if at all possible, just have a secondary
access on First. But here we've got a lot here, we've got the one we're talking
about and then we've got this lot, all of which have no other access except to First
Avenue so we have to allow them one access point. As we look at development
farther to the north, see these are bigger lots, we need to keep that in mind, try to
get shared access whenever possible and that's what we tried to do with these two
but then they just split it and did it separately.
Pfab/Well is?
Franklin/So I can't, there's no set number as to how many access points there are in a
block.
Pfab/That spot right there was the reason I (can't hear) First Avenue more than anything
because I think that's a death trap and if you keep putting more driveways in
there, your just going to, it's a good thing we're going to be putting the ambulance
pretty close there, maybe we ought to move it up a little closer because that's
where we're going to pick up a lot of business I think, because if you, those
people trying to back out of their driveways down in there so in that, I don't know
what you would consider a block there, how far is that? Where would a block,
you know think of a city block, how many blocks are there?
Franklin/That's probably about a block.
Pfab/So we've got three driveways on one side and we still don't have the development
on the comer lot that's on the (can't hear).
Franklin/You would have potentially three here and two here, so you'd have five
driveways.
Pfab/Yea I mean and that is just.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 13
Franklin/Well then you look at First Avenue as all the way down, you have it all the way
down First Avenue, that's history.
Pfab/Yes but this isn't history, this we.
Franklin/I understand.
Pfab/This we have a chance to do something about and I just feel extremely
uncomfortable, we're working for the people who take care of emergency.
Lehman/Kadn we do have to provide access is that not true?
Franklin/Yes we have to allow access, at least one access point, we can not totally cut off
access without compensating the property owner by buying the property.
Pfab/Maybe we should be doing that?
Franklin/That's your choice if the Council chooses to purchase the property.
Pfab/If that arterial street is going to carry as much traffic as it looks like it will I think
the City really needs to take a look at stopping the carnage before it starts.
O'Donnell/Excuse me I didn't hear that.
Pfab/Stop the carnage before it starts.
O'Donnell/I thought I didn't.
Lehman/ Okay.
D. CONS1DER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 14-6K-2 OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE, FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT, 1N ORDER TO REMOVE
THE REQUIREMENT FOR FiLL BEYOND THE AREA OF A STRUCTURE,
UPDATE VARIOUS DEFINITIONS AND REFERENCES, AND TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THE NEW FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM).
(SECOND CONSIDERATION)
Franklin/Okay next item is the second consideration on the Flood Plain Management
Ordinance, we've discussed that a number of times before, that's it.
Lehman/Oh, thank you Karin.
O'Donnell/Thank you.
Pfab/Thank you Kafin.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 14
Review Agenda Items
Lehman/Okay Review Agenda Items.
ITEM NO. 8. PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT, AND ESTIMATE
OF COST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY FIRE
STATION 3 ADDITION AND RENOVATION PROJECT, ESTABLISHING
AMOUNT OF BID SECURITY TO ACCOMPANY EACH BID, DIRECTING
CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, AND FIX1NG
TIME AND PLACE FOR RECEIPT OF BIDS.
Atkins/Ernie under the Agenda Items 8 and 9 is the Fire Department or the Fire Station
expansion and the landfill cell. I have staffhere if you have questions on either
one of those projects.
Vanderhoef/I would like to just see what the plans look like since we haven't seen the
Fire Station.
Atkins/Fire Station expansion, okay Kumi and Jim are, can show you that. It's sort ora
family room.
Vanderhoef/Oh, whatever it takes.
Atkins/A Sun room.
Kumi Morris/(can't hear).
Lehman/You need to talk into the microphone.
Atkins/Microphone Kumi.
Lehman/Or we can't pick you t~p.
Morris/What we're doing, the proposed.
Kanner/Go back a little bit.
Morris/The proposed project is to expand the outlying fire station 3 that's at 201 Lower
Muscatine and we will, the expansion will contain separate shower and toilet
facilities for both men and women, and will also have work out space, currently
the work out space is in the garage or the parking bay and also increasing the
storage area, currently it's the education facility, and so increasing that as well as
having privatized sleeping areas.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 15
Pfab/Your saying the education storage area is that the only place where the Fire
Department stores their education equipment?
Jim Humston/Correct we have.
Lehman/Microphone please, I know it's a pain but.
Humston/It's all new to me.
Lehman/It keeps Marian happy and that's worth a lot.
Humston/The station number 3 is our public education station and they store everything
from props, puppets, the sound equipment.
Pfab/So is that basically the storage area where the entire fire departments training?
Humston/For all the public education materials, the brochures, the pamphlets, the
coloring books, all of the nick knack's that we hand out, it's all stored there
because they oversee the whole project.
Pfab/How big is that storage area your going to?
Humston/We're dedicating about 250 square feet of the 800, approximately 800 square
feet of the remodeled, 250 will be dedicated for the storage space.
Pfab/It's not quite the size of an auditorium.
Humston/Oh no, no.
Pfab/So it's about 10 x 20 for all of your educational materials.
Humston/Correct, correct.
Lehman/Okay.
Humston/Sure, any more questions.
Vanderhoef/And how many, I take it there's private spaces for three or four?
Humston/Four.
Vanderhoef/Four, that's right it's gone up to four people to a response.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 16
Humston/That station currently has three people but on occasion they may have four, and
again providing for possible future expansion, we're providing that fourth
bedroom now. The current staffing is three.
Pfab/Is that as much as the expansion that you have the area to do it, expand or is the
expansion limited to dollars or to area?
Humston/I'll let Kumi address that.
Morris/What we're doing, I want to flip to the plan, it might a little bit easier for
everyone to see. Currently the station is limited to this area right in here and
currently this is the sleeping area, this is the garage, and what we're doing is we're
expanding beyond here you can see about 16 feet towards the back in width and
about 47 feet across in length and there are four sleeping areas. To address your
question in terms of are we limiting that to, we do have a prescribed budget that
we're trying to.
Pfab/So basically the budget is a.
Morris/Is part of that construction, also we worked with Rohrbach Carlson Architects to
study what the needs were in terms of storage space and how they currently store
the materials for education, currently they're storing them under their beds and in.
Pfab/I know it's.
Morris/Right, it's pretty packed and so what they've done is they've studied the materials
that are currently being store and from that a discussion occurred about how much
storage be needed to facilitate pulling out all those other education materials out
of those areas and putting them into some kind of clean storage space.
Vanderhoeff And so the big room at the top there, that one.
Morris/That's correct, actually that's considered dirty storage, this is clean storage, and
also the, this is going to be what was the sleeping quarters will now be the fitness
and storage area, right in there.
Vanderhoef/Got it.
Humston/It does a couple issues, there we go, offofthe engine bay where the current
apparatus is stored, this would be just open storage for the fire department type of
equipment, hoses, air compressor, those kind of things that we use on a day to day
basis for the fire service. Then we have a clean storage area that would bring
some of those really high dollar sound equipment, $20,000 sound equipment
that's currently stored out with diesel exhaust and those into this clean storage
space and I think it would extend their life and their use a lot longer.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 17
Pfab/Where would you store, oh I guess you don't have to carry blankets or anything like
that or do you? Do you have to supply blankets or anything like that?
Humston/You mean bedding for the.
Pfab/No for emergency go out into.
Humston/No, no.
Pfab/You don't have to worry about clean supplies for, okay don't even talk clean
supplies, or clean storage area that's just to protect equipment.
Humston/Tree, we do store some medical equipment here not blankets, bandages, C
collars, those kinds of things, we do have those currently at that stations as well as
all the stations, and those would also be included in clean storage.
Pfab/Are you seeing, are you anticipating when we get into this Homeland Security that
we're going to be ending up with more requirement and is this going to be able to
address that?
Humston/Some of those issues are addressed through our Hazardous Materials team
through the Johnson County and Iowa City participation in Hazmat and that is
Station 2 which is over on the west side and they're in the process of bidding out
for new Hazmat vehicle and there's more equipment coining in association with
weapons of mass destruction and bioterrism and we will be faced with more
equipment that's true.
Pfab/But are you anticipating?
Humston/But not at this station.
Pfab/That each station will have to store that?
Humston/No.
Pfab/Okay so you don't anticipate being required to store additional items and material
the different, different (can't hear) not quantities you have more people your going
to have, but your not anticipating storing like respirators or something like that.
Humston/No, no.
Lehman/Okay doke.
Vanderhoef/Thank you.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 18
Pfab/One other thing, now what about your land, what about your land space there, is
that unlimited for, or are you bumping up against any a land push prints, is your
footprint (can't hear)?
Humston/No this lot will adequately handle this addition.
Pfab/Okay.
Humston/And there's still room even in the future for.
Pfab/If you, all right suppose you decide that you have to make that bigger is that set up
where you can expand, let's say you end up with eight people there.
Humston/Yes, there's still space available.
Pfab/And it's designed that it can be done that way.
Morris/Actually, currently what is the clean storage and the dirty storage will also be, at
some point in the future, that was one of the things that was discussed was to be
able to expand what would be to the north of the station in that regard and then
possibly there's land out to the south that would allow for some type of
expansion.
Pfab/Okay.
Lehman/Thank you.
Vanderhoef/Thanks.
Lehman/Other agenda items.
ITEM NO. 21. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN
AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN MMS
CONSULTANTS, INC. OF IOWA CITY, IOWA AND THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY FOR CONSULTING SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE
SOUTH SYCAMORE REGIONAL GREENSPACE LANDSCAPE AND TRAIL
PROJECT.
Marian Kan:/Mr. Mayor, I don't know if the City Manager is aware of it but we received
a phone call about Agenda Item 21, last, okay on Friday afternoon and that would
be pulled and I can confirm that tomorrow, Item 21.
Lehman/Would be what?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 19
Atkins/Pulled?
Karr/Pulled, it will not be acted upon.
Lehman/So it's just removed from the agenda.
Karr/That's correct, and I'll confirm that tomorrow.
Lehman/Okay.
Kanner/Why is that being removed?
Karr/The last information I received on Friday was that Item 21 is being removed and is
handled in house.
Lehman/Oh good.
ITEM NO. 9. PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT, AND ESTIMATE
OF COST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE IOWA CITY LANDFILL FY02
CELL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, ESTABLISHiNG AMOUNT OF BID
SECURITY TO ACCOMPANY EACH BID, DIRECTiNG CITY CLERK TO
PUBLISH ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, AND FIXiNG TIME AND PLACE
FOR RECEIPT OF BIDS.
Champion/And then the current, the new cell they're going to put it my favorite place,
the landfill.
Atkins/Yes, we have someone here to answer all those questions for you. Do you want
them at the microphone?
Champion/Well I.
Atkins/Dan.
Champion/Well the only question I had is didn't we talk a couple years ago that the
current cell was going to last another 20 years or that this was going to last
another 20 years, or just remind me about why we need this cell.
Dan Scott/Okay sure, your right, about 5 years ago we did do a 25 year plan and with that
plan we identified how long the current site would last. Now the current site has
three more cells so that's maybe what's confusing there is that each cell lasts
anywhere from three to five years and it's.
Champion/Okay that's what it is, I thought it lasted 20 years but it's three to five, and l
didn't want to read all of it I thought it would be easier to ask the question.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 20
Scott/Right.
Champion/So the cell, the landfill that particular area is expected to last another 20 years.
Scott/Yes.
Champion/Okay thank you.
Scott/Yes, that site will last 20 more years and we do have some buffer zone around that
site identified and along with that some expansion areas that were currently
purchasing on a voluntary basis, in other words when they come up for sell we
approach and seller and negotiate from there.
Champion/And I know when you figure this out you take this all into account but we're
all trying to reduce what is sent into the landfill, does that extended the life of the
landfill at all?
Scott/Oh definitely, yes.
Champion/Okay thanks.
Lehman/Thanks.
Vanderhoef/So we've got 20 years, that's good, fantastic.
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.
Vanderhoeff I have another agenda item, number 19. I was talking with Rick Fosse this
afternoon about the bump outs that are designed for the northside of the street
Market Street specifically at the comer of Market and Linn and I had a concern
about the bus stop that was in that area because I drive that regularly. Frequently
the bus pulls over at the Pearson, what would be the video store comer so that the
arterial can continue to function as an arterial and it just seems to me that we need
a dedicated bus stop area. What he checked out and saw was that there were two
parking spaces presently in that location and if that were dedicated to the bus stop
rather than to two parking spaces it would be easier for the arterial to continue to
carry the capacity. The bump out is still a concern for me, I've had reports from
folks about other bump outs that aren't even on arterials and the number of people
that don't see them and drive up over them or just expect to make a square comer
and so on an arterial I'm very concerned about putting bump outs there, if it gives
false safety to a pedestrian and a car comes around and goes over the bump out
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 21
then it's a real concern for me for safety and so I would rather not see the two
bump outs on that north side of Market Street.
Pfab/Your talking too and where was the other one, I don't have it.
Vanderhoef/One's at, down at the Gilpin Comer, Gilbert and Market and one's at Linn
and Market.
Pfab/ You mean on the same block.
Vanderhoef/Well at either end.
Pfab/Yea but on the same block.
Vanderhoef/Yes.
Pfab/Okay, what would happen, and this may not work at all, what would happen if the
bus stopped at the other, after you cross.
Vanderhoef/What do you mean?
Pfab/After you went, if the bus would be going west and your saying your uncomfortable
to see it stop behind the bump out.
Vanderhoef/Well the combination of either the bus stopping out in the traffic lane
because the bump out is there and if we give it a dedicated spot then it can't roll
forward and merge with traffic after they've made their stop.
Pfab/Is it possible to have the bus stop on the west side of Lirm Street than the east side?
Vanderhoef/Of Linn Street?
Pfab/Yea Linn Street as it comes out.
Vanderhoef/Well your talking about the bump out being into Lirm Street, the bump out is
into Market Streets.
Pfab/Well these, out there, but have the bus instead of stopping before it gets to the bump
out have it go around and then have it stop after it crosses Linn Street.
Vanderhoef/That's a possibility.
?fab/I really like the idea, I think it makes the neighborhood easier to walk in with the
bump out but that would be my thought and I would sure hate to see that go unless
there was a really good reason I would look, or I would try any alternatives or
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 22
before I would support not having a bump out and it may turn out to be the wrong
thing to support but I think that's a great thing.
Vanderhoef/My concern is definitely the safety on the bump out.
Pfab/But what do you think about it if the bus pulled over after it crossed Linn Street.
Vanderhoef/That's a possibility.
Kanner/Well there's two issues but maybe we could hear from Jeff, I have a feeling the
bump outs make it safer and traffic engineering would nationally would maybe
confirm that.
Champion/There are so many pedestrians over there and a lot of older people too.
Jeff Davidson/Yea obviously the bump outs aren't anything that enhances the vehicular
flow along the street as Dee pointed out, they're there to make the crossing of the
arterial shorter for the pedestrian. IfI understand the issue that's been raised and
Irvin's suggestion, I assume there's a bump out also on the other side of the, the
west side of the intersection which means that the bus, we wouldn't want the bus.
(END OF 02-44 SIDE TWO)
Davidson/To pull past Linn Street and get out of the way of Linn Street and around the
bump out on that side that would involve, taking out several on street parking
places which that's a relatively high usage area for on street parking.
Champion/But Jeff also is, I mean even though this is an arterial it is in a business
district, and there are a lot of, parked cars (can't hear) people walking and people
really aren't going that fast, it isn't like going up Rochester or Muscatine ! mean
there's a lot of much slower traffic on Market (can't hear).
Davidson/There's a progressive signal system there as we all know who uses that so if
you stay roughly at the speed limit cars tend to stay kind of platooned bunched up
so there's pedestrian access across that street because with the signal system like
that the cars bunch up into what traffic engineers call platoons and then there's
good gaps in between those platoons for crossing.
Vanderhoef/Except when the bus doesn't pull over and then I've seen so many problems
with people trying to get around the bus and dart into the other lane and so forth.
Davidson/Yea, that's an issue everywhere of course.
Vanderhoef/And on the arterial if your going to stay with the signals then that.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 23
Davidson/I mean there is a little bit of tradeoff for the Council, policy issue if you want
to call it that with the bump outs and that they're there to enhance pedestrian
crossing of the arterial and if you believe that you know in lieu of that that we
should be augmenting the traffic flow along Market Street you know that's an
issue to take those out eventually.
Champion/I don't think it is, we have a lot of bus stops on arterial streets, a lot.
