The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1994-12-13 Agenda -....,.",,'. ,. . .,' ~ ,.; ':' .. .' " . , '.~t\'''','I' . ",\., '.t~:' . .....j',. .' ",' ; I ~lmk1l,':. ~. :',:' .' .,'::.;~'; '. . '. . . I " ~ . .,.. ...,'" , ."<.l.', I I I I IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA . \ c._ r r. ( ,~-. c~ \ . ,J' .A ~,- i . I' I I : ~ ! . SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 1994 6:30 P.M. I I I . ib ! I ~ COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CIVIC CENTER 410 EAST WASHINGTON > , :; C'" .: 0 . .. d._ . . . . ',~~ ,..... . ."'W' . . . . , " '. j .....'..'.".."".T"...-.................................... ..... N '1' , ..... .....,. ,..' . l' . .. ...,.....,....,........... ". 0 '0 .' '/1.' . \......... : '.': '.' '. 11',' .,'.... . IJ:.' . ','~}:,'~:.. .,',,".: '. .,:' . "i' ~},,:., . ,<' . :fr ~ ~ ~ ~((,:tI~) /}~ ROLL CALL. . CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRE~R AMENDED. .-,~,~.". ...; " ' ,_i;r~, .. ., -.:'." ,. "-: ' . . -_"~t~." :':.: . . '.. .\' . ",' ...':,-'..... 1," ~ ~:' i' ".. ','l " .. " ~.,,;' . . :,"~."",' '. "'; ','? AGENDA IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING - DECEMBER 13, 1994 6:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS ITEM NO.1. CALL TO ORDER. ITEM NO.2. a. Minutes of Boards and Commissions. '~'. ';, 1 .,.. " ".~" (1) Senior Center Commission meeting of October 27, 1994. b. Correspondence. (1) Letter from Phillip L. Thompson regarding the water plant and waste water projects. c. Applications for City Plaza Use Permits. (1) Application from Jenny Wiers to set up a table during the period of December 5-15, 1994, to offer candy for donations to benefit Heritage Christian School. (approved) ~~/'1~" . / ,/Irno , ~: END OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO.3. PUBLIC DISCUSSION (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA). @ ~ (J ~. '~ ,;' ~". j,;, ~/ ( [ II i I ~, ." .' I.'j". (;; ~~ . I 10', , Ie 0 _-:. " ~J. - .-~ .._L.~.' 2.)',.-.''7.:...;.....'.;.........."... " ""1"" ,'".......".-. \ -...' ....~..... 0........ 'x,;'. ....... ".' :';', "".', ,: if ~. '\'1 ' " "" , " ' , '. , .' , ' 'i;'\'-':\' " ,': '-' l r.;, , ,.... ..) ."];;.EJ .f -~ \ \ \ .~ "'('"'1 , , I" I I , ! ~, i 1"':' I ~ \ ~~ ,.....~:., ;:j,'t <-'1' I~ll i~ L' ,( ..~ " i " , '. :" ";, , ',"'. ""..',: #3 page 1 ITEM NO.3. PUBLIC DISCUSSION (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA). Horow/ I would ask you to come to the podium, sign in, state your name and I will ask you to keep your comments to five minutes. If you are addressing, for instance, the water rate, I would ask you to please address something as much as possible something that has not already been raised or already been discussed. Harry Wolff Good evening. I am vice president of Southgate Develop- ment. This evening I am here as Chair Elect of the Iowa city Coralville Area Chamber of Commerce. As most of you know, about 8 months ago the Chamber of Commerce executive director, Bob Quick, left Iowa city for another position. Since that time the Chamber has embarked on a search to find a replace- ment for that position and during that process we spent quite a bit of time doing some inward looking and with the help of a consultant helped profile that position and I am happy to say that we have successfully filled that position. This evening my purpose in being here is to tell you a little bit about the qualities we looked for in that person and introduce that person to you. What we are looking for was someone with a high profile, a high profile spokesperson for the Chamber. Someone able to work with diverse political groups. Someone able to articulate the business point of view, And someone able to work cooperatively with social activist groups and someone with some strong analytical skills. We feel, after an 8 month search, that we have found that person and with that I would like to introduce to you John Beckord, the new presid- ent of the Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce if I could. Horow/ Thank you, Harry. John Beckord/ Thank you, I think I can write and talk at the same time. My welcome to Iowa city has been most gracious. In the five days that I have been on the job I have met some 500 people and I think I might be able to remember the names of 50 of them. You would do me a favor if you could pass an ordi- nance requiring everybody to wear a name tag like this. I do appreciate this brief moment on your busy agenda just to say hello and introduce myself and to tell you I look forward to working with you on issues that are of mutual interest to the Chamber and the city. I know that is a predictable thing for me to say but I mean that. I want to emphasize that the Board of Directors did take a decision to increase the profile and the participation of the Chamber in local government affairs and legislative affairs and I have a lot of experience in that. I have spent time in Washington and I have spent time in the Chamber of Commerce in another town where I have attended numerous council meetings and Board of supervisors meetings. This represents only a reesonably accurata transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 13, 1994. F121394 -. '. = .woO. 'j,.' <- - "'. [:.:1' :~' r . f Q " \\ I/~I\ 10. l'l)~f ~.~. :'~ :II )~ l I I 1 I I I I -'...-;_. ,( I' , \" to lJ"rtill' '". . '>'\'.: ~ '. ,\\ I, \ _ . , ,," . " ~ ,,' , ~ '~..,. ,.,' .,.' . " #3 page 2 So I come in with some knowledge of how these things work and I do look forward to working with you and I want you to know that I am open to communicating with you at any time. That is to you to say you are welcome to call me on any issue and get the Chamber's perspective. If I am not able to answer it at the time you can bet I will get back to you as soon as possible. I would like to think that we could develop a very good working relationship. " Horow/ Thank you. Anyone else wish to address council. John Nesbitt/ I am not an Iowa citian. I am from university Heights but I do want to share something with council which is a short statement regarding the good guys versus the bad guys which is an unfortunate portrayal of the neighborhoods and residents and citizens in the Iowa city Press citizen versus the city administration, etc. That is one thing. And then secondly, the Iowa city city administration growth myth. The idea that an increase in population and business is going to mean an automatic, much larger, tax base reliving a lot of problems as far as finances are concerned. And, #3, the fact that citizens need options a, b, and c. For instance, the current $186 million program will be an a level. The middle level would be $35 million for 20 million gallons per day and the basic level cost would compare with the original $15 million proposal for water treatment that even at that time was considered high. Thank you. Horow/ Thank you very much. Anyone else care to address council. John, are you going to give those to the city Clerk. Thank you. I .r C;') \S ,~\ .~I 'T' .1 ~ I : I . I : I I, : I ~. I ~, I ~\,'~ \,,'" I,' ~.(~ ~ . This represents only e reasonably eccurata transcription of tha Iowa City council meeting of Decomber 13, 1994. F121394 G" '0/' .' 0 :" _"d~____________ ~."':"'- .- .,. o j,","':' , .,.,,' .', \~;'\:" " .->:,,;' ',' '\'.'. ~, "'l:"~ :,8,0,.,' l '..~) U , - - " ';!:}:llid . '...'