Pfab/It looks to me like that is probably one of the highest pedestrian areas around.
Davidson/Well I wouldn't say highest Irvin but it's.
Pfab/Well I'd say it's one of them.
Davidson/It's high, it's probably not near as high as like the Pentacrest area, Washington
Street and that.
Pfab/But there isn't as high as traffic as there is in many other areas.
Davidson/Well certainly it's high enough that the proposal for the bump outs was
because of that.
Vanderhoef/I understand that and whether the bump outs or go I still would like to
dedicate the two parking spaces that are in that section to be the bus stop other
than people get out of the bus and walk between parked cars.
Pfab/Then if your going to dedicate too then why don't you dedicate two on the west side
of the.
Vanderhoef/On the west side what?
Pfab/At the cross lane.
Vanderhoef/Because of what Jeff just said.
Lehman/Well these sort of things, like moving parking spaces and whatever those things
can all be done after the project's done and see how it works.
Pfab/But Dee was saying let's get rid of the bump out, that's why I'm saying there are
alternatives.
Lehman/Okay.
Atkins/Ernie did you decide anything on this? We have a bid tomorrow night to award.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 24
Lehman/I don't sense them being a great interest in moving the bump outs.
Atkins/I apologize, okay thanks.
Lehman/Do I misinterpret?
Champion/No.
Lehman/Okay other agenda items.
ITEM NO. 3d(2). CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR
JULY 2 ON ORDINANCES ADOPTING THE 2000 EDITIONS OF THE
INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE,
UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE,
AMENDING CONTRACTOR LICENSING REQUIREMENTS, AND
AMENDING THE APPEALS SECTIONS OF THE CODES.
Karmer/Yea I had a couple. We're going to, let's see we're setting a public hearing to
adopt the 2000 International Building Code and some other codes.
Atkins/That's correct.
Karmer/Could we get those changes in Thursday's packet so I have more time to review
and get them out to the public?
Atkins/I don't see why not, I don't see why not Steven, I assume that stuff is pretty much
boiler plate, I don't think there are any, right now I'm not aware of any dramatic
changes, just bringing our code up to date.
Karmer/Oh okay.
Dilkes/The Board of Appeal has been working pretty hard on those changes, you might
want to check and make sure they're in final form and ready to go out.
Atkins/Okay, they may not be in final form but we'll get you what we can get you.
Lehman/Okay.
ITEM NO. 3f(10). GEOFF JOHNSON: CITY-CODE- LIZARDS AND SNAKES.
Kanner/And in correspondence,'number 10, page 101 in our council packets we had a
letter from Geoff Johnson about our code regarding reptile pets and he pointed out
some perhaps inconsistencies or things that might need corrections and I was
wondering if anyone had looked into that in the legal department or in the City
Manager's department.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 25
Atkins/City Manager's department didn't.
Dilkes/I wouldn't know one of those reptiles from the next so I think Misha is going to
have to the Animal Control is going to have to take a look at that initially.
Karmer/Can.
Atkins/Fine we'll have Misha take a look at that.
Kanner/Is Council think it's fine to have Misha take a look at that?
Vanderhoef/I think so.
Pfab/I would say we should do it right if we're going to do it.
Vanderhoef/I had marked that one too that when that was brought to us it was people
who had some expertise when we wrote the ordinance anyway.
Kanner/Maybe we could have an example brought in.
Lehman/No, why don't we just use descriptions, I think we got rid of elephants.
Atkins/So you want Misha to review the definition of snake.
Vanderhoef/Well review this letter and see if there's any validity to.
Pfab/If there was no validity it was pretty convincing.
Champion/Yea that would be a good one.
Vanderhoef/Well it would go (can't hear).
Lehman/Okay.
ITEM NO. 21. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN
AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN MMS
CONSULTANTS, 1NC. OF IOWA CITY, IOWA AND THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY FOR CONSULTING SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE
SOUTH SYCAMORE REGIONAL GREENSPACE LANDSCAPE AND TRAIL
PROJECT.
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.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 26
Vanderhoef/Okay just two questions on we've got two items 21 and 24 both of which are
hiring outside consultants.
Lehman/21 has been removed.
Pfab/Glad to see that.
Lehman/24 is.
Vanderhoef/But will we, even though it's being removed is it going to, the consulting
service going to be used or not?
Lehman/I understand that they may do in house.
Atkins/I understand 21 was dropped.
Champion/Dropped.
Vanderhoef/Okay.
Atkins/Chosen to do in house.
Vanderhoef/Okay and then 24 is land acquisition and I thought we were pretty much
doing that in house recently.
Champion/(can't hear) mapping.
Dilkes/Howard R. Green is subcontracting with Graham Land Acquisitions Consultants
to do the contracting and I believe that's a budgeted amount and engineering has
decided to include that in their budget. They get funding for it from the DOT, it's
a DOT project I think.
Vanderhoef/This is a DOT.
Dilkes/Yea, I think that's correct isn't it Steve, Jeff.
Atkins/ Yea Jeffjust whispered to me that DOT is going to cover the cost of this.
Pfab/Are they covering all of the costs or is there?
Atkins/Substantially, we have a share of it but it's overwhelming the DOT.
Pfab/20 percent.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 27
Dilkes/Dee we continue to do the condemnations if we can't, if they can't be acquired
voluntarily, my office does but on a project of this size if outside funding is
available we sometimes contract the acquisition.
Vanderhoef/Okay I just didn't recall the DOT money into this project.
Lehman/Okay any other agenda items?
O'Donnell/Just this northside Market Street streetscape, it looks like the bid came in
awfully high.
Lehman/We got two really good bids that we'll talk about tomorrow night, really good
bids,
ITEM NO. (IP 14) Memorandum from Assistant City Attorney Matthews: PROPERTY
TAX ASSESSMENT
Vanderhoef/Oh one other thing, Eleanor the memorandum from Andy about the property
tax assessment and appeals we got a memo on that for the affordable housing.
Was the new law put into place that didn't grandfather in the projects that were
already completed for this tax abatement? Or tax I don't k now whether you call
it an abatement but to decrease the taxes on these affordable housing projects?
Dilkes/Yea I'm not familiar with the specifics of that that when the legislative changes
were made but you should give Andy a call and he can answer that for you.
Vanderhoef/Well I think this is something we should look into because.
Dilkes/Oh we intend to, progressively defend it.
Vanderhoef/Well the one we have the contracts so he was real specific about but the
other three that are on the books right now and already paying taxes it's like this is
a windfall for a private developer and I wonder if that's what the legislature was
truly intending to have happen because the decrease taxes for those properties
certainly takes away from our tax base.
Dilkes/Steve may be more familiar with this with the legislation.
Atkins/So far everything you've said is correct, in fact I've sent off to the Iowa League of
Cities folks, Susan Judkins our lobbyist to review that very reason, the developer
has the potential to pocket the difference.
Vanderhoef/Oh it's a windfall.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 28
Atkins/It is a windfall. Does it affect the? I mean is it passed along the tenants? I mean
there's a whole variety of.
Lehman/Didn't Andy say they're going to contest those though?
Vanderhoef/Just the one is all that we've got a contract on.
Atkins/Well we have an assessment agreement under one of them Ernie and the other's
we do not and we need to find out more about that, this was pretty much a heads
up memo for you all because the developer.
Dilkes/Yea we're just in the early stages of looking at that, so we'll do what we need to
do.
Atkins/We have a lot more work to do on that.
(Can't hear)/
Vanderhoef/I know I wanted on the State Legislative Issues.
Atkins/Hang on a second, had you finished with me? That at the time of the
development of that project there was debt sold and there had to be a minimum
assessment or something such as that, I don't remember the exact details of the
thing lrvin it's been some time ago. But I do know that that agreement protected
our interest as it relates to the potential for the reduction in the assessment that
this new law is proposing.
Pfab/Okay is that something that you could?
Champion/They're going to look at, they're just starting to look at it.
Pfab/You said there was an agreement, can you get a copy for us?
Atkins/Yea I'm assuming it's available.
Pfab/I mean would you, I would appreciate it.
Atkins/I'll see if I can find something.
Lehman/I would assume that when we, that when you get into that Eleanor that that
agreement will be part of our information.
Atkins/Oh yea.
Lehman/That isn't going to be part of tomorrow night's meeting (can't hear).
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Speci~WorkSession Page 29
Pfab/No, no, but.
Atkins/But you want it for information purposes.
Pfab/No, no, I would just like it for the information (can't hear).
Lehman/Right, but even if we get that in conjunction with the rest of the information
relative to this entire issue it probably would be, oh I won't lose it if I get it that
way.
Pfab/Well you will do it twice.
Lehman/Okay, other agenda items.
ITEM NO. 3e(8). CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FY2003-2006
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PLAN TO PROVIDE FINANCING
FOR THE PENINSULA AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT.
Kanner/Yea in consent calendar, resolution number 8, amend the CIP to include bonding
for the Peninsula Affordable Housing, the amount of the bond is $657,000. Steve
can you explain how we're going to be assured of the cash flow to cover the
repayment of this bond, I didn't quite follow all of that?
Atkins/We will ultimately have an agreement with Greater Iowa City Housing
Fellowship, and this project represents and I'm doing a lot of this from
recollection, there are three sources of funding, there are CDBG Home, the state
provided a grant, and then we agreed to provide financing in the form of a general
obligation bond. This is probably been kicking around two years and this is the
instrument this piece of legislation that authorizes us to proceed, they take
advantage of our good credit that they have to repay this and I'm sure it will be
built into certain documents to protect our interest, just exactly how it's, the shape
it's going to take Steven I don't know right now.
Kanner/Most likely rental income that comes in.
Atkins/Oh yea that's right yea.
Karmer/Is going to pay for.
Atkins/Yea Iowa City Greater Housing Fellowship this is intended to be 16 affordable
housing units for family rentals and then the rents generated pay are in affect
loaned to them which is pretty much what this thing is and then the state's
$700,000 1 believe was a grant, in fact I'm pretty sure it was a grant. Did I get all
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 30
that right back there? Yea, okay, okay, so our interests are protected as much as
they can be on these kind of circumstances, on this kind of circumstance.
Kanner/Do you or Kevin know will we have a lien on the property or (can't hear)?
Atkins/I'm assuming we'd have to write something like that into the agreement Steven
just to protect our interest.
Dilkes/The details of that agreement are being discussed and I assume that agreement
will come to you.
Atkins/I would assume you will have to approve the agreement yea, which we need the
bond authorization, okay.
Lehman/Okay other agenda items.
ITEM NO. 6. PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION APPROVING A PURCHASE
AGREEMENT WITH UNITED ACTION FOR YOUTH FOR CONDOMINIUM
UNIT 1-C 1N TOWER PLACE AND PARKING AND THE DISPOSITION OF
SAID PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE THEREWITH.
Vanderhoef/Number 6, which is the condominium unit in Tower Place. I guess I would
ask Council a couple or three questions here. The first one was that this was an
opportunity to put commercial property onto the tax rolls, and I know we don't
have a policy about non profits purchasing this but in the central business district I
guess is this what Council wants to do to take a high valued land and property off
of the tax rolls at this point? This is a good organization, it's not that it doesn't
work well in their plan but I just want to pose that as a question for everyone to
think about. Was there any attempt at looking at the viability of this project given
that this organization is going to be doing a large fund raiser and then my concern
is that they constantly do fund raising as do all the other organizations in the
community to raise funds to work with their primary mission and how will this
affect that mission and their ability to raise funds? I'm worried about them not
being able to handle it, that's not something that I can put a handle on or say they
can or they can't. Was that looked into when they came to us for a purchase
agreement?
Atkins/Dee we talked about a whole variety of issues, many of the things that your
discussing. UAY felt strongly that they wanted this site, they wanted to remain in
downtown, they felt very much that they could conduct a satisfactory fund raiser
to come up with the money, they also needed the CDBG commitment which I
don't believe they got everything they asked for but they did get a reasonably good
commitment of the form of CDBG money. Beyond all that folks it's really sort of
a policy question you all have to decide is we discussed the use, the type of, and in
many respects it's kind of like an office.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 31
Champion/Yea but it's more than an office, they're going to do a lot of things in there.
Atkins/They're going to do programming in there too.
Champion/I think the location is ideal for them.
Atkins/That's right, they felt very strongly about that.
Vanderhoeff Yea, it is an ideal location for them.
Champion/I think it's questionable, I think any type of organization like that where they
(can't hear) enough money and it's not possible but I don't really, I think they
think they can do it and I don't know why we would question that. The other
thing is that we all ourselves we've taken buildings, we've taken buildings off the
tax rolls downtown ourselves I mean for years we bought the John Wilson
building, we took that off the tax roll. Recently by adding the library took the
Lenoch and Cilek building off the tax rolls so (cant 'hear) adds to the diversity of
downtown I think and I think they don't have any problems with it at all and I
hope they raise the money and we still I would think of, I don't know where the
financing is from but it isn't like they get to keep the building, it's (can't hear)
money.
Vanderhoef/No.
Champion/I'm not on their Board of Directors therefore I don't think it's my decision to
make that decision for them.
Wilburn/So your, but your basically getting at if your going to keep something off the tax
rolls what are you getting in return? What other types of return are you possibly
getting is that what your talking about Connie?
Champion/Well I think you can get a lot from that organization, your getting some
diversity downtown, your also keeping young people busy doing things, like don't
they have a radio station now, they're going to.
Wilburn/There going to be, they will.
Champion/I mean kids love that kind of thing, young people, and if they can keep them
busy doing that kind of thing it can save us a lot of money in the future too I think,
I support it, I think it's a great location I really do.
O'Donnell/I do too, it's a really good program.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 32
Pfab/I brought this up at a previous meeting, former Council, and I looked at that too as
it's uncomfortable to see, because basically this was before my time that one of
the ways that we were justifying using or building that ramp t here was because
there would be public taxable property available to help support it but I came to
the conclusion I think that.
Champion/Oh no, Irvin it doesn't support the building Irvin, that's wrong, those were not
put there to support the building.
Pfab/No to support the tax base, it's a tax base.
Champion/Right.
Pfab/If I said that then I misspoke. But I looked at it I think just basically what everyone
else is saying here I think that this is one of the things that government and city
government can exercise it's power in a very influential way and the fact that they
are able to keep the, by locating there they can still keep their owner properties
there, I think it's, I think it's a contribution by all the people to help those people
that need those services. I think it's just a great thing, I don't like to see it go off
the tax rolls but I think there's a lot greater good by doing what we're doing.
Wilburn/Steve what does that the agreed upon price what does that cover in relation to
the assessment and the spot, you know that asking price, what does that cover in
terms of (can't hear)?
Atkins/Four walls.
Wilburn/Okay.
Atkins/You know they buy four walls, they have to fit it out.
Wilburn/I mean in terms of covering the city's initial investment in.
Atkins/Oh it covers our cost, I mean we're not losing money on it, it covers that.
Wilbum/Okay, losing in terms of what was spent to put it there.
Lehman/And they pay the (can't hear) maintenance and etc.
Atkins/They pay all like everybody else.
Wilburn/Okay.
Kanner/Well I come at it I think as a different angle slightly than Dee and perhaps what
Irvin was saying, I think it's worth supporting that kind of thing, some of the
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 33
things I have issue with is that we are giving them a break to the tune of for
installment payments we lose maybe $6,000-12,000 in interest by allowing them
to do installment payments and we agree to below what's sort of assumed to be
the market price of $58,000 and we do have to then as the memo said from a few
weeks ago we have to make sure the other unit gets the full price so we don't have
any leeway there.
Atkins/Little, that's right.
Kanner/So we're giving them a subsidy which I think is okay to do for the reasons that
you stated and others have stated, they do a lot of good and we need to have that
kind of thing. In fact I'll make a pitch for something similar later on in the
evening in Council time that we discuss in terms of the high school that we have
here. But I would say that this is the kind of thing that fits under Economic
Development, that we want to keep these kind of institutions downtown, keep it
thriving and alive, and not only is it good for our culture and our community but it
also is bodies that are spending money downtown and our businesses supporting
our businesses. And I would say some of the subsidy that we're giving which
looks to the tune of about $65,000 or more this would be appropriate to come out
of Economic Development and I would ask that Economic Development
Committee take a look at this. This is, I see this a perfect opportunity to use that
kind of money for this kind of thing.
Lehman/All right.
Kanner/Would Economic Development Committee like to look at that?
Lehman/We can look at anything, in fact we're meeting next.
Vanderhoef/No.
Wilburn/We're up soon, Karin's shaking her head yes so I guess we are.
Vanderhoef/Next week, not.
Kanner/I propose you take a look at it from Council of appropriate use, especially since
they do do some child care in some form or another and that is part of our
Economic Development, I don't know if they're planning to do some in this
building per say.
Atkins/I don't believe so Steve, no.
Champion/No.
Atkins/Not in this case.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 34
Pfab/Early childhood education.
Atkins/Yes.
Kanner/Early childhood education, excuse me.
Lehman/Okay.
Kanner/Any other people wish to direct this to Economic Development Committee?
Champion/Well I don't have any problems if they discuss it.
Pfab/I think it would be a great idea.
Lehman/Betwee~ the three of us we ought to remember to bring it up.
Champion/Bring it up.
Lehman/All right, we can do that. If there are no other agenda items we have
appointments.
Appointments
Lehman/Airport Zoning Commission I don't think there were any applications.
Atkins/No.
Lehman/Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment I think there were no applications.
Champion/There was a deer, a couple deer.
Lehman/Deer committee.
Vanderhoef/Historic Preservation.
Lehman/Well, I'm sorry, Historic Preservation.
Vanderhoef/They asked that one just be deferred indefinitely while they wait for that
answer from the state.
Karr/So we'll readvertise the Airport Zoning and the Airport Zoning Board of
Adjustment with your concurrence and have a motion to defer indefinitely the
Historic Preservation.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Cotmcil Meeting
of Jtme 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 35
Champion/Right.
O'Donnell/ Okay.
Lehman/Okay the Deer Task Force, there were some, I don't have.
Wilburn/Mark Sandler was the hunter, Mark Sandler was the hunter.
O'Donnell/Mark Sandler was the one I would.
Champion/Yea.
Pfab/As a comment as we're making, as what's happening in northern Wisconsin
continues to spread this way maybe we won't have a deer problem.
Lehman/I don't know but we surely need a deer committee if that does happen.
Pfab/I didn't say that.
Champion/We may need to have more of a deer (can't hear).
Lehman/Do we have a nomination for Mark Sandler? Is that?
Champion/Yes.
Pfab/That's great.
Kanner/The hunter position.
Vanderhoef/And the other one is Reveiz, Reveiz, Reveiz. As the biologist or scientist.
Wilburn/Or at large it says, it just depends on what we want to.
Vanderhoef/What I think I read in the minutes was that they wanted to readvertise for the
at-large position and that they would recommend these two names as the people
appointed at this point in time.
Champion/So are you nominating that name we can't pronounce?
Vanderhoef/ Yes.
Lehman/Karime Reveiz.
Wilburn/Reveiz.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 36
Vanderhoef/I apologize because I'm not.
Lehman/That is for the biologist.
Vanderhoef/Yes.
Wilbum/Yes.
Lehman/Okay do we have concurrence on that?
Champion/Yes.
Kanner/Yes.
Lehman/All right, wonderful. Before we undertake 64-1A we are going to take a quick
break.
Champion/It's a good idea.
BREAK
Development Agreement for 64-1A
Lehman/64-1A Karin.
Franklin/Thank you. This is a project that we've been negotiating for some time as your
aware, Joe Fowler, Susan Craig, Sarah Holecek, Kevin O'Malley and myself have
represented the City along with John Hintze of the Ahlers Law finn who's here
with us tonight, Ahlers is our Bond Council. And Mark and Michael Moen have
been the principal negotiators for the development team. I guess at the (can't
hear) what I would remind us all of is the long view on this. This was a project
that was chosen by the City Council out ora number of proposals to enhance the
downtown and to build the tax base of downtown. The eventual goal here is to
have a significant property tax generator as well as something that's going to add
to our downtown. There's three, this is a very complicated agreement I'm sure
that you've all read it at least twice.
Champion/Every word.
Franklin/Every word, there's three basic aspects to this, one is the content of the project,
the other is the land sale and the third is the tax increment financing. The content
of the project, what is going to be built is what the Plaza towers of the Moen
Group proposed to you and that is included in Exhibit C of the agreement as well
as in Exhibit D. And I would refer you to Exhibit D, I think the Council has hard
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 37
copies of the agreement, hopefully for your convenience in which the Exhibit D
minimum improvements and uses enumerates what will be built on this site.
Champion/Do you have that page number of that what your talking?
Franklin/It's page 37.
Champion/Thank you.
Franklin/What will be built on the site includes a 10,000 square foot full service grocery
store, upper level conference space of no less than 18,000 square feet, no less than
50 luxury hotel suites. It also includes residential components either apartments
or condominiums containing no more than two bedrooms per unit except for a
written approval of the city. There are extras that are included in these minimum
improvements such as the drive up book drop for the library. A valet parking, if it
is provided for the hotel will also be provided for library patrons. A public access
from the third level of the Dubuque Street parking ramp to the second level of the
project through the project and to the pedestrian mall for access to the library. A
covered walkway on the Linn Street level of the project with reconstruction of the ,
sidewalk on the west side of Linn Street we would permit a drop offlane for the
hotel, we'll also have an agreement with the developer regarding parking for the
hotel similar to the one we have for the Sheraton. We'll have one public
handicapped accessible parking space which would be in the surface lot to the
rear, or to the south I should say of the project and then there are provisions made
for radio antenna and peripherals for the cable vision radio station on top of the
project. There is a performance bond that is required that ensures that this project
will be built. Construction is scheduled to begin no later than November of 03
and completed by November of 05. And so that is the essence of what will be
built and there are assurances in the agreement that the building will be built.
Prior to conveyance there are a number of conditions which are precedent to that
conveyance which include demonstration that the developer has the financing
necessary to carry out this project. The land sale which is the item that I will go to
next is a price of $250,000 cash at the time of closing which would be by October
15, 2003. If you recall earlier there was a release of the appraisal to the public and
the press, the appraisal found that there was a negative residual value for this
property and we can get into what that means if you want to discuss that in a
moment. The third portion of this is the TIF financing of it, as you recall the
Council adopted an Urban Renewal District which is in is illustrated in Exhibit A, ·
that is the map of the Urban Renewal Area.
Pfab/What page is that on again?
Franklin/That's on page 34, that expanded the old R-14 University of Iowa, Iowa City
Urban Renewal area to include a larger area of downtown and also enabled us to
use tax increment financing as an incentive tool. Tax increment financing may be
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 38
used for grants, loans or tax rebates, any projects which are done with tax
increment financing may be supported by the increment of taxes in the district as a
whole. We have chosen in the negotiations for this project to have the repayment
of the bonds be dependent upon the taxes that are generated by the Plaza Towers
project and one other property that is owned by the Moen's, the Vogel property,
that's the project on the comer of Linn and Iowa Avenue. Just to remind you that
all the project proposals that came before you except for the Clark proposal except
for student housing was, all of those proposals included requests for TIF
financing.
Lehman/But Karin just.
Franklin/Okay.
Champion/I have one more.
Lehman/An observation I guess as much as anything. The TIF financing for this project
includes only two properties within the district, which means that all other taxes
that are presently being collected by the county, the city and the school will
continue to be collected in this area, none of those taxes will be used to repay the
bonds on this project.
Franklin/That's correct.
Lehman/Thank you.
Franklin/Just to go through that financing a little bit more and I'm going to give you
what I call the layman's version of it and then John Hintze is here to answer any
questions you might have about it, he's very versed in this minimum assessment
aspect of it and Kevin O'Malley is here also who is obviously very versed in
bonding and they can deal with all the intricacies of it, I just give you the lay
version. Section 102 of the document which I will find the page number here for
you is page 14, and that is where it indicates what the city's contribution to the
project is and what the agreement puts forward is a $6,000, whoops, son*y about
that Marc. $6,000,000 bond over a 20 year repayment schedule that this money
would be released on a prorata basis in conjunction with the construction loan that
would come from the bank. That is that we wouldn't just $6,000,000 up front to
the developer, it goes out as construction occurs and it is on a prorata basis with
the money that's going in from the bank, the money that's going in from the
private developer so all those components of the financing go toward the project
gradually as it is needed and on a prorata basis, understand.
Champion/No.
Franklin/Okay.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 39
Pfab/What are the other?
Franklin/The other funding mechanisms are the private financing, the bank, the
construction loan.
Pfab/How much?
Franklin/Which would be approximately $16,000,000 dollars, and the private financing
which would be everything they need besides the bank money and the bond
money.
Pfab/Round numbers.
Kanner/So everything above $22,000,000.
Franklin/Everything above $22,000,000,
Kanner/And what's that estimated to be at this point?
Franklin/The number that we have in the (can't hear) value is $22,265,000, the appraisal
calculates it at least $25,000,000.
Karmer/So Moen is putting in estimated anywhere from $600,000 to $3,000,000 of his
own money.
Franklin/Yes, well of his own money and of course he has to pay back the bank loan of
$16,000,000. The bonds will be repaid from taxes on Plaza Towers and the Vogel
properties I've indicated based on an a minimum assessment agreement and this is
the very critical part because this is the part that guarantees that the bonds are
covered. What has been agreed to is a 3 part minimum assessment, the first being
a minimum partial assessment of $10,527,000 on the Plaza Towers Project, the
first payment of those taxes would be September of 2006. In September of 2007
the minimum assessment goes up to $22,265,000 in concurrence.
Pfab/Now (can't hear).
Vanderhoef/Where is that (can't hear)?
Franklin/Pardon me, that is included in Exhibit H which and the schedules Y and X are.
Lehman/Towards the end.
Franklin/Schedule Y is on page 58, okay find that one first. And then for some reason
after page 60 it went to page two again, we need to fix that, but then go to page 7
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 40
after 60, got it. So Schedule Y shows the minimum assessment and the tax
revenues that will be generated and the schedule for those taxes.
Pfab/Can you translate what that term, minimum assessment?
Franklin/What that means is that the Plaza Towers group agrees that regardless of what
the actual value is of the property they will agree to a minimum assessment upon
which the taxes will be based. Thus generating the tax revenue that is shown in
the schedules in the agreement, they cannot challenge that assessment.
Pfab/So is that what the county records are going to show then?
Franklin/ Yes, the City Assessors, not County.
Pfab/What about the County Assessor?
Franklin/The County Assessor does not do assessments in the city, it's the City
Assessment and then it's the County Treasurer.
Pfab/Okay so it would be the only public assessment, assessed value.
Franklin/Yes, yes.
Wilburn/So it's worth at least that and the $6,000,000 prorata means we're not given a
chunk of $6,000,000 up front we won't see some building happen and as it goes
along or it will be dispersed.
Franklin/Right, right, now that dispersion of funds or dispersal of funds will occur over a
two year period.
Wilburn/Right.
Franklin/And then we will have a period of time in which this gets paid back by the tax
revenue but that's how the tax increment financing works.
Wilburn/Right.
Lehman/But these guaranteed minimum's are sufficient to retire the $6,000,000 bonds in
a 20 year period.
Franklin/That's correct.
Lehman/And this is minimum, if the actual taxes are higher then they taxes on the
higher value.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 41
Franklin/That's correct.
Kanner/Is there going to be a lien on this building until our $6,000,000 is repaid?
Franklin/Yes this agreement is the lien because they and their successors agree that they
will adhere to this minimum assessment agreement.
Champion/Which will pay off the.
Lehman/Bonds.
Franklin/That will pay offthe bonds, and we have taken into consideration here the
residential uses, the potential for condominiums, and the residential roll back so
these are values that are placed on this property with all of that taken into
consideration, and they have committed to that.
Pfab/And so in other words if after it's built they decide to condominiumize, everything
gets condominiumizable and you can, and instead of taking the roll back which is
what 50-60 percent now, they would not use that, they would.
Franklin/No what would happen is the value would shift to the commercial portion of the
property or any non roll back portion of the property and the taxes would be paid
based on that value.
Pfab/Does, okay I guess the question that I'm not hearing addressed here does the city get
any interest for the money they put in?
Champion/We're not putting the money in, we're borrowing the money, they have to pay
the interest on the bonds.
Lehman/Well there is a repayment of $12,000,000 dollars for the $6,000,000 in bonds.
Champion/They pay the interest though.
Lehman/They're paying the interest.
Franklin/The repayment covers our debt service.
Lehman/Right.
Franklin/There is also a minimum assessment on the Vogel property, which the first
payment of that would be September of 2004.
Pfab/And where's that in the?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 42
Franklin/That is on.
Lehman/Page 7.
Franklin/Page 7 after page 60.
Pfab/60 and 60 in the back.
Lehman/No keep going Irvin it's in the back.
Franklin/Go in the back, go to 60 and then it starts over at 2.
Pfab/And what page is it on?
Lehman/7.
Franklin/7, and that's the same exact principle, the only thing that's different here is that
it does not change through the repayment schedule, okay. That's the thmnbnail
version.
Champion/That was pretty good.
Franklin/It's really not that complicated.
Champion/Well no actually.
(All laughing.)
Lehman/You can say that now.
Champion/Actually Karin it is quite complicated.
Franklin/I know.
Champion/But when you break it down into idiots delight it does help.
Franklin/I think now is the time for questions and then I'll go into the process but I want
you all to be clear.
Champion/One of the question I mean I actually thought the breakdown the paper was
pretty good of how it was going to be financed, and it was written like most of us
can understand. The other thing was I know we had requested or as part of the
original agreement for things like a grocery store. Well frankly I'm not going to
read this whole agreement, I'm telling you I'm simply not going to. What
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 43
happens if that grocery store can't make it, are they still obligated to keep it there I
mean what protects their interest?
Franklin/No, they have to make, they have to make a good faith effort to have a viable
grocery, first of all they have to build it, they have to build the project such that
the hotel's there, the conference space is there and the grocery store is there, and
the construction plans and the approval of the construction plans are one of the
things that are precedent of our conveyance, that happens first so we know it will
be built because of that and because of the performance bond. Now a business
can come in and can fail for one mason or another, they're obligated to make a
good faith effort to keep a viable grocery store and hotel there, there are liquidated
damages if they do not.
Pfab/Which is?
Franklin/But I will be very frank with you, the liquidated damages we're saying that they
have not made a good faith effort are difficult to prove.
Champion/Sure.
Franklin/But we have that here if we can demonstrate that they have not made a good
faith effort, you know if it's two weeks and there's no grocery store, not two
weeks, some reasonable period of time and they have not gotten a grocery store
then I think we can probably say they haven't made a good faith effort.
Vanderhoef/Karin I'm real concerned about good faith effort on this particular piece, it's
both on the hotel the half million dollars repayment for.
Franklin/The liquidated damages.
Vanderhoef/Hotel and another half million dollars for the grocery store because if it's
built obviously the hotel rooms can be converted immediately to single bedroom
apartments, they meet our code for size, and kitchen and bathroom and all the
things that so the conversion on that would be pretty minimal if anything so how
long? It seems to me that good faith effort there ought to be a time period for the
hotel whether it be 5-7 years so it can get established and with the grocery store
there again if it is built out it can be converted rather rapidly to any other kind of
commercial activity and so I think we need to put a time limit into this.
Franklin/We started out that way Dee and with that same concern, the financing
institution will not finance the project with such a proviso in place because they
will be holding.
Vanderhoef/(can't hear).
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 44
Franklin/Well no they will be holding the mortgage on the property.
Vanderhoef/But the city is holding the risk of them coming back and saying we've made
the good faith effort it's now one year and we're going to convert right now. Well
we gave up dollars in the purchase price of the land because when we got the
Carlson appraisal the grocery store is the piece that drove the whole assessment
into the negative.
Franklin/No.
Vanderhoef/Well it's a big piece of it when you look at that appraisal and the way that
they attributed $7.00 or excuse me $9.00 and some cents per square foot for rental
on the grocery store area versus the adjacent commercial area next door in the
$17.00 range for return to finance the whole building.
Franklin/Well first of all I think there were a number of factors that came up to that
negative residual value and the income stream on the hotel and the condominiums
which are not tested, the upscale condominiums are not tested in our market were
and also the quality and the expense of the building that disparity between the cost
of construction and the income that was going to be generated by that, those
variety of uses including the residential component of it was where there was the
disconnect between cost of project income thus the negative residual value so I
don't think you can attribute it exclusively.
Vanderhoef/No I.