~ ' ,~ r~~ \ 1 i I~ I I I , I 11l I {." , ,.. I . t I ~ ~,~":I I \~ Nr! " .,:'j: ' .> . , '\1I'" ~. ,'".1 \ \" "I ,~~ '~ ',.... .,.. , . , ;',' ..,..'.>:'",.. , " .,; ,': ,:..' ,~," ;:.:,: ~ ::~',,:.:-.:", ;;':;,'.; :'.,';"-';', ;,. ,'-':::; Agenda Iowa City City Council Special Council Meeting December 13, 1994 Page 2 ITEM NO.4- PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. a. Consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance changing the use regulations of RM-12 zoned properties located generally along Fairchild and Davenport Streets between Dubuque Street and Dodge Street, and in the 200 block along Bloomington Street from RM-12, Low Density Multi-Family Residential to RNC-12, Neighborhood Conservation Residential. (First Considerationl 9'1. % ')'3 Comment: At its November 3, 1994, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission, by a vote of 4-0, recommended approval of rezoning an area located generally along Fairchild and Davenport Streets between Dubuque Street and Dodge Street, and in the 200 block along Blooming- ton Street, excepting RM-44 zoned properties along Dubuque Street, from RM-12 to RNC-12. The Commission's recommendation is consistent with the staff recommendation. K.!!-,: /n~.-h ;>f",v/ /J "L . ~, ~ ~~ 67 ~ r! If, location of parking spaces in the Central Business Support Zone (CB-5l. (Second consideration) Comment: At its October 20, 1994, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission, by a vote of 6-0, recommended amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to prohibit access to parking areas from the street in the CB-5 zone, and to require that at least 50 percent of the ground floor area be used for commercial use. No comments were received from the public at the November 22, 1994, public hearing on this item. A,tio" ~AJ /~ 3J '" W ~ -# ~1:7 c. Consider an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to change the use ~ regulations of a 5.52 acre property located east of Waterfront Drive and the CRANDIC Railroad right-of-way from CI-1, Intensive Commercial, to CC-2, Community Commercial. IREZ94-0010) (Pass and adoptl Action: b. Comment: At its September 1, 1994, meeting, by a vote of 6-0, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of rezoning a 5.52 acre property located east of Waterfront Drive and the CRANDIC Railroad right-of-way from CI-1 to CC-2, subject to certain conditions. The Commission's recommendation is consistent with the staff recommendation contained in the staff report dated July 21, 1994. No comments were received from the public at the November 22, 1994, public hearing on the revised plan and Conditional Zoning Agreement for this item. '. Action: ~.wJv lJ?d~ I ~ff::r P tytV c~ : " " , ~'," .',: _._.._---~_:.... .' ~.._- :W<,. ~- _,' ~'_j~v. ", 0, ,)",....,',..,......,....,' , ,;( ,.: f.' .,':' ;,~ : ': '. , ',' \; ,~\, , .f..' , " "1; "">5 " , I~' h 10, :'~DE1iS ,r-:- ~( \\ I., ~ "-i"'~ ! r ~ I , I I~ , I I , , I I ~ t.... ii" ,; I I I \,~./' \ ',~ .. :' /' ) \(~.. ':~,!i~,.,', 1'>>.-iJ1 l~l~k' -iu;;J '--~ ,0 . ; , .: ' ,t',\'I,', . ". . 1 '. ..:~ " '" #4a page 1 ITEM NO. 4a.- PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. a.consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance changing the use regulations of RM-12 zoned properties located generally along Fairchild and Davenport Streets between Dubuque street and Dodge street, and in the 200 block along Bloomington street from RM-12, Low Density Multi-Family Residential to RNC-12, Neighborhood Conservation Residential. (First Consid- eration) Horowl Moved by Kubby, seconded by Nov. Discussion. Throgl I guess I would like to ask a question. I know in the written documentation that we received before the last meeting there were several petitions or whatever signed by these people. A few property owners had suggested that it seemed as thought there were a couple blocks that perhaps should be excluded from the zone and I guess I am a little bit surprised that none of them who spoke at the p.h are here tonight about the public discussion or during the public discussion period. And I was really looking forward to hearing them because I was wondering, myself at least, whether those two blocks ought to be included in there. I don I t whether you all have any thoughts about that or not but I was just wondering aloud. Novl I did wonder a loud with the Planning staff about why those kinds of things were done. It was kind of a jog in there but that is the property that had been RM-12. It took the entire RM-12 zone which does make a little sense. Horowl Okay, any other questions. Roll call- Kubby I I had another question. We also , in one of those-the opinion surveys that came back , someone mentioned that as long it doesn't exclude cooperatives. And I don't-I can't remember the exact boundaries but there are no, I don't believe there are any housing cooperatives in that area now and if there were any because they are in boarding house density zonings. Anything over- Franklinl That is right. It would be treated as rooming house. There are none there now, to my knowledge. If there was one established there now, it would be able to continue and to rebuild if it were destroyed. But no new cooperatives would be able to be established. I mean, basically what this zone does is it just keeps a lid on what is there. Jim, in answer to your question, I think there was-I know there was misunder- standing at one point in time about exactly what properties were included and a misunderstanding that something was zoned RM-44 was going to be downzoned to RNC-12 and when that was This represents only 0 reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meetIng of December 13, 1994. F121394 _.....-- - ,I o ,]:' .,.. I /~ rJ1Y It.i f~ I I l II ' .,\ ~: -';\ ~ID ;m>,iJf ", . '." , . ,/ ,.-."",,:'., , r" , (~\ \: .~ '0-.-,: I .. I I I I I i I I '"~ i I',: I 'I; ~l) Ii' , V~;;. 1: "t\! I\~~"", L.~ ,C.~:_ " ~' r. .." .,' , '" , - .':~~:'\"r ".',','1 .'. . 1 -. .'.. .,.. " " #4a 'page 2 cleared up that partiCUlar resistance disappeared. The other one had to do with the roomer question, How many roomers could you have and we will be bringing before the P/Z Commission and yourselves and amendment to the code to make the number of roomers consistent with what is permitted in the RM-12. I mean it just all seemed to make sense to make that change. So I think those folks who were in opposition were appeased. Throg/ Great. Horow/ Karen, did you have anything else. Continue the roll call- (yes). First consideration passes, 6-0, Pigott absent. This roprosents only e reesonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 13, 1994. F121394 ~j""'QI'T?"v ". .~ =-.~- ~ ~ . ~ ~ " . . .'~o ,1':,::' ,. '~. 1,1<;, I '!. " :1 0, "," . " I ~" ,i l ". , . , ;',"., . .o.tW.~ '. .,',.. ", ';,' " " . ,.;, 1 ':-,.,. ,.' . \ . ~ . '. ,..',,',.,',.,_'_ ','~;.,':il .'