(END OF 02-51 SIDE ONE)
Franklin/Your point is well taken in terms of what would be most desirable on the part of
the city, if the grocery store and hotel are the most compelling things for the City
Council with the response that this project would not be financed by the financial
institution if there was that time limit put in there. And I mean I can understand
where they're coming from because then they as a mortgage holder have a
stipulation on that property which confines their ability to get someone else to do
it if in fact they end up with it. We then try to reach a middle ground and also
make some kind of a judgment as to how critical the grocery store component was
for the City Council. In our discussions as we've had them when we were going
through the various proposals, everybody or most people, I can't say everybody, I
think a majority was enthused about the grocery store and we even talked about
the possibility that that business might not succeed and what would happen and I
thought that there was an understanding that it was going to be risky in terms of
getting something in there that for sure, for sure would stay a certain given
number of years and so that's how we got where we are with the best efforts. So I
mean that's a judgment.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 45
Champion/I agree, I think the grocery store is risky, and that's why I asked if there was a
way out if it doesn't work.
Franklin/It would convert to commercial property and.
Champion/But the hotel is very important to me and I would not be happy at all if that
converted immediately to condominiums because they weren't built up (can't
hear).
Franklin/Well immediately too, depending upon how you define immediately, but I
would not say a year is not best efforts.
Champion/No I don't either.
Vanderhoef/But how can you measure that without getting into legal form?
Franklin/I understand.
Vanderhoef/Well I've got a couple of other questions.
Champion/I mean the first (can't hear) is risky, the first question, I mean is there any
answer to that?
Franklin/I don't know, does any, Ernie do you want input at all from the developers in
this discussion or?
Kanner/I think we could see if there's a majority that want to put something.
Dilkes/Steve let John have a mic.
Atkins/Let's just trade chairs.
Kanner/Karin.
Franklin/Yes.
Kanner/I think a way to proceed is to see if there's a majority on, there's a number of
points who want to consider some other options there and we bring that to a work
session and proposal.
Lehman/ Let me just say, let me just say this before.
Kanner/Don't you think that's a way.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 46
Lehman/Before we go any farther, this Council some months ago approved this
particular project, and I don't know that how much of it was cast in stone, how
much of it was concept but conceptually we approved this project which included
a grocery store whether or not it was going to be a long term forever store ! don't
know that we ever said that but it did include a hotel and it included commercial
space, conference space, whatever. We told staff and the developer to proceed
with this project out of four projects or five that we saw, they have at this point
proceeded with those. We have here the results of what we asked them to do, now
I don't think that it's appropriate for at this point in time to start reconsidering
whether or not there should be or not be a grocery store.
Champion/We're not, we're not.
Lehman/Or a hotel.
Pfab/We've made that decision.
Champion/We made that decision.
Pfab/But I think we should expect that to be there as long as we are footing the bill, I
would say that grocery store and hotel should be there until the bill, until we're
paid off because we've given away a lot of the value of the land.
Lehman/The fact of the matter is we're insured that we will get paid off by a guarantee of
the assessed value of the property, we are guaranteed of that.
Pfab/Okay, all right.
Vanderhoef/What?
Lehman/We are guaranteed that we will be repaid the $6,000,000 bonds plus interest by
the guarantee of the minimum assessed value of those two properties whether or
not there's a hotel there, a grocery store or a Hardee's.
Vanderhoef/(can't hear).
Pfab/What if somebody don't pay it?
Vanderhoef/But not the assessed value of the land.
Lehman/No, no, the assessed value is guaranteed.
Vanderhoef/Of.
Pfab/But if nobody pays the taxes.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 47
Vanderhoef/The project.
Pfab/We ignore the wisdom of the financing people, they said we won't do this if you
require what we were told we were going to have is a grocery store and a hotel for
the length of the project.
Champion/Well that seems logical to me.
Franklin/No, now wait a minute.
Pfab/They said no they won't do it.
Franklin/Who said, who are you talking about?
Pfab/You are saying the financing people would not allow us to put a stipulation in that
as long as until it's paid off after we've made a lot of concessions that a grocery
store is not required and it's not required to remain a hotel. And I think we should
listen to what they're saying, they're saying no we don't, we just think that's a risk
we don't want to take, so we make a great donation of the price of the land and
then we say well it would be nice if you put a grocery store in and that's the
reason we picked this project. And then it was also picked because there was
going to be a hotel there and I think we had better just call a spade a spade.
Kanner/Ernie how much did we lose with the Holiday Inn deal that subsidized?
Lehman/I don't know that that was any city money I think there may have been some
HUD money.
Atkins/That was Urban Development Action Grant money.
Kanner/Well government money that was lost and who, and this project is projected not
to make money actually according to the latest appraisal which I find mysterious
and if it's not going to make money then that means if we're left holding the bag
because we're not getting the payback of our $6,000,000 we take over the
property, we get the proceeds of the sale after the property, and that property is not
going to get full value, we're going to be fighting it out with all the other creditors
to get our money and we'd better put some strong guarantees in there, especially
with this grocery store if we consider that a main component, we ought to start
defining more than good faith and as we saw with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance
we're having problems there about vague wording and also we talked about full
service, what does full service mean? Are they going to turn this into just selling
wine and beer? Just like another store have a little wine bar there. I think we
need to have firmer definitions here and that's why it's up to us to do that, we sent
staff out to give us a blue print and we put the final touches on it for approval.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 48
Lehman/I don't disagree with that philosophically, from a practical standpoint, I don't
know, if we were to try which obviously I think would not be a possibility but if
we were to try to tell the developer that he will keep a grocery store there for 20
years.
Champion/Oh I wouldn't.
Lehman/When in fact the grocery store is a losing proposition we are pretty much
ensuring the fact that the project will fail. If we tell them the same thing relative
to having a bank, a restaurant or whatever, I don't know of any projects that I've
ever seen whether they be shopping centers, whatever, where there is a guarantee
that a certain type of business is going to be in that spot.
Champion/Your right.
Lehman/It depends on the profitability of the business and it depends on the market.
Kanner/Then I say we should get a heck of a lot of more money than $250,000 for this
land, I think that's a rip off and we need to get more money if we're not going to
get those things.
Lehman/I understand what your saying, I hear you.
Pfab/We turned down good projects because of the grocery store that was waived in front
of us as a.
Champion/I don't think that's true Irvin.
Pfab/No we did, we had a cash offer, no TIF financing and.
Champion/(can't hear).
Franklin/Okay I think maybe.
Lehman/ Hold it, hold it.
Franklin/Let's, let's.
Lehman/Let's wait a minute, let me Karin, let me just go for just a moment, maybe we
can clear some of this up.
Franklin/Okay.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 49
Lehman/Are there four people on the Council or five or six or seven who want to insist
that there will be a grocery store in this property for a definitive period of time or
are we willing to go along with the wording in the contract that says a best faith
effort. How many want to insist on a definitive length of time for the grocery
store? How many are happy with the wording in the contract? All right relative
to the hotel, and again we're talking about the same situation here. Is there a
feeling on the Council how many people want to put a definitive length of time for
that portion of that? First of all we've got to understand this guy isn't building a
hotel so he can close it, he's building it so he can run it, he wants to run a hotel or
he wouldn't even be talking about it.
Pfab/Well does he want to run a grocery store too?
Lehman/I don't know, but how many of us are willing to require a definitive length of
time for a hotel on this project?
Champion You can't.
Lehman/No, well maybe we, we've got some people who think we can. How many want
a definitive time for a hotel? I see two hands, I see three hands. How many are
willing to accept the wording in the contract? I see four hands, now Karin go
ahead.
Franklin/I'm done.
Lehman/So am I.
Vanderhoef/Okay, now I have a question for Council that has to do with policy. The, up
until this time this Council has never approved TIF funding for housing, so if.
Atkins/Yea we did.
Franklin/Yea we did, Villa Garden.
Atkins/One time Dee, Villa Gardens.
Vanderhoef/That's long before my time.
Atkins/Oh yea, it was 10 years ago or more.
Franklin/Oh yea, sorry, not this Council.
Vanderhoef/So, excuse me, one time we have. Philosophically we have done another
project specifically stating that we would not do TIF financing for apartments, it
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 50
happens to be the same developer in the downtown building and we TIF'd the
commemial part of that building and not the residential.
Franklin/Tax abatement.
Lehman/Tax abatement.
Franklin/Tax abatement.
Lehman/It wasn't a TIF.
Vanderhoef/But it's in the same, they all fit into the same.
Franklin/Financial incentive for use of conunercial not for residential.
Vanderhoef/Incentives of special districts, so my first question to Council is are you
comfortable setting a precedence of T1Fing in residential, private residential
owned property?
Champion/What is the total amount of the TIF?
Franklin/$6,000,000.
Lehman/$6,000,000.
Champion/So they're not (can't hear) say your TIFing the lower half, and then you won't
be TIFing.
Lehman/The conunemial part.
Champion/Your only T~ing the commercial part, we can probably put that in the
document somehow (can't hear).
O'Donnell/Would that be in good faith Connie?
Champion/That's good faith.
Pfab/Reasonable time.
Wilburn/In answer to your question Dee, since this is a project that we have put multiple
stipulations on and multiple use, that's what I'm balancing the other half of that,
we've laid out all those criteria for the different developer's to respond to, we
selected one, regardless of which one we selected there's going to be some bells
and whistles that individuals, various combinations of us will agree with or not or
disagree with and we can look for ways to try and pick a complicated agreement
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 51
apart or we can try to stick to that multi-use concept and see where we can go to
get some activity developed on this and that's coming from the person who said
let's keep a parking lot to start with but, in directing to what your saying because
we do have the many stipulations I'm willing to go forward with that.
Pfab/Okay but Ross your saying a multi, what was the term you were using?
Wilbum/The Request For Proposals that we put out said send in design, concept to
address these, was it 14 different criteria, how many criteria were on that?
Vanderhoef/(can't hear) and best uses the one that keeps coming back in my face this
project.
Pfab/And if we allow them to disappear over a short period of time, do we have, we've
accomplished what we did after we gave away a huge amount of money that
should go into low income project.
Wilburn/As I reminded you before that if you wanted the most bang for your buck you
wanted the most cash in the city's pocket then you should have made that the
number one criteria and the different developer's could have addressed that and
said this is how much money we will give you and we'll put whatever we want
there.
Pfab/So, and I'm going to say this and I'm, I don't mean to be argumentative on this or.
Wilburn/I'm sure you don't.
Pfab/And the sense that so, if you put enough bells and whistles on it we'll take it no
matter what.
Champion/That's.
Wilbum/If you wanted your pocket's full of money for the project vying everything else
you should have told the developer we want the most money for the spot.
Pfab/But what are we going to get for it?
Wilburn/I'm telling you your sitting here demanding we want more money, I'm saying
you should have said that up front.
Pfab/No, I'm saying that the city, these are public assets, that land is a public asset, it's
an asset of the city. What is the city getting for giving that away at 25 cents on the
dollar?
Franklin/Your getting $317,276 a year forever.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 52
Champion/And more eventually.
Franklin/Yes. What your getting out of, we have to look at the goal again.
Pfab/Okay.
Franklin/The goal was to build a significant project on this site, to get a mixed use
project that was going to add to downtown.
Pfab/Right.
Wilbum/And that's (can't hear).
Franklin/And it was not the goal as Ross stated, in the RFP it was never stated, and in
your discussions the goal was never to maximize the amount of money you would
get from the land, other wise you would have chosen the Clark project which was
student apartment houses.
Pfab/Well let's say even the taxes, we said one of the reasons was to build a city tax base
right7
Franklin/Yes.
Pfab/Okay we did this at the Old Capital Mall, now how are we coming down, when we
started with a project that probably the finance people wouldn't have touched at
the time and the finance people are telling us we don't want to touch this unless
you basically pour bleach over the contract and white out and then we'll do it.
But I mean, I'm exaggerating here but if we give away the land at a severe
discount, we don't guarantee that we're going to get the services that we wanted
when we said this is what we wanted. We are not going to enforce that and we
have no guarantee that if it makes money or if it doesn't make money that it won't
end up on somebody's lap at a severe discount in assessed value.
Lehman/We do have a guarantee that it will not arrive at a discount on assessed value.
Pfab/If somebody pays the taxes.
Lehman/Well, and there are two properties that are guaranteeing the taxes on this.
Kanner/Or you can look at it as two properties getting tax abatements and not
contributing to the general coffer. Ross I think you put up a Trojan horse, it's not
a all or nothing proposition, I think it's a matter of trying to balance what a project
might bring versus how much one gives away, that's the balance we're all trying
to reach and I think it just gives away too much to a private developer, puts money
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 53
into his pocket that should be going to the general welfare of this community and
we can get more out of it, there's no doubt in my mind that we can get a project
that's significant and still get significant money into CDBG money and not have
to give TIF to this extent, the tax abatement of $6,000,000. That's a heck of a lot
and still not have the guarantees.
Wilburn/And so you'll vote no.
Kanner/What?
Wilburn/And so you'll vote no.
Karmer/I will. Also.
Lehman/We already turned that down though.
Kanner/What?
Lehman/We already turned down the project that offered us a million and a half.
Kanner/I don't think we, I think we, there's room for other projects.
Lehman/We already said this is the project we wanted to pursue, that's what brought us
to that point.
Kanner/Yea, and let me bring up.
Pfab/But we didn't have the details, now we're getting the details and they work against.
O'Donnell/Ernie, Ernie do you know, we have numerous meetings on this, we've had
countless meetings, the community was involved, staff was involved and we have
three people sitting here at this table that if they got everything they asked for
tonight would still vote no.
Kanner/No I that's not true.
O'Donnell/I think that is true.
Pfab/No it isn't.
Vanderhoef/I would just like to address something.
Pfab/(can't hear). A fair shake.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 54
O'Donnell/We have asked staff to do something, they've done it, I think we ought to
proceed with this Ernie, this is a good project, to mandate that a grocery store stay
there that's losing money year after year after year is absurd.
Lehman/We settled that.
Vanderhoeff That's settled, can I go on for (can't hear) questions?
Pfab/So are you saying this is, so are you saying this is a take it or leave it as it is?
O'Donnell/Irvin that's what your saying.
Pfab/No, no, is that what your telling me?
O'Donnell/You say whatever you want, I'm saying I support the project.
Pfab/Just as it is.
O'Donnell/I support the project, there's a great deal of work into this and I think we
ought to see if there are four people who support this project.
Pfab/And you say no negotiations.
O'Donnell/Irvin that's exactly what I'm saying.
Pfab/Okay that's what I just wanted to know.
Vanderhoef/I would like some questions answered on tax on this whole project. You
gave us the thumbnail sketch and I've done a little bit more questioning on the
whole project. Number one as I understand it for urban renewal the land is
already there, so an urban renewal TIF goes onto the improvements on the land so
it seems to me whether it's listed as the $250,000 or whether it's the $1.3 million
or $1.4 million whatever that might be that that be excluded from the TIF
bonding, number one and I want to know if it's legal to include that in the
bonding.
Champion/I don't understand your question.
Lehman/Well I do, well there is value to that land, it's assessed at zero right now with
this use.
Vanderhoef/Because it's owned by the city.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 55
Lehman/Should the developer pay taxes on the $250,000 he's paying for it the $1.5
million that somebody else would have paid for it and then the TI~ apply only to
divide it, the increase of value of the property, that's the question.
Champion/Oh, that's a good question.
John Hintze/John Hintze with the Ahlers Law Firm in Des Moines. The way TIF works
is you start with your base and tax increment financing so what is brought to the
table is the incremental increase in the value of the project and so if you have a
zero value on it right now then it's zero and whatever the value was so take
whatever your value is on that ground right now and I don't know what it is right
now but let's say it's zero.
(can't hear).
Hintze/Well when it's done and with the, this multi-use complex built on it your going to
have an assessed value of over $22,000,000 so that is, you take the difference
between what the assessed value is on the property, land and building and you
subtract from that what your starting value was and so if was zero, it's zero, if it's
$100,000 it's $100,000 whatever that amount is and that is the incremental piece
that your talking about, and it is the revenue from that incremental piece which is
the tax increment financing piece and it is that incremental revenue which goes to
fund the bonds. And when Kevin O'Malley ran the calculations on this what it
showed is that we were tight just on this one project as far as generating the cash
and, Karin said a minute ago that what you were getting was $317,000 a year, well
that's a six month payment, what your getting from this project itself is $634,000
a year of additional revenue that's coming in off of that project. And then to make
sure that them was significant revenue coming in to take care of the bonds we then
took a look at the Vogel house property which they had not requested any sort of a
tax abatement or any sort ora city subsidy from that project and we said what
we'd like to have you do then in order to make sure the city is protected on the
financing piece of this is step up, be willing to put a minimum assessment
agreement on that project too also of $3,000,000, you take a look at there, there's
a difference between a $3,000,000 as of January 1, 2003 and that does have a
current assessed value again I don't know the number right off the top of my head
but let's say it's $300,000 and so you take the $3,000,000 less the $300,000 and
now you've brought in $2.7 million dollars of additional incremental financing
into it. And so what the revenues would be on that would also be available then
to subsidize the cost of the bonds, and so what you've done here is you've created
incremental taxable value to the city in the amount of the improvement over what
the assessed value was and that incremental value is what is available to pay the
cost of the bonds off which would be the principle and interest and the issuance
costs associated with the issuance of the bonds.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 56
Lehman/John, the value as of the, the appraised value for purposes of this contract is, I
mean the appraisal I've seen gives an appraised value of zero, is that the appraised
value that will be used in this?
Hintze/It's not, for TIF purposes, it's not the appraised value.
Lehman/(can't hear) I'm sorry.
Hintze/Let me comment just a second, we're going to confuse a couple different
concepts here, okay for purposes of the bond financing that were talking about is
the tax incremental financing, that is the incremental piece, and that is measured
by the difference in the assessed value pre and post time, so that is the tax
increment piece. Now there's another statute that does not have to do with the
financing of the project but what has to do with the requirements under state law,
under the urban renewal act sections which say what the city must get in order to
sell real estate for when it acquires property in an urban renewal area. And that
the statute uses the words "fair value" it doesn't say "fair market value:", it says
"fair value", "fair value" has been interpreted by the few court cases that take a
look at that at fair market value but when it takes a look at the fair value
calculations it says you take into consideration all of the burdens which have been
placed on the property because again what you started with as a Council as you
decided to accept a project and you went through the RFP and once you decided
that that was your project, okay now what your saying is okay we are going to sell
ground for that project, and you accepted the responses to that and one of the
things that you had in there was you needed the submission of and we will have
before conveyance of title to this is construction plans to make sure that the
conceptual project that was submitted to you as a Council and the construction
plans match each other so that you make sure you get what your getting what you
are thinking you are getting when your going through this drill. And because of
the fact that the costs of the construction of the project, and I have talked with the
appraiser who did the appraisal, the number one thing which led to his valuation
on this is because it is such an expensive project because of the quality of the
materials, the quality of the construction that's going into it. That doesn't make
any difference, I asked the specific question about what happens if you get rid of
the grocery, would that then bring us back up to where your valuation would be a
positive valuation? Not close. I asked him what happens about the hotel, nope
that's not going to do it, it's the qualify of the project itself that was going to make
the difference in the assessed value so that was not the difference that was going
to the heart of his appraisal. And so what the case has said is protect yourself as a
Council is if your going to sell real estate within an urban renewal area you need
to make sure that you have an appraisal that you can use on a basis and you have
to get at least that appraised value and then again you see in your package there is
a drill so tonight what the project, what the purpose, and you don't have to take
action tonight, but what this process is you go through and say did this now meet
what we set forth when we accepted the project in the first place? Have we been
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 57
responsive? And the developer has signed this agreement so what the process is
the developer brings back a signed package to you as a Council and says we are
prepared to move forward on this project. Now Council it's up to you, you take a
look at the documents, is this acceptable to you? Did we meet your expectations
when you put this out for us, when you accepted us as the designated proposer
under the RFP. Then the next step then is as you see in your resolutions is we
have to publish notice of your intent to execute this contract, you have 30 day
period that goes by and during that 30 day period is then when if there is someone
else out there that wants to repropose they can repropose within that 30 day
period. So somebody said is this the end of the line? Well it's not the end of the
line technically because there's a 30 day period that has to go anybody who's a
competing bidder can come back and say I'm going to also submit a multi-use
project like this on the same terms and conditions that we're talking about here.
You can't, you've already designated this is your project here so it wouldn't be
right at this point in time then to switch and say a whole different project is
coming in. But if somebody comes back and they have another developer says
I'm going to do this same project and I'm going to pay you, instead of $250,000
for the ground, I'm going to pay you the $1.5 million dollars for the ground, well
of course you have to take a look at that and say it's the same project, same terms,
same conditions and somebody else is willing to put forth more money again what
the state law would require is that your getting the fair value forth is project, if
somebody's willing to do the same project and pay more money for it and the
same project we're talking not only the kinds of uses, we're talking about the
quality of construction, we're talking about the developer themselves, as far as the
reliability of the developer and that's why in the developer's guidelines which
were included as part of your package that set forth what any potential any
developer would have to do in order to come forth and get involved in this project.
And so again we've been through a long (arderous??? can't hear) set of
negotiations and some of the questions I've heard raised tonight are ones we've
really haggled through in try/ng to get to this agreement where we are tonight and
had other language in it, we've got drafts of documents probably as tall as your
podium up here that we have sorted through in the process and where we are
tonight is that this is the best job we can do in being responsive to the RFP that
was put forth at that point in time. And so it's up to the Council after your next
meeting when you take action to either say we either met your expectation and
came back and this satisfies what you had set forth as our charge when you
accepted that RFP or not and if it is then the next step is to go and publish your
notice and if there's someone else who then takes a look at the same project and
can offer you a significantly better deal you are free to take that significantly better
deal in fact you would be required to take that better deal, it's not a bidding
process where it's not five dollars here and the other one, and five and five you
know and it's got to be a meaningful change in the valuation and so this is not
over tonight. And what the purpose of this tonight is to say here we are, we've
done our thing, we've accepted this RFP, this is what's come back to us, this is as
close as it's gong to be, is it satisfactory to us as a Council or not, and if it's not
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 58
then you ought to vote it down at your next meeting when you take action or if it
is then you ought to vote it up that then takes forth for the next step in the process.
And so that's the overview of how the whole thing comes together but it is a
combination and it's a very technical area and the agreements we have are some
of the most difficult that I've ever personally worked on in doing this because of
the fact that we had to anticipate multi-use with residential, not the residential
condominium use in there qualifying for property tax rollbacks and how you get
around that, two different properties associated with that and so there are very
complex financing piece and so the financing piece is complex and then they had
the whole issue because of the fact you had the independent appraisal before hand
as far as what the value of the land was just as pure land and now you encumber
the ground with the burdens that your putting on through the quality of the project
that your doing and so you have also these questions that you've been haggling
with and they're good questions, it's a good discussion that I've heard as far as
what is the fair value for the property and are you getting amount of it but that is
where you are and that is the process that we've been through and so you know at
this point there's nothing more basically that we're going to be able to get done as
far as this agreement so it's basically time to, maybe you can tweak a little bit but
that's not the real goal is and typically in a process like this is you bring a process
back and you say we've met your expectations, you haven't met our expectations
it's time to move on to the next process, and if it is it goes forward then if we
haven't well then your back at the drawing board just as far as taking new look at
RFP's or however you want to go. Okay.
Vanderhoef/So your saying that it also is legal for a property owner to assign the taxes
that they pay off of the Vogel building in this case to pay off another building of
their own rather than being put in to the urban renewal TIF pot that can be used at
the discretion of Council for any other projects within the TIF district.
Hintze/No that is not what I am saying, they're not doing that, your doing that, and it's
up to you because the project is in the urban renewal area, it's up to you whether
or not your going to accept that, the charge that was given to us in drafting to say
the Moen's property should pay for the Moen's development, and they had two
different developments coming on at this particular point in time. One of which
had nothing at all to do with any subsidy from the city or anything house which is
the Vogel house property and we are the one's who squeezed, if you will, the
Moen's, and said if you want this property to work your going to have to put that
property at risk also, your going to have to put an encumbrance on that property in
the form of a minimum assessment agreement. So it wasn't them who
volunteered it to us as far as an assignment oft heir property tax, it was us as a
representative to the city who said if you want to get this project done we need to
make sure that there's adequate revenue coming off to pay these bonds, we don't
feel comfortable enough that we're going to have adequate revenue coming off
solely off the Plaza Towers project itself on the basis of numbers which Mr.
O'Malley ran. And so we said okay then where are we could get some other
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 59
revenue went to the Vogel house project and so that was an offer and an
acceptance which was made as the city represented us or to get the project done
and say we're not going to ask any other project in the district to subsidize the
Moen development but we think it's fair for the Moen's to pay their own
development out of their own projects if they're going to put all that money into
these two projects and if they're willing to spare the risk of that that's going to pay
off the bonds then we will propose it that their properties will stand the risk of that
and they will pay for their own cost of the bonds so the tax increment financing
will come off of the properties which this developer has and it just happens that
the developer has two particular properties within the urban renewal area.
Kanner/Well you should make it straight, this is not their money, this is city money that's
going offto pay that, TIF money is city money, it goes into a TIF account that the
city controls, it is not their money that they're putting into this $6,000,000 dollars
and I take offense that your saying that they, that they are not the ones that are not
benefiting, they benefit because the first published reports were $4,000,000 TIF
which was bad enough and now we're going to a $6,000,000 TIF which means
they have to put less of their own money into financing this project or finding
outside investors. They're using city money to finance a larger chunk and they're
getting more of a tax break, a tax abatement that's going into their pockets instead
of putting at risk their money. I have something else that I wanted to bring up that
I thought was very important.
Atkins/Can I, I want to answer that Steven because it's not John's, John's representing us
on the (can't hear) so just turn to this group and say that's what you don't like
about this and the TIF financing, and I'm okay with that.
Kanner/Well let's get the nomenclature correct, it is not their money, it's city money, TIF
money is city money.
Hintze/It's not tax abatement money, it's not tax abatement money, you say it's tax
abatement money and I'm just, I'm not trying to be argumentative but if we're
going to get terminology straight you know it's tax increment financing and yes
it's not their money, it's property tax money. And so they are the payer of the
property taxes, the city among the other bodies who are the recipients of the
property taxes would be recipients, and so I don't know how you say whose
money it is, it's their money until they pay the taxes, once they pay the taxes then
it becomes the governmental bodies money that's as a recipient of the taxes.
Kanner/Well everybody in the city who owns property for the most part is paying money
and they can say it's their money that's in there but it's city money once it goes
into the pot.
Hintze/Correct, correct, I don't dispute that a second, no, I'm sorry.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 60
Kanner/And I use the term tax abatement, maybe I shouldn't use it so loosely but in my
view a tax abatement is where they don't have to pay taxes to the general fund, I
agree with you, technically it's not a tax abatement. I have a question, I passed
out to people here, you see a letter that was from HUD, Steve you have a copy
there and also you might want to share with John. And Karin and I gave one to
the press there, that's the top and on the bottom is the last concluding part from
the Carlson appraisal and something struck me about the Carlson appraisal that
you'll see, if you go to the second to the last page, it's a conclusion, and it talks
about the second to the last paragraph. "Furthermore accordance with prior
agreement between the client and our office, this report is a result of a limited
appraisal process and that certain allowable departures from specific guidelines of
the uniform standards of professional and appraisal practice are invoked.
Intended user of this report is warranted that the reliability of the value conclusion
provided may be impacted to the degree there is departure from specific
guidelines of USPAP." And this case a complete sales comparison approach,
traditional land valuation highs and best use analysis were not fully developed.
So and, then I contacted Karin Franklin gave me a HUD contact that they've been
talking to to get value and fair market value because it's not only in terms of
urban renewal areas but also in terms of selling land that had been part of urban
renewal, I think it's two different programs we're talking about. There's an
understanding that we have to get fair market value for that sale to be put into our
CDBG program and so if you look on the second page of this letter, it says that the
city, this is from Gregory Beaver. That the city hired a state certified appraiser
that appraisal should be conducted according to USPAP standards that are under
the jurisdiction of the Iowa Real Estate Appraiser Board. Because this is a
complex issue you may want to consider review of the current appraisal or a
second appraisal. And I think that's very telling, I think normally these agents
such as Greg from HUD are not going to be overly directing in their remarks and I
think we would, it would behoove us to get a second appraisal because I think a
lot of what you mentioned before about in answering Dee's question about the
value of the TIF hinges to a certain extent on the appraised value and it befuddles
me still that on the one hand we say it's worth nothing, if it's going to be worth
nothing that means that it's not going to make money and the value's going to go
down in the end and so why do we want to do a project like that. So therefore it
must be worth money, and I think we can get more than the $200,000. Ross to me
there are points and Mike there are points I disagree with and I think they are
worth discussing but the key thing is these issues, I think there's some legal and
moral issues about our appraisal, how we reached the appraisal that went from
$1.7 to zero and I think we need further discussion on that to see if the appraisal
would come out differently upon review and using standard practices.
Lehman/I have a question and I.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 61
Dilkes/Can I just Emie? There seems to be some implication in the various things that
Steven read that the Applicable Use PAP standards were not followed by our
appraisals. I don't think that's accurate, can you comment on that John?
Hintze/I think Karin has, I don't have a copy of the final appraisal but Karin.
Atkins/Here you go.
Dilkes/The deviations, I'm sorry Karin but the deviations that the appraiser refers to are
authorized deviations by USPAP so Karin why don't you (can't hear).
Franklin/In the certification it says "my analysis, opinions and conclusions were
developed and this report has been prepared in conformity with uniform standards
of professional appraisal practice title 11 of the Federal Financial Institutions
Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 in it's regulations. The uses of
this report is subject to the requirements of the appraisal institute.
Lehman/Karin just a question for you. This appraisal was made with the understanding
that the proposal which we are looking at was the project that was going to be on
that property.
Franklin/Yes, yes.
Lehman/Obviously an appraisal for that property without any building being on that
property is going to be a significantly different number than an appraisal that
requires all of the things that we are requiring which is why we have this
difference in land value is it not?
Franklin/That's correct. The one approach that the appraiser did not use was a sales
comparison approach because there aren't any comparable properties in Iowa
City. The approaches that were used were a cost approach and an income
approach, and that's where we came out with a negative residual value.
Vanderhoef/And that's when the request from the developer went up, the appraisal was
done with $4,000,000 in mind for up front money and by the time we get the
proposal it has increased to $6,000,000.
Champion/I think you really (can't hear).
Vanderhoef/I've got a couple of questions for Kevin.
Champion/I mean how much longer are we going to belabor this? I mean I, we know
Steven is not going to support it, I don't know where Irvin is coming from, and I
think it's very complicated, I frankly don't think they're asking for a lot of TIF
money for this size and quality of this project. Even though I have questions
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Cotmcil Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 62
about this document, I totally support the Moen group project, it will be first class,
they don't do anything second class. I'm almost positive it will be totally
successful because they don't have anything that's not successful in there. I think
we're lucky to have them want to do this project and I'm not willing to tear it
apart all night long. I don't know why Dee you are so unaccepting of this project
because you.
Vanderhoef/I'm concerned about the funding, I really, really am and.
Champion/The funding has been made clear, we hire lots of people to deal with that
funding for us.
Vanderhoef/Wellthis is.
Champion/And I have to ask you, because you've never supported it once we voted for
it, is it because you didn't get your way with the original vote on who would be
the developer? Or is there something wrong with this project that you don't like?
Vanderhoef/The highest and best use was the concern I had from day one, I had the
concern of the grocery store, I had the concern of the.
Champion/(can't hear).
VanderhoefJ Let me finish, the concern of the convention space that was being dedicated
to the project was not equal to the number of hotel rooms that needed to be there
to make the convention space successful according to the statistics I got from the
CVB and from hotelers. And so there were several pieces in all of this, I want to
talk about the TIF financing and how it is going to hit our own budget because
there seems to be some tie, we're going to be selling, I understand GO T1F bonds
so the T1F bonds there is some risk to the city that if the building itself generate
enough dollars, if the Vogel building doesn't generate enough dollars then it
would have to go into debt service, am I right Kevin? Would you help me out
because ! think I understood what we were talking about today but there's three
levels of how the GO TIF bonds get paid offand we're using those rather than the
revenue bonds because with the revenue bonds as I understand it we have to keep
money basically in the escrow type, I don't know if that's the correct term for it.
Is that correct?