-".,.,__L. ..:':'.;d:'-':.._", ;"':'::.''';'''-1 . ' Agenda Iowa City City Council Special Council Meeting December 13, 1994 Page 3 q"f. %5+ d. Consider an amendment to City Code Section 14-6E-2, Neighborhood Commercial Zone (CN-1), to allow restaurants as provisional uses or by special exception with specific restrictions, and car washes by special exception with specific restrictions. (Pass and adopt) ; Comment: At its October 6, 1994, meeting, the Planning and Zoning 'Commission, by a vote of 4-0, recommended that in the CN-1 zone: 1) dwelling units continue to be permitted by special exception, 2) restaurant uses of 2,500 square feet or less be permitted as provisional uses, 3) restaurant uses of more than 2,500 square feet be permitted only by special exception, 4) in no case would restaurant floor area usage exceed 20 percent of the total commercial floor area within a CN.1 zone, and 51 car washes be permitted by special exception, provided the car wash is restricted to one bay and is an accessory use to a filling station. The Commission's recommendation is consistent with the staff recommendation contained in the staff memorandum dated October 6, 1994. No comments were received at the November 8, 1994, public hearing on this item. I , .1 ~' ! Action: 13Mu~)/~~ f <feu . 71~ '-- I ; ~. I j(J:~ ~ ITEM NO. 5 - CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION. r,-........ ('!1\ \ 1 \, ,~~ .~! "~~~ 11'- "I ~ .!. ITEM NO.6- REPORT ON ITEMS FROM THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY. a. City Manager. !I ~~ '0, b. City Attorney. " '\'~":',l '1.... ~~ ' , ~I:;"", '.,' :"-,"\ _----.~ .btl.-l ~ ([0 ..- - ~._~ ,--, )",.,";:'"....., .'H ". ,',', ,I O ,:",,: , " ',' \>:,' . ': ~l' :', . "\',; 'I' ",' ./!:. " I~ ~) Id. "-41 (-' ~' .. i " ,', . . ',~t \"1' '",,\., ~ . ", .. I " ,.',,;' t '''... .,.. " '" '/ I," '?fi :.1 ". ,'-' ;:~ ',< #5 page 1 ITEM NO. 5 - CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION. Horow/ city council Information. Mr, Lehman- Lehman/ I guess I would like to say and I think I speak for a lot of folks in Iowa City that we are going to miss Hunter Rawlings a great deal. he was a real team player and I think a very important part of this community and I think we all like to wish him very well in his new endeavor. KUbby/ I haven't said anything during my time for the last two or three meetings. So, watch out. I do have some things. It is not that long, Jim. I had given you a memo about Towncrest Relocation and I would like this to be scheduled for an informal discussion soon because time is really running out. We only have six months really until people have to be relocated and that time if going to get eaten up real quickly. Horowitz/ steve, do you have any idea ,~hat our informal on the 19th is going to be like? Atkins/ No, I don't right now but I suspect- I think Karen is right with respect to time. So I think we probably want to get this on. We will look at the 19th. KUbby/ Actually I didn't ask Marian to make a copy for Planning staff. You will get that to them. Atkins/ I will take care of it. Kubby/ If you can't read my charts you can call me at home. Okay. Secondly, reading in the paper about the annexation and rezoning of the Wolf Tract makes me want to bring another discussion to an informal to make sure that we are all talking about the same thing with what kind of trailer court it is going to be and the quote that is particularly of concern to me is saying that if this trailer court happens that it is going to be like Modern Manor. Frankly, I am not really interested in providing public funds to help another Modern Manor type of court because I think the market is out there for that kind of trailer court and we don't need to help a trailer court like that and I think before we get too far in the process we should discuss what is our vision for this trailer court. What kind of homes, what kind of tenants or homeowners are going to be in. Atkins/ If I can, Karen, if I recall, I think we have it scheduled for the 19th. 10 '. This represents only a raesonably accurate transcription of tha Iowa City council meeting of Decomber 13, 1994. F121394 ,\ o o 1/) Il], ". -', \ ,.'" ~ ." ~"-- ,m~~j ....-....,-...~ " ,L r . \, \1 \....; .~('\ ~ '(-1(', [:, ; " , \,'11 \1, ! i" I. ' 1'1 :i I ii' :: ill :: 1'1 'I \ 1 '{.', " Ii::' J I \ ' ~,..::1: "'1 " , Hijl< i'i~~I", il~:~~_ G----" : 0 ':''- _u_______,__.._ " , , ,~ . .t'.\i,; " , ". . \ '. , . ",.',':. .',._"\..t",..,,. ,,, '_',",,1 #s page 2 KUbby/ Great. Thank you. That was quick. I was thinking about the Woodlands Preservation Ordinance that is now evolved into something else but then remembered that when the subcommittee to work on the Woodlands Conservation Ordinance met that it was really going to be a three pronged approach. So I want to make sure the other two prongs don't get lost in the shuffle or get incorporated into the other approach and two of the other prongs were looking at significant individual trees and looking at the Tree Ordinance we currently have for large scale developments in our Zoning Code or wherever the Tree Ordinance that we currently have is placed. Just to review that and make sure it is up to date as we want it. Horow/ You mean the existing ordinances. Kubby/ And those were the two other things that that subcommittee was going to look at and I really haven't heard anything about those two other items since we squelched the Conservation Ordinance as such. Franklin! Well, the whole focus of our efforts now is on or are on the sensitive areas overlay and the neighborhood design concepts that were raised in the joint meeting the P/Z Commission and Council had. And in the sensitive areas overlay will address the issues of woodlands, steep slopes. Now, in terms of specifically talking about significant individual trees, you know, we can bring that into the conversation. The first meeting of the subcommittee is this Friday at noon in the Lobby Conference Room. Kubby/ It is really a different issue because there might be significant trees that aren't near other sensitive areas. So that overlay ordinance really wouldn't speak to those- Franklin! Well, the direction that we understood that we got from the Council and the commission, jointly and as a body, was to move to this other approach of looking at the sensitive areas overlay and the neighborhood design concepts. Now, if you are indicating that there is still an interest in looking at some kind of significant tree ordinance that is a departure from what we understood. I sent you a memo a month or so ago outlining the direction that we were going to take. Kubby/ Right, I guess I am not disagreeing with that. Franklin! I am not understanding. Kubby/ That the committee that looked at the Woodland Ordinance was looking at three different things. An overlay zone just really deals with the one that really expands the issue- This represents only a reesonebly accurote transcription of thalowa City council meeting of December 13, 1994. F121394 ~' - -- 0 )"i" ",,' , ". , ""\\' ~~:;-r r' r I I ~ ~ [1 1~ ;l~' " " "1 b jl .1 ~ ~ I i " t~ ;1 I';~! 0, " ,I;;, ,t ,..J ~~~ I d r " y;j ';' , 1 ' II , , , , , , , I : '< , I I, :( \ \'1 ", '~\:" ft ., pr ,( -~..- '----,- " r:\ ". . :, '..,' ,.t'ri . '. .\ . ~ \,',! 