Kevin O'Malley/Yes, to start offwith we made several assumptions, we made the
assumption that we get $28.50 a millage per thousand dollars of tax revenue and
we made the assumption that the interest rates on the bonds would be current
market rates plus 10 basis points. Now those assumptions could change and could
skew the financing. The only one that I think has any risk of changing materially
could be interest rates, because instead of being done in March of next year we're
talking about March of 04 and so there's an interest rate risk and right now I think
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 63
we've got 6 3/4 roughly is the average interest rate, these will be taxable bonds,
taxable GO bonds and as John alluded to and Karin, the first amount of payment
is going to come off the properties, the two properties, if the interest rate is higher
than what we expect, the difference would come out of the TIF district, the
remaining I think is about $130,000,000 dollars of base value there and it should
grow two to four percent every two years so we should need additional revenue
off of the whole district barfing a catastrophe like a fire, or a huge devaluation. If
that occurs then the rest of the city will have to pay for the shortfall based on an
interest rate risk. That is remote that that could happen, but it could happen.
Vanderhoeff Okay and Kevin in our discussion today we were talking about just this issue
and it seems to me that the minimum assessment figure should be a floating
number depending on what the market value of what money is at the time that the
bonds are let, obviously we aren't going to let the bonds until construction costs
start coming in so that's why the March of 05 for selling of bonds and I truly to
think to protect our interest we should have that number float with the interest rate
at the time of selling.
(END OF 02-51 SIDE TWO)
O'Donnell/(can't hear) at what the use of project.
Vanderhoef/I've got a couple more.
O'Donnell/But you know what, 45 minutes ago Ernie I said there are three people at this
table that will never support this project, nothing has changed in 45 minutes and
nothing's going to change in another 45 minutes except time.
Vanderhoef/We have to protect the city.
O'Donnell/I feel very comfortable with protecting the city.
Vanderhoef/I also would like to look at, we have a buy out basically number for the hotel
space, we have a buy out for the grocery store and I think we ought to also have a
buy out for the commercial space and if possible I would say that, or convention
space, excuse me, that the convention space must stay as a commercial entity that
it not be converted to more housing so if the hotel goes away I feel real sure in my
own mind that the convention space is going to go away also. And if the
convention space goes away I would like to build the tax base in the form of the
high commercial rate rather than in more apartments.
Champion/You can't do a project without some risk, the risk in this is very minimally,
we're not, there's no they're going to pay part of that money back, I just, if the
worst case scenario happens like if there's some botulism attack on the whole
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 64
country, I mean right you can't protect yourself like that, it's impossible to protect
yourself against everything, it's not possible. This to me has been worked on and
worked on and I'm really, I don't see any reason to discuss it anymore.
Lehman/Irvin.
Pfab/I have, I have several items here, I'm not opposed to the project, I'm opposed to
some of the details that where there's a balance of the common property that the
citizens are (can't hear) to get this project. Is it worth it to the city to take that
common property and put too small a price on it. One is on the appraisal, now
this appraisal was done in an unusual way, I propose a different way and I think
we should get a second appraisal.
Lehman/Irvin I think before you go any further, my suspicion from the discussion here is
that there are four people on the Council willing to accept the $250,000. I don't
think, if that's case, that there's much point in belaboring the price of the land.
Pfab/Okay, all right, well I think this is still a work session.
O'Donnell/Your not up by the microphone.
Lehman/No it is, that's correct.
Pfab/I mean I think,, or else we'll have to do it at a public session and then that's fine too,
but I think what we should do is that to do the appraisal right I believe we should
do this.
O'Dounell/Now your too close.
Pfab/I'm sorry. I believe that the appraisal should be done, if it's going to be done in an
unusual not highest and best use or according to the rules that the appraisers use
and the ones that HUD expects the appraiser to use to make this appraisal.
Champion/They used those rules.
Pfab/No they didn't, so just stop, just please. What we should do is take the and
anticipate the value of the land at the time the debt is paid off and then discount it
back to present value. That is the way to do this correctly if your going to make
those changes away from the rules that HUD says you should use.
Kanner/And so your, for instance if it's worth at that time $4,000,000 you'd say what it
would be worth at $4,000,000 in 2002 dollars.
Pfab/Or whatever time they take possession of it.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 65
Kanner/And 2003 dollars and then maybe you'd subtract the $250,000 and that's the
price they would have to pay back to the city.
Pfab/Or no that's how you would adjust the price, no, you have to do it, it's the type of a
process that's used but I think this process is not a correct one. I think what you
should do is if your going to make projections and your saying the projection is
now that if you use this project it will not support a value to the land, it's worth
zero with the stipulations that are in the contract. Is that right? Okay so you take
the stipulations and just put them aside and say okay let's look at it another way.
What is the anticipated value of this land which can be calculated by a using
formula at the time the debt is paid off, then present value that to do this and I
think we should get a second appraisal. I just think that's absolutely necessary.
Lehman/I think we're going to take a break until quarter after nine in which case we're
going to start on the Library parking and we can finish this discussion at the
public meeting tomorrow night, we're getting no where.
O'Donnell/How about getting a percentage on hot dog sales, it's the only thing we
haven't covered.
Atkins/Ernie before you go, are we going to be ending this discussion?
Lehman/This discussion isn't going any place Steve and I don't mind discussion
tomorrow night at the public meeting but we're not going anywhere.
Atkins/Well we won't have John tomorrow night.
Pfab/Well then I have one other question I'd like to ask.
Kanner/You had a pretty decent proposal Ernie, what, this is the art of going back and
forth, what do you say to that proposal?
Lehman/I have no interest in it? Does anyone else have an interest in?
Kanner/Why not? Why not (can't hear).
Dilkes/I don't, John does that comply with the USPAP standards, that form of valuation?
Hintze/The Carlson, McClure Firm who did this appraisal, I'm not an appraiser but I've
talked with the Bruce Gunderson, the individual who did the appraisal, that firm
does tons of appraisers for purposes of urban renewal and they know the
standards, and the standard that your referring to in certification is the standard
that is, that is the correct standard, I don't know what was provided to the HUD
individual, but this, the exceptions that he has in the summary at the start, again
my reading of it as a lawyer and not as an appraiser, what he was just saying is
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 66
that he was making a few exceptions because they were not relevant to this
particular appraisal, he wasn't saying he was ignoring the standards, he was saying
that he was using the standards which were there to the extent that were relevant.
And when I talked with him that's what he had indicated to me and so again I
think you know if you want to go back and talk to the appraiser, you can go back
and talk to the appraiser but I think he'll tell you that he complied with all the
applicable standards for the appraisal that he was suppose to comply with and so I
don't think your going to find that there's an issue from in the mind of the
appraiser at least from the basis of my conversations with him that he covered all
the standards which are applicable to this particular transaction.
Kanner/That's not, I was asking about Irvin's proposal which I thought was different
from my proposal saying that we recover, that if that land in 20 years is worth
separate from the buildings $4,000,000.
Lehman/How would you ever calculate that? You'd have to depend on the value of the
success of the building that was built on the ground, how are you going to do that?
Karmer/The assessor separates land from building all the time.
Champion/Well they'll do it (can't hear).
Lehman/Sometimes the land is worth the cost of the land less the cost of demolishing the
building which (can't hear).
Hintze/What your asking to do now is come up with your own appraisal standards rather
than the ones which are there. And again what the statute does require is that
again you sell it at fair value, and again I can tell you this as a fact is that it it's
interpreted that fair value is on the basis of an appraiser using the appropriate
standard and so I think the question was a legitimate question whether or not the
appropriate standards were used and again that's a question that the appraiser
himself has to answer but if he did, and I think he did on the basis of his
conversations with me. Then what you have is, you have an appropriate, it
doesn't mean that's the end of it in your question, you can always get as many
appraisals as you want and you can always use different appraisal methods
because again what your own appraiser was saying here he didn't follow all the
methods because he made the determination that some of the methods were not
relative to your particular transaction, so again you can shop for a different
appraiser and get a different result probably too and that's one of the issues that
you always run into again from my standpoint as a lawyer that sometimes, I
guarantee you you'll never have two appraisers come up with the same number, I
think everybody's been in the business long enough to know that, that they all
take a different look and have some different nuisances that are there.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 67
Karmer/It tends to go toward the, what I've observed from being on Council it goes
toward the wishes of the people hiring the appraiser.
Hintze/It's not suppose to, I mean they have their standards, but they're supposedly
professionals and this group is a professional and they have all their certifications
that go on forever and they're suppose to have an unbiased appraisal using the
standards for their profession.
Kanner/But it does seem that way, I'll bet if you did a study and looked at it and people.
Champion/Well it certainly go with my way with my last appraisal on my house with the
city assessor I'll tell you that.
Pfab/I have another question, it's a question about the process here. Now your saying
this is, we put this on the table and we sign it and put it on the table and anybody
else can come up and match it.
Hintze/No sir, you do not sign it, what this is has been tendered to you is a proposal
which has been signed by the developer, and what your saying is before the city
will sign it you go through the process of you publish notice of your intent to sign
it, after 30 days and you invite other proposals from somebody else to come in and
if they want to compete for the same project at a higher amount. And if somebody
appears within the 30 day period and there's a notice date that's been filled in
your documents then you have an actual, and again assuming a determination is
made that they're comparable projects then you have actually a bid off procedure
and see whether you can get more than $250,000 for the ground. And then if
nobody else appears then following the expiration of the 30 days at that point in
time then the Mayor would go ahead and sign the agreement on behalf of the city.
Pfab/Okay I see one difficulty with this, I don't think too many other people own a
Moen's building, a Vogel building.
Wilbum/Your talking about the terms and not the project, a similar project.
Hintze/What it's saying is that you have to have $22.5 million dollars worth of assessed
value subject to a minimum assessment agreement and you have to guarantee that
your going to have sufficient revenue coming off of it. Now that would be
comparable, that's apples and apples, it doesn't say that your name has to be
Moen and it doesn't say.
Pfab/No, no, I'm just saying, in other words your saying you have to match this
document.
Hintze/No I'm saying you have to match the proposal.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 68
Vanderhoef/The project.
Hintze/And the key terms.
Pfab/So what are the parts of the proposal that they have to match?
Lehman/It's right in here.
Champion/The project.
Pfab/No, no, no there's a lot of other stuff in there. What, where does it say that the
proposal, that the?
Champion/Listen after tonight Irvin there won't be anybody else making another
proposal I can guarantee that.
Kanner/Believe me they will, they're making a lot of money. I had a.
Pfab/That's, to me whether they're making a money or not that's not my issue, my issue
is is the city getting what their entitled to get? Okay what are, where are the plans
that, where are the specs that says if somebody wants to come in and make a
counter offer what do they have to offer?
Lehman/Turn to page four.
Hintze/Page four sir.
Pfab/All right that's fine.
Lehman/And we're taking a break folks.
Pfab/Okay because if John isn't going to be here I wanted to go through that. Okay so.
BREAK
Library Parking (IP3 of May 30 Info. Packet)
Lehman/Library Parking Mr. Fowler, your up.
Lisa Parkeff Well Joe wanted us to come up since it's our memo which seemed only fair.
Just to summarize, we were here last time and we suggested the idea of getting a
small working group together and you guys thought that was a great idea and three
library board members met with Joe and Chris and kicked some ideas around and
as a result of that I wrote a memo to the Board which was in our last board packet
and we also between that board meeting and our conversations with the parking
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 69
folks, met with, one of our board members met with Chuck Goldberg of the
Downtown Association and Chuck was positive about anything that could be done
to improve parking. And then the Library Board met and Joe and Chris came to
that meeting, and as a result of that meeting we kind of got it down to a couple of
options that we'd like to give a try to, the first two options in the memo reducing
the number of permit holders in the Dubuque Street and removing the daily
maximum charge and see what that does to improve parking specifically in the
Dubuque Street ramp which is the ramp that's most accessible to the library.
Kanner/Could you repeat those again, those, what are the two suggestions?
Parker/Reducing the number of permit holders in the Dubuque Street and requiring the
remaining permit holders to park higher up in the ramp and then removing the
daily maximum charge in the Dubuque Street ramp.
Kanner/Daily.
Parker/Maximum, there's a.
Pfab/It goes on all the time.
Parker/Ceiling if you will so if you go in and park there all day there's a point at which
you won't pay anymore money.
Lehman/Is it four dollars?
Fowler/$4.80.
Kanner/And you want to reduce it?
Parker/We want to eliminate that so it will discourage people from parking there all day.
Kanner/Reduce the maximum amount.
Parker/We want to eliminate daily maximum so they pay for whatever they're there for.
Champion/That's how it is for the Capital Street ramp, there's no.
Wilburn/To move out of the spot, it will encourage them to move out of the spot so that.
Parker/Or park, there's, would there be a maximum anywhere is that?
Fowler/There would be a maximum at Tower Place would be the only place that was
removed.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 70
Pfab/(can't hear) once we get Southside.
Lehman/Joe what would be the impact of moving permanent parkers out of that ramp
and where would you move them?
Fowler/Well basically just to give you a quick background, the way that we got to these
policies is the we had determined in the past that the Dubuque Street ramp was the
lowest utilized of the, well at that time it was Capital Street and Dubuque Street
and then we built Chauncey Swan after that. So we moved a 100 permits from the
Capital Street permits from the Capital street parking ramp over to the Dubuque
Street parking ramp because we have a higher hourly demand in the Capital Street
ramp. And then we moved some of those out of there over to Linn Street and
then back in but anyway we've concentrated the majority of our permits in this
ramp for utilization so there are like 280 permits in there. The other one is the
daily maximum, we felt the same way we wanted to direct, I say we but really it
came to Council and that's where the decision was made. There was a daily max.
put on for the same reason that wanted to move all day parkers out of the Capital
Street ramp into this facility so when we came to you just recently and asked
about taking the long term meters off of Jefferson and Market Street at that time
you told us to go ahead and put a daily maximum on Tower Place so that we gave
those people a place to go and the people downtown had a place to go where there
was a cap of what they were going to pay everyday. So we could, and you know
we've done it historically moved permits from one facility to another facility
based on where we want to move the parkers and where we think the demand is.
Chris what were those most recent percentages on occupancy?
Chris O'Brien/Ramp A and these are the peak times are from 11:00 AM to 3:00 PM.
Lehman/This is, ramp A is the Capital Street ramp?
O'Brien/Capital Street ramp, I'm sorry, Capital Street ramp runs 82 to 100 percent
during those times?
Pfab/From what time again?
O'Brien/11:00 to 3:00, normally after 3:00 it tends to back off some and then in the
morning before 11:00 it's a little slower, but 82 to 100 percent at Capital Street
ramp. Dubuque Street ramp during those time ran 67 percent to 88 percent.
Pfab/When were these taken?
O'Brien/This was over the month of April while school was in session I took to do it
now.
Pfab/April 02.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 71
O'Brien/With all the students all gone, yes, this past April. To do it now it wouldn't be
fair with a lot of the people out of town.
Kanner/Excuse me, can you repeat the name and.
O'Brien/Dubuque Street ramp was 67 to 88 percent, and Tower Place ranges from 64 to
81 percent over that same time period. And Tower Place, I mean April was much
better than the month before which was better than the month before, it's just
gradually picked up since we.
Pfab/Okay I thought you said Dubuque Street too, what was Dubuque Street again?
O'Brien/Dubuque Street was 67 to 88 percent over that time frame.
Pfab/And.
O'Brien/Capital Street was 82 to 100 percent. Tower Place was 64 percent to 81 percent.
(can't hear).
Pfab/So it's pretty similar to (can't hear).
O'Brien/It's similar yes.
Lehman/How about Chauncey Swan?
O'Brien/Chauncey Swan has a high number of permits, we issue 400 permits out of 475
spaces, the hourly parking and Joe may have a better history of it than I do of it
but it hasn't picked up since we shifted Ecumenical Towers to the lower level of
Tower Place.
Fowler/Our hourly parking in there now is probably about a third of what it was before
we had Ecumenical and the Senior Center in there and so it hasn't recovered back
to the previous level of hourly parking.
Pfab/So here would be a place for, that would be a spot for permits.
Fowler/We could more permit parkers in there, we could permit parkers in Tower Place,
we could move some to Capital Street, that's where your going to have the biggest
constraint.
Lehman/Capital your already 82 to 100 percent, you can't put anymore permits in there.
Fowler/Right, right, what your going to end up then is a FULL sign on.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 72
O'Donnell/How many permit holders are in Dubuque Street?
Fowler/Dubuque Street is like 280.
O'Donnell/Out of how many total?
Fowler/625.
Pfab/What on Dubuque Street. What is the arrangement, and what are you proposing for
the arrangement for the hotel? What did they (can't hear)?
Fowler/The hotel arrangement would be that they would buy a set of permits which we
would convert into hours per year and those would be spread over the year and
that's basically what we find in hotel usage is that it comes in about starting about
4:00 in the afternoon, their heavy usage is over night and it starts leaving 7, 8,
9:00 in the morning.