1 . ...,; ".: .C','-"."''', ,.. ",,', #s page 3 Franklin/ The preservation of woodlands will be a central focus of that. Kubby/ I am saying the other two tasks of that committee have never been dealt with. Then what to do with those two things and if what we discussed before was unconscientiously me saying I don't want those two other issues to be looked at, then I regret that decision. I didn't understand that I was saying that. Horow/ What did the committee decide to do with those two other issues? That is my question. KUbby/ I don't know. I think the focus was so much on the conserva- tion of the larger areas of trees that the conversation just got lost about those other two things and the reason I am bringing them up tonight is so those two other conversations don't get lost and if the committee is going to say to- I guess I want to throw it back to the committee and say what about those two other things. Do you think it is important. Franklin/ Okay. This is an entirely different committee of people that is working on this. Kubby/ I am talking about the old Tree Committee that was going to look at these three different areas. Nov/ I think that one disappeared, didn't it? Kubby/ Well, it may have but there were other tasles that they had set out for them at the beginning and have never been re- solved. Franklin/ I guess what I will throw back to you all is there an interest on the part of council in pursuing these two items. And the one I have is a look at significant individual trees and their preservation. Correct? And then the other was our existing tree ordinance and- Kubby/ Just updating it. Taking a look at it, making sure it is what we want. Franklin/ And updating it. Okay, If you could have some discussions among yourselves so I can get clear direction for the council because I don't feel that right now. Okay. Kubby/ I feel those things have gotten lost in the shuffle and- Franklin/ Yes, they had. It is very frank but I am not sure that it wasn't purposeful. This represents onlv a reasonably eccurate transcription of tholowe City council mooting of Docomber 13, 1994. F121394 ~= ~- _.~ ),':.,'..,',. ,"""" : o .,.' , """", '-', In , , r ,f j , " Q ,', 10, :1ir.-ITe!' ; ( ~ ( . \ ?\ }".. ! i Ii I I I I I , I I i , , ~ Ii I ~ \ '~j "M ~ Co , , '~?: i '\'., ~ .. . . 'i: 1 ", . .' "', #5 page 4 Nov/ I think they may have been reprioritized because we said this fragile area and PDH overlays should be at the top of the list. Kubby/ Right, I just don't want those other two things to get- But Karin is saying they are not on the list no matter how low on the list- Franklin/ I am saying they are not on the list. So, if you want them on the list we need to hear that. Kubby/ And I am not advocating that they need to be at the top of the list or even in the middle of the list. I just don't want those two issues being lost. Horow/ I think I would like to find out though, in terms of the significant tree list, whether or not the Heritage Tree Program that has just recently been conducted and as I understand will continue, whether that wouldn't take this into consideration. In other words whether some of these programs that are already on board will have taken up the significant large tree. Throg/ That program will surely help us identify trees but it doesn't say anything about that to do with them once they are identified. Does it? Help me out on that. Horow/ Lord, I understand that they are- KUbby/ I think it helps people learn how to care for them properly but it doesn't mean that if they are on your property you can't cut them down. I don't believe. Franklin/ Should we schedule this for maybe a work session in January to talk about it for 15 minutes or so? Kubby/ That would be great. Horow/ I would also appreciate a- Kubby/ Maybe an update on what exactly the tree program is. Horow/ That wouldn't be a bad idea. We have got a report from them if you could remember. We did receive that just recently. Let's review that material. That would help before we get back into this. Anything else, Karen. Kubby/ Two other things. One is and finally things have slowed down to be able-all of this activity that has been going. To start thinking about some things again really deeply and this may This represonts onlV a reasonablv accurato transcription of the Iowa Cltv council moetlng of Dacomber 13, 1994. F121394 --- o ',1:': - , '." ... , ~7 .;\ ~ ~ ~ I~. r; I@ l ~ (1 I I " 'i .' I'- '" ='"'"'" .:;:.l::r-'lL<..'\1.' " ..".-'. 1, .' ., '. ( ..1 (' . \ ,>I 7..';";' i, ! . i I I ! I : I : I , I : I 1'1" , ~' : I ~\ "J '\'.I -, ~ rr-w- :L_~~ " I-"'j .' , ,'~~ I"~ , ".I:'! ' , ", ,,,. , /'. . '1 .~.. .,.' " .,..c.. ; " _ .... [iff #5 page 5 not seem like a deep thought, steve, but when the phones went out for a day, it was a sunday and it was very joyful not having the phone ringing I must say but it seemed like a community emergency to me. It wasn't just a street. It wasn't just a neighborhood. It was a whole county based basically that was out. It least it was Coralville and Iowa City and there was nothing on the radio about it and there was some scrawl on the bottom of the television and I was wondering why wasn't the emergency system triggered or what causes it to trigger? Why couldn't we have put something on the radio to say-? Atkins/ It did go on television, I recall that specifically. Kubby / To me it seemed like a community, a low scale, but a community emergency and for people who when they need 911, they need to know what the options are. Atkins/ I will find out for you. I don't know. Kubby/ Like go to your friends and have a cellular phone. Atkins/ I understand that. I will find out for you. Okay. KUbby/ And the last thing. The last couple of days there have been instances where the city police have chased vehicles where there have been accidents. Atkins/ That is not completely correct. It has been reported that way and I am really not at liberty to discuss the earlier accident but I did go over it with the chief. Kubby/ All right. What I am interested in getting is a report from R. J. about how we decide to do chases in town. Atkins/ We have a policy on that. Kubby/ So I would like to have that reviewed. Atkins/ I will take care of that. I will prepare you something as soon as R. J. indicates to me that he feel comfortable releasing the information. We will do that. Kubby/ Thank you much. That is it, Nov/ I would like to get some more information about what is going on with the Cliff's Apartments and what can we do about the fact that there isn't much going on there. This represents only e reasonably accurata transcription of tha Iowa City council meeting of December 13, 1994. F121394 - - .. .- ,,0, ],::.c..,,:,',., , ' .',',' S;::":' , " '~" .", ,> " "\ r '- , I~i~ ii~, io. '\' ,or;" , IV" .....1 ;~~jZi '"'' ,-, J (. ~ \. , , ~. '- .~( ," ; I, \ ,[ , : .: , ' Wi , , I : I I . : , I , . ''(.', ' II::' I: ' i I : 'I J <~\,,-/, '.. , ';\~'li-il',;" :t1,;:;'1 ":1."'" ~ri " , L_~ -(~~ ; 'I .'~ ' . .t\ I' '-"1, ". . .' , , .