Pfab/Okay what I was looking at is is there, they are fairly heavily discounted right?
Fowler/ Yes.
Pfab/Okay so what I'm saying is are you going to take away a maximum or will they ever
get to the maximum? In other words where there's no limit, take away the limits.
Fowler/There is no limit on the charge to the hotel, it rolls 24 hours a day, where there's
a limit on the hourly parker say the person that's working downtown, there's a
limit on what they would pay, the hotel runs 24 hours a day.
Pfab/Okay let me, I think I'm mis., I'm not sure if I'm clear, okay they buy permit spaces
at a discount.
Fowler/Yes.
Pfab/So they can go anyplace, their clients, they can go anyplace and when they come
out, how is that determined by when they go to the gate?
Fowler/They get charged for every hour they were in there?
Pfab/But how do you know it's a hotel?
Fowler/They're stamped by the hotel.
Pfab/Okay, all right, so they take up the usage at the rate that they negotiate.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 73
Fowler/Yes.
Vanderhoef/Do you ever negotiate for day long conferences, or two day conferences
where people are driving in?
Fowler/When we work with say the University having a conference there and they set up
parking, they pay us the regular rate.
Vanderhoef/So by removing the maximum rate for the day doesn't help them.
Fowler/If we remove that maximum rate their charge would go up.
Vanderhoef/But is that counter productive to bringing in conferences?
Champion/They wouldn't stay over night.
Vanderhoef/I guess the question really is what is the length of time that you stay in the
ramp that it's, that you switch over to paying the max..? Whatever that max.. rate
is.
Fowler/Eight hours, eight hours.
Vanderhoef/An eight hour day so if you came in for an all day conference you'd end up
paying another 60 cents or so for parking versus the day rate.
Fowler/Yes.
Lehman/This is an issue of capacity more than it is anything else, it appears to me,
you've got one ramp, Capital Street is almost off the table because it's up 100
percent. You've got Dubuque Street at 67 to 88, Tower Place up to 80 percent,
Chauncey Swan, I didn't quite understand the, what percentage of capacity we are.
Fowler/It's hard for us to give you that number because.
Lehman/Because of the number of permits.
Fowler/We have a daily counter where there's not a daily counter there, we'd have to go
down there and count them every hour physically because there's not a
mechanism that counts them in and out. Basically the permits are from when you
come in off College Street, the first area is reserved for hourly parkers, from there
on up is permit holders and they're probably filling 25 percent of the roof. So
there's probably 75 percent of the roof level that's not filled with permit parkers.
Would it be reasonable to move some of the folks out of Dubuque to Chauncey?
(can't hear).
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 74
Vanderhoef/There's only 70 spaces left. Did I hear right that there's only 70 open to the
public right now?
Fowler/Yea but you can over sell on a permit because by the time you take in people
being on vacation, sick leave, working out of the office that day, you can over sell
your permit spaces and still be right.
Champion/And (can't hear) hourly parkers aren't going to the top anyway.
Lehman/No but the permit parkers, they say the top level is only 25 percent full.
Fowler/Correct.
Lehman/How many cars does that hold?
Fowler/Probably could get another 50 to 75 cars up there?
Lehman/How big ora problem is it to move 50 cars out of Dubuque Street ramp? I mean
do we keep track of permits as to when they were purchased and the last in first
out.
Fowler/Right, we do everything by seniority, all permits are on a 30 day basis, the
number of permits is set by Council or the City Manager, if you say you want to
move 50 permits from one facility to another facility we give the people a 30 day
notice and go on the seniority listing we would take the however many last people .
and move them, I mean probably the first thing we'd do is contact them all and
say if there's somebody that voluntarily wanted to go then we would take the
remainder by seniority.
Lehman/What's your take on moving 50 of them out of there and to Chauncey?
Fowler/There will be some upset people.
Lehman/Your always going to have that, I mean that's.
Fowler/There will be some upset people, there will be some people that are going to
complain but by the same token we've met our contract obligation, we gave them
30 day notice before we moved them, we provided them with a parking space and
at an alternative site rather than just say we have too many permits and terminated
the agreement.
O'Donnell/Would it be better to move from the Tower Place to Chauncey Swan?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 75
Fowler/I think your going to see more hourly parkers want to go to Tower Place because
we've seen just a steady growth in hourly usage there and if it then becomes full
with permit parkers 1 think there's a possibility of a conflict with the seniors that
want to come down and use the Senior Center at noon.
Vanderhoef/How many permits do we have right now in Tower Place?
Fowler/135.
Vanderhoef/135 out of 500.
Fowler/511.
Pfab/How do the seniors get in there? Does that affect?
Fowler/No it doesn't.
Pfab/It doesn't, okay Dee I think you came up with an interesting point there but I was,
am not sure if what was stated satisfied your, you said about people coming in as
(can't hear) and (can't hear) well if they stay over night see then they're eligible
for the hotel discount.
Vanderhoef/Oh sure, I understand that.
Lehman/Well my only concern and I think we have to recognize is that this city has spent
a tremendous amount of money and a lot of effort in trying to maintain a healthy
prosperous downtown. Everyone who is downtown is perplexed with the parking
situation, whether your a restaurant or a retail store and obviously the library is in
the same situation as everybody else downtown. I fear that, I have a problem with
doing something that's going to damage what we're trying to do as far as maintain
a good downtown. I don't have nearly the problem with moving you know 50
permit holders into Chauncey where it appears we have the room. 50 permit
holders out of Dubuque Street ramp should make some impact if we're at 67 to 88
percent, I mean that's going to free up some parking and probably it's going to
impact the permit holders which I'm the least concerned about, I happen to be
one.
Parker/Well another consideration is the, that the spaces on 64-1A right now won't be
available again in a year.
Lehman/I realize that, I realize that, and then in a couple years hopefully we'll have some
more on the south side of Burlington Street that will help alleviate a lot of the
problem.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 76
Parker/To the extent that the parking department can move people over there without
risking their own finances.
Lehman/I understand that as well, I don't like it as well.
Champion/Well I'm hoping that these hotels will have valet service and that's where
their valets will park their cars.
Parker/I had a, you know just a, I had a citizen call me today, I happened to be home at
lunch and just say to me, aren't you concerned your building an 18.4 million
dollar building and there's no place to park downtown. And I can't tell you how
many times we've heard that conversation. And so you know the library is in a
like situation in many ways with other businesses and what not downtown but not
because the library has patrons who are carrying books, toting children, it's a
somewhat different situation and so the needs I think of the parkers at the library
are somewhat different.
Champion/I know, I mean people say that all time but you know, it does strike me as odd
and I had 8 children and we went to the library every week I just find that
absolutely (can't hear) there wasn't the parking that is there now. People are
really reluctant to use the parking ramps and that's part of your problem.
(All talking can't hear).
Pfab/Is there a way (cant hear) either a for library aid across the street from the present
library, present entrance to the library, library parking, or way that you can do that
in such that a way to free that up for the library?
Champion/That we'll talk about later.
Lehman/You mean street parking.
Pfab/ Yes. Is there 15 minute drop off, how could you police it or how could you make it
work? Because that too me those parking places right there, as the library is right
today, instances will change but there and right around the comer around the old
library.
Fowler/Well I think there's a couple different issues there, one is there's a loading zone
right in front of the library now and I think Susan can probably tell you that maybe
half the cars in there are down the street somewhere else because you can't really
regulate even if you say it's a book drop unless you station a person there the
entire time to watch them get out with a book and go into the library and then you
still don't know if they went out the other door and go do something else.
Pfab/But only give them 5 or 10 or 15 minutes.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 77
Fowler/And then your talking about a full time person standing there to monitor that area
basically. I think you would also get complaints from some of the other
businesses in the area if you took away some more parking, but the main thing is
the request that I'm hearing through the Library Board is not for book drop off is
time that you can come to story time, time that you can come down and look for a
book and by giving them a 5 minute book drop offI don't think is going to meet
the need they're asking for.
Pfab/Well what kind of, what is the library see their need or their patrons needs and how
much time?
Susan Craig/We'd like, when we talk about having more short time parking for library
patrons, we're talking about 60-90 minute parking. That's what, the people w ho
we are most concerned about parking are elderly people and people bringing
children, often multiple children to events at the library and an event usually lasts
45 minutes but by the time you've gotten in there, gone to the event, gotten your
books checked out, we're talking you know 60-90 minute visits, those are the
people that we are trying to protect to provide some parking for, you know, able
bodied adults can park somewhere else and walk, I do.
Champion/We just have a (can't hear). I'm truly going to support your business of
moving people out of there, and what was the other one you wanted? But why not
reserve the first 20 spaces as you first drive in offofLinn Street into that ramp
reserve those for library users only and do it with parents who have 2 or more
children who you give a little sticker to that they hang up on their thing and if you
don't do that you get a $100.00 ticket.
Craig/I'd love to do that Connie. Hey or you get your car towed.
Champion/Or you get a $5.00 ticket, but that would be easy for the library to do, people
who have kids, as long as they have ages of their kids and the kids have library
cards, you know how old they are and they can have that card until the youngest
kid is 10 or something.
Craig/And I think we're going to get there, particularly when the parking disappears next
year that's on 64-1A right now.
Champion/I love that idea.
Craig/So do I, what a great idea Connie.
Champion/It's easy to enforce.
Craig/But what we're asking you tonight for is those two things.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 78
Champion/Yea you have it, you have it.
Craig/ And to consider the other two things that are down here for into the future or
something like (can't hear).
Vanderhoef/Okay I've got one question about moving permit holders in the ramp, I don't
disagree with the concept of it but I want to know how you can enforce it.
Champion/It's enforceable believe me, my kids took my car down there and parked on
two and I have a $5.00 ticket because they didn't know they had to park up above.
Craig/I think the answer is there, they enforce it now, I have gotten a ticket parking in the
wrong place in Chauncey Swan because I'm a permit holder there, they know.
Champion/They know.
Craig/They know where your suppose to be.
Kanner/Joe you personally check there, you go out there.
Fowler/I have Chris do it for me.
Craig/They know.
Pfab/Okay I'm sure you've looked at the proposals that the Moen's are bringing, how
does that look to you as being library friendly to your patron's with the walk
thru's and the?
Craig/Well you know the first time as I recollect this that we looked at that proposal, I
can't remember if they were including the under ground parking for the condo's
from day one or not, but that's what I was concerned about was those residents did
not end up with permit parking, permits in the Dubuque Street ramp because then
those vehicles would be parked there, you know, all the time they weren't in use
and so if they're accommodating the condo owners under ground and they have
what 55 hotel rooms and so that's up 55 cars that again are there primarily there
in the evening and leave in the morning, and so it's the occupancy.
Lehman/Any other ramp is done with it.
Pfab/How did you look at getting from the ramp to the pedestrian mall right across from
(can't hear).
Craig/Well that's one of the contingencies or one of the requirements that's built into the
project.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 79
Pfab/How do you look at that as being fiSendly to your patrons?
Craig/I think it's very friendly to the patron, as long as when the day comes when it's all
done that we can have some spots at that third level or where ever that walkway is
that are designated you k now 90 minute spots so we don't have them full of hotel
people.
Pfab/Or you have your little child sticker hanging on your window.
Craig/Right.
Kanner/I say, let's give them the triple crown, on the war emblems on death, reduce the
permit holders there, permit parkers park on the top and reduce the maximum
amount and see how it goes.
Champion/I'm willing to try it.
Kanner/Take 50 over to.
Vanderhoef/Chauncey.
Kanner/Chauncey Swan.
Pfab/And I'd still like to see like you say you'll get there eventually, I think there are
people who may not be handicapped but are handicapped using the library
because of children and what not and some way to designate that, and whatever it
is, I mean the idea that Connie and you were talking about, I think you ought to
look at that.
Lehman/Joe what's the down side of what we're talking about? Moving the permit
parking, obviously we're going to have some people unhappy about being moved,
I don't consider that to be a real (can't hear).
Fowler/Right, there will be some people unhappy being moved, there will be some
people that complain that their, a lot of days the ramps not full and they're having
to park their car in the open air on the top level which nobody likes to do, I'm not
sure that moving them up is really going to help the library because it just depends
on when you get there because everybody's going to take the first available space
so if we move them up.
Lehman/If you move 50 permits, you are probably going to come up with pretty close to
50 spaces.
.Fowler/ Yea.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 80
Lehman/And I would think from an enforcement standpoint I would like to see you try
that before you go with moving them any farther.
Champion/I don't think that's going to free up space for the library because they have to
park on three or above, C or whatever it is.
Karmer/They do.
Champion/Yea for (can't hear).
Kanner/So moving them up would be four or above or something.
Fowler/Right, right now they're from three and up and so they have the top three floors
to park on.
Lehman/If you moved them, if you took 50 out and required four and above, is there
room on four and above for all the permit?
Fowler/I honestly don't know, I'd have to.
Champion/There's not.
Lehman/Well I think you might if you took 50 out, you have 200 left, 4, 5 and is there a
6 over there?
Champion/When I had my permit over there because I don't come to work early in the
morning because I'm not an early riser because I'm not an early go to bedder.
Lehman/Because your on the Council.
Champion/Because I'm on the Council, I certainly had to drive all the way and park on
the top, and you know already permit parkers are enforced to park on the roof and
so I think I mean if you took 50 out your still going to have people who have to
park on the roof because other people park there too, it's not just permit holders
who are parking three and above.
Lehman/How would you feel about 50 permit holders out of there and moving them to
up from four and above? I mean you've got to deal with these folks.
Fowler/I know but I can tell them you told me to, just kidding, I think moving the 50
we're going to get some resistance.
Lehman/I don't think it's any question.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 81
Fowler/But I don't think it's going to be major. Moving them four and up I'm not sure
there's always going to be room for them on.
Champion/Coverage.
Fowler/The upper levels especially the people that come in later, if you go, if you have
an office that requires you to make calls outside of our office, if you go home for
lunch and come back there may be difficulty finding from four and up.
Lehman/Well why don't we do the 50 and see what happens.
Fowler/We can do the 50 and see the impact of that.
Vanderhoef/And if you take the daily maximum off.
Fowler/If we take the maximum daily off you'll see some of your people that have been
parking there will move over to Tower Place.
Pfab/I have a question, is there any interest in with the library working on out some type
of a limited number at least on an experimented basis of identifying those people
and designating those spots relatively close to the library.
Champion/I think we should do that when the library is done.
Parker/Or when 64-1A parking is no longer then, when the next crisis comes let's do
that.
Pfab/But let's prepare for that crisis.
Champion/Let's do this crisis first.
VanderhoefJ This is crisis by crisis.
Lehman/Okay do we have consensus on the Council move 50 permits and remove the
daily maximum?
Vanderhoef/Yes.
Wilburn/Yes.
Pfab/Fine with me.
Lehman/Do we, all right Joe if you don't have any horrendous problems we just did it,
thank you. Now Joe don't go away.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 82
Fowler/Yea I know.
Lehman/I think your next on the agenda.
Fowler/Eleanor do we need an ordinance change since we do have a daily max. set by?
Vanderhoeff Probably.
Fowler/Or? Can't like just.
(can't hear).
Fowler/Okay.
Lehman/ Okay do it.
Fowler/Okay, so I mean it may take six weeks or something to get that through but.
Lehman/This didn't happen over night, no big deal.
Vanderhoef/Expedited.
Champion/I have a question. Do we have to have an ordinance to do this? Can we get
rid of that ordinance all together and say it's part of the parking department?
Lehman/Rates are set by ordinance.
Dilkes/Let us look at it, let us look at it and we will do it the quickest way we can.
Champion/I don't want to be blamed for everything.
Fowler/Why not?
Pfab/Don't do it then.
Pay Station versus Cashier at Near Southside Transportation Center
Lehman/All right Joe what's the issue between a pay station and a cashier?
Fowler/This came up at a JCCOG meeting, Connie brought up how we're going to
collect money in the Southside Transportation Center, and we're like 95 percent
done with the construction plans on that and she had some issues with it and so
thought it was best that we come tonight and talk to you, have you decide how you
want us to do that so we can make any changes in the plans that we need to.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 83
Lehman/What's your recommendation?
Fowler/Our recommendation is to do it like Chauncey Swan.
Lehman/What's wrong with that?
Champion/And I have big problems with that.
Lehman/What's the problem?