~... . ,"',. #s page 6 Woito! Well, the first thing, Naomi raised a question whether Jim Glasgow was building another apartment behind the cliff's Apartments. There was apparently some story or rumor to that affect and the answer to that is clearly no. The construction back there are the forms for the concrete retaining wall which is intended to keep the hill from coming down onto the two existing buildings. There will be no apartment, another apartment built back there. In terms of what is happening with the retaining wall, the forms are put in for the first 80 feet but the concrete has not yet. been poured. And I have talked to Rick Fosse and Ron Boose and I guess if it is the council's wish that we should pursue it more vigorously that we can. Kubby! I mean we have talked about this for three years at least in terms of being more aggressive. Woito! It has been five years. I have been back here almost five years, going on six, and it has been going on since then. Kubby! Some of us have been calling for a $1,000 a day fine for a long time and whatever the next step is I think we should- Nov! I think it has been the council's wish to do this a little bit more aggressively and the staff has said no, we are making decent progress and we don't have to be more aggressive. I am not agreeing with that. woito! Well, we seem to be at a stand still. Nov! That is what it looks like. So whatever we can do to be more aggressive would be probably a good idea. Throg! There is a complexity there, isn't there with regard to the individual involved and recent deliberations? So- I think it is difficult to separate. Though I understand what you are saying. You feel that you can separate the two. Nov! We certainly have been at it for more years than you have. Woito! You can talk about it all you want. Horow! Many of us are frustrated because we have been at this for so long. Throg! All right. So let me be clear about what I mean, There will be surely be on the part of many people a perception that we would be harassing Bruce Glasgow. Horow! That is his problem. This represonts only a reesonably accurate transcription of tho Iowa City council moetlng of Docember 13, 1994. F121394 - - - ~.- ,- --~ , ,\ o "\,.',,:i' ..I." ~. , fL~~1 ! i!)f ~'. , ~/'s ., ~ 0', " ,,,,,,,b~ J~l,;';-", " i, , ". . , .'::t:\'r .. '. ,'. ,'-,' , '~... . #5 page 7 KUbby/ It could be our problem is what Jim is saying. Throg/ And I think we need to be clear about considering whether anything that we do would appear to be or constitute harass- ment. Horow/ I totally agree. What I look at is a paper trail and I think our minutes and the memos that we have received over the past five years give a very clear paper trail that there is a consistency there and our frustration- Pigott/ However, the fact is not everybody is reading minutes. I think Jim's point is valid because and yours is at the same time but I think we have to really give consideration to the fact that not everybody is going to see the minutes and they are going to-some people will see the proximity of any decision today- Horow/ But Bruno, the fact of the matter is that this is a safety issue. It is a major street and I think that the pUblic are smart enough to realize that council has the responsibility to look after the safety of something that in the spring time can be very very dangerous and for me to kind of timid- Pigott/ That is not what I am arguing at all. Horow/ Because of the other issue. I feel like I would be derelict even- pigott/ I wouldn't encourage timidity. Throg/ We received a memo. J (~ \ Woito/ There was an update recently. Throg/ About 5-6 months ago. Woito/ The last update was from Ron Boose that they had run, they meaning Jim Glasgow, had run into some heavier bedrock and so they had to re-engineer the retaining wall and that had been done and they were suppose to be progressing with new engi- neering plans. And that was about four months ago. That has been done, The forms have been put in for the concrete but that- ,~,; i; , , i . I' I , ; I , I , I , I , I ''C i I" ! i .1, ";;;j "p Horow/ It has taken such a snail's pace. Woito/ This is true. Lehman/ I think I hear what- This reprosents only 0 reasonebly eccurate transcription of the Iowa Cltv council meeting of Dacember 13, 1994. F121394 r,~il,"','" ,I, I" ,l(' _~=- '1'.---- ~.."lx' frAt .,.. . ~;f I I ~ 10 I '. " " ' I)jh. 10, ;:~~~'" ~ ,i"l .'. ":r:\'" . ,','t., ". " ., 1 ~...' , #s page B Horow/ Oh, I understand what they are saying. Lehman/ If we were to really aggressively pursue this right now I think the pUblic's perception is why now. I think we should continue to pursue it at the same rate we have been and let everybody know these are the rules. But I think an attempt to speed it up now might be viewed kind of badly. Nov/ We have been sort of pursuing it every once in a while, It has been a few months and we pursue it again. Horow/ If there are not four who wish to pursue this a little bit more rapidly, let's keep on going on the conversation. Larry- Baker/ I think we should pursue it with the gravity it deserves and go from there. Kubby/ What the hell does that mean Larry? Horow/ The gravity has to do with the dirt on the cliff and if we are looking at what is going to happen in the spring time. Throg/ Your point is well taken. Woito/ The hill is sloughing off. It is a matter of when it will stop. Kubby/ What is the next step, Linda? I mean there is a lot of steps between doing nothing and trying to have a daily environmental infraction imposed. Woito/ We basically have to start over in terms of litigation. ,- .1 c \ . \ Kubby/ Well, let's start. Woito/ I think Rick and Ron, staff is finally ready to pursue. Kubby/ There is warm weather long into the season this year~ There could have been movement. ,~ 'T , ~ Lehman/ Especially this fall. Throg/ Would it be wise to invite Mr. Glasgow to let us know why in the past-what he has done in the past four months? Why- basically why there hasn't been more progress in his view? And if that is not satisfactory, indicate it in the letter. If we do not feel that that is satisfactory, we will pursue litiga- tion. , I I I' , I . I ! I , . if;' .. I II ~.I", '.., , This represents only e reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of Docomber 13, 1994. F121394 :E~_ .. I )".,.,.,".,".'... , " 0, ',..',.... " , ,- ;;,'" . , ' ','., . ...., -'...-. '. \" ~- n .,.' ,~ ~~ ~ !lJ , '~; , ql>S' 10, \ i }.!~ ',~t:, ; 'I " ~, . ". . ~ '.... . #5 page 9 We might just ask everybody who complains to us to send a letter. Talk about a public outcry. This is one of these that has been that way and I don't think we can ignore the serious of this situation and all of the people who have been troubled by it. Horow/ Are there four people who would like to pursue this a little more aggressively? Nov/ Kubby/ Yeah, and I think hearing from Jim is an appropriate part of that, Woito/ Yes, I agree. Horow/ I don't mind listening to him but I still - woito/ And he and Ron Boose talk regularly. Nov/ Just signify that we would like something more than just talking. Horow/ Let's look a little better than being wishy washy because that is the way I feel we are right now. All right. Anything else. ,...,": I ('-:''\ \ l ~ .~ ''[1 I~ Throg/ Well, I am feeling kind of wishy washy myself. Bruno and I had a very good meeting with John Lohman yesterday. John is the president of the student government association and we talked about several specific issues that are of interest to John and his fellow senators. Namely, the rate increase, the Near Southside, the multi family recycling committee, street lighting, sidewalk cafes. So briefly, rate increase. Mainly we talked about ways in which John and other students can try to influence the future area decisions. Just what the procedure would be, how they could go into that process. And I think we indicated that there was a real opportunity here to establish a precedent of students having a voice in council decisions that affect them and John really sees that and so I expect there to be a precedent setter. with regard to the Near South- side we talked a bit about the Design Plan element that we are going to be voting on tonight and I think John would like to find a way for a student representative to be involved like we discussed the last time this was talked about. The multi family recycling committee. I don1t mean multi family recy- cling. He got a letter inviting students to participate in the committee so I want to thank staff for that. It is a good thing. Street lighting. They are going to be coming to us with a list of areas from a students point of view that are under lit and might need some lighting. And sidewalk cafes. We just told him that we would possibly be considering a resolution or ; i i , 'C' , I" I' , " , ' I I ~~ "~T \ This ropresents onlv e reesonablv eccurete trenscrlptlon 01 tho lowe Cltv council meeting of December 13. 1994. F121394 '~l' ~r~#. , 1,I:nV. "'(" -~, l[~.ou_.__. . _ _- --- - - o,~), ,.' ~;')i1 rr ~ ~ I I ., " ,~, ~, 0'" I} r... .; "'~' ., 'r'", ,':~~ '" ,\ '., i, ~. ..~. ". , ,,:J 1 "" . """ #5 page 10 ( ... (- \ ordinance sometime soon and we invited John to say whatever students might want to say with regard to that. It was a real good conversation. Very productive. Pigott/ I wanted to thank those on the snow removal crew. Heeded many of my calls to steve Atkins and in the city over the past snow fall and did a wonderful job. I called a number of times, actually, and after I called I visited the spots that I called in and they were taken care of. I just think they do a pretty darn good job. Thank you. Baker/ A couple of things. One I wanted to and this is awkward for me to say because it involves saying something nice about the Press citizen. I wanted to recommend to people that if they didn't get a chance to read the editorial I think in yester- day's paper, they should take a look at that editorial. Under- stand John, shake your head yes or no, that the Press citizen is doing a big story on Saturday's paper on background on the water plan, issues, facts. I don't know what structure it is going to be but there will be plenty of copies out there. At the public library and other places. You can stop in your drug store. You can pick up a copy and read it there while you are eating. But, another place for people to get some information and I appreciate the Press citizen doing that. On the same issue, I don't know if now is the time to bring this up or when we actually get to the votes on the water rate thing again. But, re-reading Ed Barker's letter and it seems that there was one specific item in here that I wanted to get a sense of the council on and Steve, in particular, about the process of regular updates about just automatically every two weeks or month or let's get a schedule that says this is what we have done in the previous two weeks in responding to these questions. We have talked to these officials but on a regular- Atkins/ Kind of like a diary. Throg/ I wonder if we can talk about that more in the- pigott/ Do it during the - Baker/ If that is the time to talk about it, that is fine but let's talk about some sort of process. ,~ ""11, f' : i, I I I , I , I Atkins/ They are making fun. I will be happy to do that. Horow/ Let's discuss this during the voting. Baker/ I told you and Jim this before the meeting so you have heard this. But I have promised my charmingly attractive wife that I would publicly apologize to the people of Iowa city, anybody , i 1 'r' : I'" Ii :( 0.., "l \"1' ~ This represents only a raesonably accurate transcrIption of the Iowa City council meeting of December 13, 1994. F121394 (...__ -~ r- ,_ - - -.- -- ,~'" v-. , , '_,0_.,), "".' '. "', "'. , {~~ I \11 ~ ~ 1'10 " " , I f1 f! , ~. I, } 110 'I ./'\ .~ ".--" " J~fl:j , ' ,'; /".,,-', / J f ,-- ( -:' \ ...>1 ,,-~ U : II i i I" I IX I, : I \ ~,~ 1 '~' ~~ , .'d ., i'. :(- 0 r:j .> . ~t\. " .' ,\1,:, ,~. "'"" ~ 'w..., " #5 page 11 that listened to last week's meeting, the 61/2 hour meeting, and the meeting before that, for my coughing. Evidently, even when I am not on camera, I am coughing when everybody else is talking. Horow/ Well, you are tonight. When you turn to your left, you cough right into the mic. Baker/ I want to publicly apologize for my weakened condition and I have been convinced to go to the doctor. So maybe in a month and a half I will-But thank my wife for embarrassing me again. So- Horow/ I would like to follow up on Bruno's discussion about the snow removal and please, please people remember your side- walks. The sidewalks have got to be plowed, shoveled, whatever within 24 hours. Most of the city adheres to this but there are some who just forget that they have got a sidewalk out there. Especially corner lots. Please keep them clear. And I would also like to remind everyone around town you will find green hanging cards on pink Christmas trees. These are the chips for $15 to the Crisis Center to purchase turkey and trimmings for Johnson county family in need this holiday season. The Crisis Center is in a crisis right now in terms of the money. They really do need a little more assistance. Quite a lot more assistance. So if you wish to give someone a gift even in your name of giving $15 to the Crisis Center. Think of that as a really neat Christmas gift. But for sure, pick one of these off the trees, send $15 in to the Crisis Center. Or more. They really are running short for some reason. Kubby/ Sue, I actually had one other thing. We finally got word that we are going to have a booth at Walk of the Stars and I think that is a really great thing and I am glad that we are going to have them. I want to encourage council members to be there. I think the focus of the booth is going to be water and sewer issues and I think it is important for us not to have staff answering political questions. Therefore, our presence is needed. So once we know later the schedule- Atkins/ We should have a schedule here pretty shortly. Kubby/ We should split up hours to have maybe two people there at a time at the booth throughout the whole day. NOV/ And we are not doing this in conjunction with all the govern- ments. This is just city. pigott/Didn't we do it last year with all governments? This represents only a reasonably accurate trenscrlptlon of tho Iowa CIty council meotlng of December 13, 1994, F121394 --....-y ,,' 0.,)"..:,.,.,7 , " ,.,..'" ,,1,,0, _. ~.- <,.yo", '-',' - ...... '. " .,.. ~, CD 1",J:;"2,O"',, ,~~) U ". ,~'1', ,i "r"::';,.':;..-",,,;:.'; . ':., " r c~!\ \ .~ ';~l~~~ I' I I < I II b I....;' ~ I;;~" j~ ~l: l.~ ,;[-0 " .\"1 , ", ;'.'~t. ','" ""h, ',' , " , ~ ,'" "4". , " #5 page 12 Novl Yeah, we did all governments last year. KubbYI I think we need a sewer and water booth. Throgl Probably a good idea. Atkinsl We will get the schedule together and divide up the time. Thanks. Throgl Do you want plumbing directly to that sewer and water booth? Kubby/ Just figuratively. I would remind council to bring their calendars next meeting because we have got to set up some special meetings in January for the budget. Please bring your calendars. This represents only a reasonebly accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of Dacembar 13, 1994. F121394 - . _ '..' '~""'-"--;---k -,.' ',,' ~v :l'" , " .., , , 0 I'. , , , Y. 1( . . ,'~ . I' ~.' ,'....:' :1'-" ",' ,.. " nT',. ,/5 " , r 10, ";.' I. mram.'( _ . . ,-"'~- ',"" " ... ~. i . " " ""If'-''' , .' .j,W,: , ',":'. ",' ". . '>....,. . " " ,r .r. C~! \ ,~ I, , ! I ", , ~, ''''n J.) \~ ,\' "I"; ,.' '-" , . ", '.'; ~j ,((- ~" ',',- . ',I. " ~ . #6a page 1 ITEM NO. 6 a. city Manager. Horow/ Mr. Atkins. Atkins/ I want to apologize for being a couple minutes later but we had a rather unfortunate set of circumstances. They are probably still occurring in the 1900 block of Hollywood near Broadway. One of our public housing units was on fire and it had spread to another unit. Our fire crews have evacuated I think there are ten families. Arrangements have been made for them this evening. Boothroy was already there, So just to let you know that everybody was doing what they are suppose to do. KUbby/ And there are no injuries reported. Atkins/ No injuries reported. That is all I have. ThIs reprasents only a reesonebly eccurete transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 13, 1994. F121394 , : ~. .,r-~ ~ - I.