Champion/I've got to stand up, I'm sorry, I'm not lecturing, I just need to stand up.
Kanner/(can't hear).
Champion/Okay my customers do not parking in Chauncey Swan because it doesn't give
them any advantage of parking in a parking ramp because you can still get a ticket.
And to me the location of the ramp across Burlington is going to have access to a
lot of businesses downtown and I think it's very irritating, it's like having to go
back and feed a meter and yet if you think your going to be gone four hours and
your pedicure only takes forty then your out that money because you paid, you put
it in because you thought you were going to be gone four hours. Now I think there
are other systems, I was trying to think of where Dee and I went if you don't want
to have somebody there collecting money, they're, and I know they're in Germany
and Paris too, you go into the ramp, and when you come out you pay. Now if you
use the ramp frequently you can buy automatic debit permits that you can use but
if your permit is out, or like the Washington DC subway systems, there's places to
pay.
Kauner/A card that uses, you reuse another time.
Champion/A card, you can use another time, or when your leaving it tells you how much
money you owe and you can put that money right in the slot and that's what they
did wherever Dee and I were at, but I think we've got to be a little concerned
about that ramp for people not getting tickets. People who park in Chauncey
Swan and get tickets are really upset because they parked in a parking ramp
because they didn't want to park on Iowa Avenue because they got a ticket every
time they park there. And we didn't have Tower Place at the time this was, most
of this was occurring, now my customers, I've got t hem all trained to use Tower
Place and they all love it. But the problem, I mean I think it's a problem when
you can get tickets in a parking ramp, and I think for down here it works well
because frankly (cant' hear).
Lehman/Irvin she said she can hear.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Speci~WorkSession Page 84
Champion/This is a major city user parking lot, most people who use this parking lot
have city business or they have a city permit and they're either working here or
whatever. And so I think it's a big mistake to do this same system, I know it's
easiest but I think it's not user friendly, I think it's customer angry, I think it
makes customers angry.
Lehman/How many tickets do we issue in this ramp, do you have any idea?
Fowler/We don't issue that many tickets over there because our hourly parking is down, I
mean to be honest. The reason that we selected, not we, I, the reason I selected
that type of payment system was that it was the least expensive.
Champion/I know.
Fowler/To move up there's like three levels, there's a level where you pay like Chauncey
Swan, the next level is what you were talking about where you get a ticket and
you go, you come back and put the ticket in and it tells you how much you owe
and you pay. And we would need one of those in each stair tower, and then we
just talked to the manufacturers last week.
Champion/They're when you leave, they're not in each stair tower.
Fowler/Or they can be at the exit but those machines cost about $50,000 a machine more
than the kind that are over at Chauncey Swan, that's one disadvantage. The other
we talked to the people who are designing this near southside, they said you need
a lane, a turn around lane for the person who gets up there and realizes that they
don't have any money, they don't have their ticket, and there's no way to get out
and so they said you need a turnaround lane which would cost us 15 parking
places.
Lehman/Holy cow.
Fowler/So that they can go up and circulate around. I saw it as a disadvantage on the
cost of the machine, and the fact that if the first person through drives through and
breaks the gate then your not going to collect any more money for the rest of the
day for that facility because everybody else can.
Champion/I've always wanted to do that.
Fowler/I know, everybody else could just drive through. And the third step then is the
cashier which requires a lot of hourly parking and Chauncey Swan from College
Street up and the Near Southside are both designed so that at any time you could
go in and put in a cashier's booth and a gate, and that's the way we were doing it
so that if the usage changed from mostly permit parkers to a high number of
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 85
hourly parkers then we could go in at that point and install the equipment and
start charging by the hour like we do in Capital, Dubuque, and Tower Place.
Lehman/You can add the cashier at a minimum expense is what your saying?
Fowler/Right, all the electrical's are there, we'd have to buy a booth, we'd have to buy a
ticket spitter, a couple gates, I wouldn't say a minimal expense.
(END OF 02-52 SIDE ONE)
Fowler/That it could be added later and the electrical's pulled to the place.
Champion/You know what about, I mean you said permit parkers, where do you expect
these permit parkers to come from?
Fowler/In the near southside?
Champion/ Yes.
Fowler/We've had discussions with the University, they would like to buy some spaces
from us. We have waiting lists with several hundred names on it which is you
know like a moving target because when everybody comes to town they put their
name on a waiting list and then through the three years it takes for their name to
come up a lot of times they've found another place to park, so I'm saying that's a
hard fast number is difficult.
Champion/I just have a question now about the financing. Okay let's say, all right, let's
say we're going to move all the permit holders out of Dubuque Street, I mean
Dubuque Street, yea Dubuque Street ramp when the hotel goes in, (cant' hear)
they have tickets they don't have permits. And we're going to move them all to
the new one whatever it's going to be called. Now how does that affect our
parking payment plan because isn't that ramp going to be paid directly by us and
by the federal government? And the money that the parking earns is going to go
towards transit?
Lehman/Transit.
Fowler/Transit.
Champion/And so are we going to be affecting our own repayment of the ramps we have
downtown?
Fowler/Yes if we move all of them out without selling additional.
Vanderhoef/Say that again.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 86
Fowler/If we moved all the permits from the Dubuque Street parking ramp to the Near
South side, the parking system would lose that revenue and it would need to be
made up by hourly parkers to keep our parking system going at the level it is right
now.
Champion/But you think we have enough surplus people who want permits?
Fowler/Yes.
Champion/That that's not going to affect, I mean got to worry about what system your
affecting to do that.
Fowler/Right, I think we could move some over, I wouldn't want to move all of them
because I think you need to keep the base in the parking system even though you
make a lot more money with hourly parkers than you do with permit, you need a
base of permit holders to give you stability.
Champion/Right, right, well I don't know, I mean I don't like what your going to do but I
see why your going to do it and if you think it's going to be mostly filled with
permit users then my argument spades a little bit.
Pfab/Is there a way that you could set up a machine at Chauncey Swan to use a debit card
whenever (can't hear) debit card and for say maximum time before you leave and
cash it out or (can't hear) charge it out? In other words.
Fowler/No I don't think you can do that, I think you can you know, most of them are set
up so you buy so much.
Pfab/No but I'm saying is, let's say the card is $50.00, you go in and say well I don't
want to get a ticket and so I'm going to pay for 8 hours, well four hours later you
go back, is there anyway you can get that refunded on a debit card?
Fowler/Not any that I'm aware of, no.
Pfab/Because I think that would solve it because otherwise if you said well when you get
ready to leave and your card, I think people would have a bad memory (can't
hear).
Fowler/No, I'm not aware of anything like that.
Vanderhoef/Joe you said something about if you moved all the permit parkers over to
Tower.
Fowler/No, no, no.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 87
Champion/No.
Fowler/No if we moved them over to Near Southside.
Vanderhoef/Are you trying to have each ramp pay off it's own bonds?
Fowler/No.
Champion/No.
Fowler/But the Near Southside can't, the revenue that's generated by that all has to go to
the transit system.
Lehman/It can't go into parking.
Champion/And so that's why (can't hear).
Lehman/Parking permit holder goes straight.
Vanderhoef/That's right, that was the piece I had forgotten.
Champion/But Joe said there's enough people who want parking permits they could get a
lot of permits in there.
Vanderhoef/But they don't generate as much money.
Lehman/Do I hear a thing to go with the way your perceiving with the idea that if we
have to change to cashier system we can? Is that what I hear?
Pfab/Is that going to be set up that way?
Lehman/That's what we hear.
Fowler/Yea it will be set up so we can add one later yes.
Lehman/Okay does that, by building in that option does that hinder the other design?
Fowler/No if we decided that we wanted to go to the second generation of machines
where you get a ticket come back and pay it we would be able to add that because
the wiring will be in for the machines that we have.
Pfab/And what happens if you decide no I want to put a (can't hear)? Is that, is it set up
to do that?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 88
Fowler/Right, we'd have to come back and add a booth, put the electrical and everything
over there.
Pfab/But would that, do you have to, to keep those options open do you lose parking
spaces if you have more mm around lanes do you have (can't hear)?
Fowler/No because all we did was just design the entrance lanes a little bit wider than we
had originally planned.
Pfab/I say (can't hear).
Lehman/All right Joe, thank you.
Fowler/Thank you.
Champion/Thanks for checking that for me, I didn't know it was going to cost you that
much money.
Procedures for Calling Special Meetings (IP1 and IP2 of 6/6)
Lehman/Okay, procedure for calling special meetings. Does Marian or Eleanor want to
address this? I mean it's on here as.
Kan'/This was asked by Dee Vanderhoef to be placed on the agenda.
Lehman/Dee go ahead.
Vanderhoef/I had requests from other councilors also to put this on. It just appears to me
that when we have a larger Council now than when this present resolution that
we're operating under has changed from 5 member Council to 7 member Council
that three members still being less than a majority can call a Council meeting and
it would be more reflective of the will of the Council.
Pfab/That's fine with me.
Champion/Fine with me.
O'Donnell/Fine with me.
Wilbum/Okay.
Lehman/Can you, this just needs to be done by resolution.
Kart/This needs to be done by resolution, prepared and come back to you for July 2.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 89
Lehman/Can you just prepare something like that for.
Dilkes/Okay.
Lehman/Soon.
Vanderhoef/Because it just happened recently I noticed in Number One, Special Meeting
may be called by the Mayor or two. Should Mayor Pro Tern be mentioned in
there?
Dilkes/There's another provision that basically substitutes the Mayor Pro Tem when the
Mayor Pro Tem is acting. Or you think the Mayor Pro Tem anytime will call a
special meeting or just when they're acting in the Mayor's absence?
O'Doimell/Just when they're acting in the Mayor of capacity.
Karr/That's covered by another provision (can't hear).
Dilkes/That's taken care of yea.
Vanderhoef/That's all I wanted.
Council Time
Lehman/Okay Council time.
Kanner/I have a few things but I'll just do one tonight, the others tomorrow. I passed out
this copy of the Senior High Alternative Center program expansion and I did that
because I read in the paper that the Alternative High School is close to moving to
Coralville and I was a bit shocked at that, I think it's a real asset, just like UAY
brings something to the corps of Iowa City. I think the Alternative High School
brings a lot culturally and it helps build community and again I think it's an
economic benefit you've got people with disposable income that are in Iowa City.
And on the one hand we should move towards more regional cooperation and
maybe this will be a good thing for Coralville, but I'd like Iowa City to be part of
the discussion, I talked to a couple board members, school board members and
they're interested in hearing what we have to say and I'd like Council to get staff
or Steve to go ahead to at least say "hey can we make a pitch for it?" Will this
work in Iowa City somewhere? They're having a meeting tomorrow they're
talking at, ideally I'd like someone from our staff to be there or a representative
from us to be there to hear what they're saying and be there to give back some
words of where we're at perhaps or might be at or we're willing to talk about, or
what we're willing to talk about. And so I put that on the table in saying.
Lehman/Do you know when they're going to make this decision?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 90
Champion/They're going to talk about it tomorrow night.
Karmer/They're going to talk about it tomorrow, but they're thinking maybe as early as
July.
Lehman/Well I believe we have a meeting, is it next Wednesday?
Kart/Next Wednesday, agenda items are due.
Lehman/We meet with the School Board and the County and that might be a really good
place to.
O'Donnell/And Coralville.
Champion/The only thing that I would say Steve, I was disappointed when I read that too
and I was surprised because I always think the alternative school, the location
closest to downtown is ideal and when I was at a school we tried to move them
and they didn't want to move. But I think the point brought out is that the
Coralville location is much more central to the school district and kids in that
school are from all over the school district, they're not just from Iowa City.
Wilburn/We're probably going to have to bring it up at that joint meeting since it wasn't
on the agenda for tonight.
Pfab/I would encourage something else, I would encourage that the Economic
Development Committee put some effort in.
Champion/Put it on the agenda for that meeting.
Pfab/Because I think that is lose it is losing the business in sense and to gain it is an
advantage and I'm not saying it's there to hang on to it because of the fact of the
location but if we're going to be looking out after Iowa City's interest I think we
should really make an effort to get it.
O'Donnell/I think that we're being giving them the signal to not talk about it.
Lehman/Yea don't talk about it. Is there interest in?
Vanderhoeff Putting it on the agenda.
Lehman/Making that an agenda item.
Pfab/Definitely.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 91
Kanner/For us your saying.
Champion/Well I would do it for the meeting next week.
Lehman/Oh and for the meeting next Wednesday.
Pfab/Yes it should be an agenda item.
Kanner/Well yea but also I would ask perhaps, I talked to Steve earlier today and he
made a phone call or two he's checking into it but maybe we can have a little
more definite construction to inquire about this for Steve with Lane Plugge before
we go so we have some information. Perhaps Steve can acquire what would it
take for us to keep it in Iowa City? Is there a chance, be more involved, and have
some info. before we go into the meeting next week.
Lehman/I just have a problem in being, coming involved with decisions that I think the
School District, the School Board I believe are making decisions that they feel are
in the best interest of the school district.
Atkins/Ernie.
Dilkes/You know we need to, I'm sorry but we need to get it on the agenda.
Lehman/Sorry.
Pfab/Is it possible to get?
Lehman/We're going to talk about it next Wednesday.
Pfab/No, no, this has nothing to do with it. Is it possible that we can get some
representative of staff to go to that meeting?
Champion/We're not talking about it.
Pfab/Is that talking about that (can't hear) to suggest that we have staff?.
Dilkes/My recommendation is (can't hear).
Lehman/All right we're going to talk about it next Wednesday at the joint meeting.
Other joint time.
Champion/Well because of all the frankly chaos we had tonight over the discussion of
the Moen group because we have a wide variance of ideas here. I'm wondering
Ernie do you have some idea about how you might run the meeting tomorrow so it
doesn't become an embarrassment for the Moen's and us?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 92
Lehman/Well I would like with the Council's permission that when this comes up on the
agenda, I would really ask that each Council person express themselves in two or
three minutes and that we vote after that, I think this has been discussed (can't
hear).
O'Donnell/Those who wish to Emie is fine.
Lehman/Pardon.
O'Donnell/Those who wish to express themselves.
Lehman/Those who wish to comment but I just think, because if we're not willing to
limit ourselves to two or three minutes my suspicion is it's going to be the
question called and we're going to vote without the opportunity for each council
person to make themselves heard as to why they supported it, do not support the
proposal and I think it's important that we make our self, we explain (can't hear).
Dilkes/It take five to call the question.
Lehman/Right.
Kanner/Are we voting on this tomorrow or is it just?
Lehman/We are voting on it tomorrow, now that is the vote indicates our intention to
approve the contract, and that starts 30 day period for someone to come in and
make a competitive proposal. In the absence of a competitive proposal we then
would sign the agreement at the end of 30 days.
Karr/I believe it's scheduled for your July 16 meeting, you'd have to act on it.
Lehman/Right.
Pfab/I would say that if we vote on it unless we decide to lay it or postpone, not.
Lehman/No that's always a possibility.
Pfab/Or defer, that I, I think if you, I think that the public may speak up and we may have
some questions that come from the public as that it might be to our advantage to
defer.
Lehman/We'll play that as it comes.
Pfab/But I mean.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.
June 10, 2002 Special Work Session Page 93
Vanderhoef/That's a possibility.
Pfab/But I don't, no, this was a work session, we had some hard questions that we didn't
have answers for when we came to this and I came down hard because I think that
we had a right to, we have an obligation to protect the interest of the city and if
nobody else is going to do it, I'm going to do it, but I, I don't intend to be near that
harsh at the public meeting because we discussed a lot of things here tonight.
Lehman/Anyway that's the way I'd like to do it tomorrow night.
O'Donnell/I agree totally.
Lehman/Other Council time.
Vanderhoef/I may well be offering an amendment to the contract, I still think we need to
approach a buy out for the convention space piece as there is the buy out for the
grocery store.
Lehman/That obviously can be part of the discussion tomorrow, amendments, motions to
defer, all that sort of thing are certainly appropriate.
Vanderhoef/I just thought I would alert you that that's one I would like to have
considered.
Kanner/The joint meeting is a week from Wednesday.
Lehman/A week from Wednesday.
Champion/At North Liberty.
Lehman/North Liberty 4:00.
Karr/Agenda items are due though tomorrow, I need to phone them in first thing (can't
hear) morning.
Kanner/Well I guess you'll (can't hear) in.
Lehman/Okay guys.
Atkins/Good night all.
Adjourned 10:15 PM.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting
of June 10, 2002.