~"."..,-, ',-..',',..'_".,', .,',.",-'.'.",'".,~':',",),'.;:.:r;,'.;':"\ ' ._____. .,_ .. __:. ,....,,,..Jf, ' '..' , ".' .,.' " i , I 'A "-;;I : ' , ) f) . -<. .'.. I d. . . "". j~"I"'j. ,...'~.. . ~ ,~ J C~.4 \ ~,' ,'-.., I I i I -, , [ , I If ~'"' '" ~:~,. ,tc ~. C. Ill"If1lI ~,., _, 0 , ". '.~t\' 'I: '"''\''' ~ .. , ',. , . / ,~, , . ': '~." .. #6'b page 1 ITEM NO. 6 b. city Attorney Horowl Ed Moreno came to my Noon Kawanis and gave a nice presenta- tion on the historical aspects of our 1882 water plant and showed the slides and it was very helpful and very educational for the group and he stayed there a long time, Many people get up and leave at noon but they didn I t and asked a lot of questions. Novl I have heard a lot of other comments about Ed Moreno giving good presentations at various groups, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 13, 1994. F121394 ,'''' ' ,IT . 11",---<1:~_, )',..,:,' :'" ,,',!:',, .. ,,):;';,', . .0 ',.' " 1 J I I I ., , . ',:.',~ ,', 'iJ1 I" (l) , ,j t,J. ~. ' '1'..,' I~I, ! 'j.t;. 0 II,! ~')' , ,-'" ftfti ~ 1;:1 " ,~J.?ir1~ "," ,"i' ",". .' '~~\ '/ 'h, '" , ~. "." ~ " ....., .':" , . ;":; ,',-"" Agenda Iowa City City Council Special Council Meeting December 13, 1994 Page 4 ITEM NO. 7 - RECOMMENDATIONS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. a, Consider recommendations of the Design Review Committee: (11 REGARDING MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE. Comment: At its November 28, 1994, meeting, by a vote of 6-1 (Nagle voting nol, the Design Review Committee recommended that the Design Review Committee membership requirements remain unchanged, That is that the enabling resolution and by- laws should continue to state that "At least two-thirds of the Committee members must be eligible electors of Iowa City, and the remaining one-third may be eligible electors of Johnson County," This recommendation is in response to a request from the City Council, Action: n\..~~/ 7f:t~ . Jee; ~ (2) REGARDING MAINTENANCE OF CITY PLAZA. af AU../ d~ay~ ..-.., .L ~....,... \'j \. ,1 Comment: At its November 28, 1994, meeting, by a vote of 8-0, the Design Review Committee recommended that during the Council's upcoming budget discussions that the Council give special consideration to budget requests for the maintenance and replacement of items within City Plaza, Given the age of City Plaza, the Plaza requires more than the past general maintenance expenditures; it requires significant expenditures for repair and replacement of items in the Plaza. iT1 i I "I " I I I i : i I , , , I I '{.~, II'" ; I :1 ~~ '{i ~_:I: ': ~ /, , ,'\ . ra,,"', ~' 1~'.1~', , f~ Action: 1~/ ~ tu~ (Pdl~AUI 4eJr ryL~ CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE NEAR SOUTHS IDE COMMER- CIAL URBAN REVITALIZATION PLAN ITEM NO, 8- ~-3'51 Comment: The Urban Revitalization Plan outlines the improvements which qualify for property tax exemption in the proposed Near Southside Commer- cial Urban Revitalization Area, The Urban Revitalization Area includes the area zoned Central Business Support Zone, generally located between Burlington and Court Streets and along Gilbert Street. qi' /~ ~I b/u r.J Action: C"' -. \. -~--- _..----~,- -'" - .0 - - )\, . \, .,.. , -."" ._",," C:, ,( , I'::" '~' " l,j .,~ r I I \ t1 ~, I D ~ ~1 " r ~ iit :j~'lo', }~~~ " ,t r-: \ ~ T r I , , I , I , , , I, i (., i 1"'\ , I , I :"~,,, 'J ~ (('~ 'l___~~ .' \' ) . , "~ ' ,"W:. . , '''; ". , , ", . #7a(1) page 1 ITEM NO. 7 - RECOMMENDATIONS OF BOARDS AND COl(MISSIONS. a. consider recommendations of the Design Review committee: (1) REGARDING MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE. Horow/ Moved by Nov, seconded by Kubby. Discussion, Nov/ Yes, I do not agree with this. Baker/ I don't think I do either but what is the process? Are we going to come back in the Rules committee and talk about it or is it going to come back to us? Nov/ The Council and the Rules Committee that recommended that a person have some connection to Iowa city. At least to work in Iowa city if you don't live in Iowa city and we have a potential here for somebody who lives in University Heights or North Liberty or wherever and works in Cedar Rapids or North Liberty or something like that and has not real connection to Iowa city. The original premise here was somebody like craig Welt who lives beyond the city limits but has an office in d.t. Iowa city. And that somehow has been lost in the wording. Throg/ On the other hand, presumably 1, 2, or 3 of the current committee members are not residents or employees within Iowa city. They probably sense that they have some kind of commit- ment to the mall and is caring for it and as a result puzzle over the thought that they wouldn't. Kubby/ Why would they apply if they weren't interested in the issue that was the mainstay of that committee? Nov/ certainly they have an interest in this issue but I would like something more than just an interest. I really think there ought to be a more direct connection. Kubby / I think applying for that committee is that connection because someone could work in Iowa city and have an interest in the issue but not have a commitment to the design of the mall. I mean you could make that argument too and I think it is kind of a moot point, That if people are applying for the committee and maybe someone who doesn't work in town would have a fresh perspective that would be more detached from having an office down there or working down there. I mean there is all sorts of contributions that- Baker/ Is there a limit here though? Somebody who lives in Cedar Rapids but wants to be on our DR Committee. Kubby/ It is now Johnson County. This represents only e reesonably occurete trenscrlptlon of tho lowe City council meeting of December 13. 1994, F121394 "1'-- '" ,0, )',: ,., . .,.. , ~1 ~1 I' . i Q \ ,. , .j ,~ .., 10', ...-" . " ' ~..' 'I .~ ". , . '~t:'\'1 ; '" , . ~ .. . .' ',:.,; " ...,'T'. .,.. . , ..'o-;l"; ',- ',.'",:'-1 '\~ ~, #7a(1) page 2 Nov/ However they could live in North Liberty and work in Cedar Rapids. Baker/ Yeah, I see your point exactly Naomi. Throg/ Well, lots of people from outside of Iowa city shop in d.t, Iowa city. Don't they. Don't they have a commitment of some kind? I am not trying to take a strong stand on it but- Nov/ Sorry, I really would prefer that we have a little stronger commitment than just somebody who shops. Kubby/ That is a pretty big commitment, Nov/ No, it isn't really a commitment. It isn't. Nobody is going to sign a commitment that says they will never shop anywhere else. Pigott! We still don't agree with this. " Horow/ Let me make a suggestion that the Rules Committee get together with the DR Committee and discuss this because discussing it here we don't seem to have a consensus on this. Nov/ I would certainly think that it deserves further discussion at some point. If the Rules Committee is the place to do it then please get together with the DR Committee next time they meet and explain to them what we are getting at. Horow/ Your issue is the historical aspect of having someone on the committee who works d.t. ,,,,", L' (-:"'\ \: ~ (~1 Nov/ No, this has nothing to do with history. It has to do with some more direct connection with d.t. Iowa city. Horow/ All right, since the Rules Committee seems to be split on this issue this may be an interesting discussion. Kubby/ I think the Rules Committee should be directed to come back with two languages and the majority-if there is a majority to choose one over the other, " Horow/ Me and Karen. Kubby/ What purpose of the Rules Committee meeting with DR? DR has spoken with this. Horow/ I think when a council has a pretty I f II I' . I : I I ' I I r;~ i I i'" I I I I : j '~\'.-"" ,,'\:'...,~ .\,,; , /' " M' ~~' '," I ~j~ ~';;~~'. ','1 " .-" CHANGE TAPE TO REEL 94-141 SIDE 2 This represents only e reesonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 13, 1994, F121394 ;L~__ _:... I '...... ---"', ,.J:::, " " \, "I '.'::",.' 1'0, 0 ,Ie;, .. " ,,' . ".' ." .t~1o.'-{i:Jlf:' '. i ~, " , 'r:', ",' '~t~,\{ " ~ ,,' ".' , " ',',", 1 ,~ I ~ C~ \ ~ "-( , I '6 " J \, ,~, ' II W " '~I ('-' ,',0 " .,; _......:......- #7a(1) page 3 To work as hard as they possibly can to take a look at that bylaw and make it-certainly to give the sense of what council is trying to get at but within a certain amount of flexibili- ty. Right now it says may be eligible electors of Johnson County.. Could the word should be or would it be may be people who are employed in d,t, Iowa city but have a tighter connec- tion to the d. t, area. You can certainly work with the language. Novl And the main reason it does not require that everyone live in Iowa city is the fact that there are many people who own businesses in Iowa city and don't live there and have a very deep concern about what goes on in d. t. Iowa city and the reason behind that was certainly legitimate. But the wording doesn't express that, Kubby/ We shall meet, Horow/ We have a motion on the floor to accept the recommendation. All those in favor signify by saying aye (ayes). This represents only a reesonably accurate trenscrlptlon of the Iowa City council meeting of Decomber 13, 1994. F121394 --,...... .......... ~.~ ...,....,'-_..,.,-'.. , ,., ],.,'.;.,' , ' '~: '.'.<.."" .",.0.."',,.:;.', , : "",,:,, ,\::.>,'.:>,. ,',':"""'-" , f" " . ~' @ .,. ;'T~., ',' : ,.5 10, ..~: "--. ,...-' i' . (~\ \J. ,,' ,,, ", "-"-""': I ' I ' ~ , I II : I I' , I , I 11:'> I.' " ! ~~'<"" ~"...~. " ! tr'~,:',',', I~ " ,...... ;;(. ~' " . ('j 0, t.: ". . '.:.'~('-, , ",\1., , 'C.','.. '0' 1 '~.,. ..' , -I .,.. , .~_,d~,_' , mr #7a(2) page 1 ITEM NO. 7 - RECOMMENDATIONS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. a. Consider recommendations of the Design Review Committee: (2) REGARDING MAINTENANCE OF CITY PLAZA. Horow! Moved by Throg, seconded by Pigott. Discussion. Throg! Somewhere in one of the recent minutes of DR Committee there was some commentary about . renewing the effort to having plantings cared for by volunteers. I mean I feel a little bit ignorant about that but that strikes me as a very good idea and if we could encourage the DR Committee to pursue that, that would be great. It wouldn't be governmental, it wouldn't be a private market. It would be a caring community. Nov! It has been going on for several years. Throg! It has been abandoned from what I understand. 'Atkins! Jim is correct. It has been abandoned. Nov! Maybe we can advertise it some how so that people will pick up on it. I certainly agree that we should spend some money to rehab some of the old furnishings as needed. Atkins! Yes, there are plans in the budget to make a presentation. Kubby! I was just thinking maybe we -should adopt one a day and do some gardening together without any political talk. Throg! We would probably have a big argument about what to plant. Horow! All right, there is a motion on the floor to accept this recommendation, Any further discussion, All those in favor signify by saying aye (ayes). Great. This represents only a reesonably accurato transcrIption of the Iowa City council meeting of December 13,1994, F121394 JR ,? 0- .j,::'.:" .,'~ .~ . i M l I I I I I ,'-'.' , 1::"5 I 10, .. ;t~l .T: , , , :,~t~ ' , ", ...\'.. , , .,', ,'"I \ " ' . " "", '-";,:," #8 page 1 ITEM NO. 8 - CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE NEAR SOUTHS IDE COMMERCIAL URBAN REVITALIZATION PLAN Horow/ Moved by Pigott, seconded by Lehman, Discussion. Throg/ I wonder that if before we go on to discuss this particular resolution in detail, whether we could discuss the Design Plan Resolution, #10- Pigott/ Sure, I would be happy to. Throg/ My reasoning is real simple, #10 is part of this package that we have been discussing and yet we, as a Council, have not really discussed the details of the Design Plan. So I don't have any real sense of whether there is support for the elements in that Design Plan and if there isn't, which would be legitimate, if there isn't, that might affect my vote on the other measures that we have under consideration. So, for me to judge how to vote on other measures, I need to have a sense of where we stand on the Design Plan. Kubby/ The same was true for the parking impact fee. Nov/ I really want more discussion on parking impact fee. Kubby/ Maybe now is the time to discuss the whole thing and have a series of votes. Horow/ Leave #8 on the floor I am assuming or shall we withdraw that and take #10. Woito/ You don It want to change order because then you might disagree about what order you are going- .....-...,-. ,.(, C:"\ \.' ~ rt~~. , ( '\ 'I" " , .. \, Ir. Baker/ No, let's just talk. Horow/ So we leave the motion on the floor and then also move to #10. woito/ No. pigott/ We will just discuss. Nov/ If we discuss them all we go back and vote in this order. o! , , fol :' I' Ill! i III ,i j . i I I y;~, i i !'-": I J! ' Q:::f.,' Horow/ Okay. Throg/ Whatever order is fine with me, Horow/ Okay. Take the discussion of preparation of a Design Plan. This represents only a reasonably accurate trenscrlptlon of the Iowa City council meeting of Dacember 13, 1994. 1 , i,~ ;_'~~'.,':"',I ,", !~ t ~ ~ . l' ~ I"~t" F121394 '.'''''''~ (:::::lor \. --..?..-.=- ",y o ',I . -,>", -...., "-,,.. , " ,.',\<,' -: -' .v = .. -'I~ - .,.. , , , ,-, '- ' ......' .'" ,- .,-,_. ,',.",. t,)~.' \:4' '~ } , ,. ~ !:l "~ wI 1!I, ,.~ fr. ,,,. ~~'1 "', 'r: I 1>5' If], ~7J21t.:n " '" ':,,! t ." r-:' \ " ", 1<:" r , I I l i , , I I ~ I l ;,.~ 'l I.~ ~l~ (II )'" f',: ,;co ,-'j ". , ..:~~ \ I',: ,'.'" . , .,;. ~ ". . #8 page 2 Nov/ Jim, since you brought this up, do you have a list somewhere because I have not brought the Design Plan with me? Throg/ Actually I did bring that in because it was in our packet from the previous meeting. I know you don't want me to read the whole thing. I should identify each of the elements. Nov/ The elements that you want to discuss. Throg/ Well, the first item is that city council indicates its desire-its intent to assure 50% of the future incremental city property taxes levied and collected and so on would be used for public improvement projects within the Near Southside neighborhood, That is the first one. And I want to come back to that. The second is the Design Plan would provide for pUblic spaces. Maybe I need to read that unless you don't want me to. Maybe for pUblic- Horow/ That is okay. Throg/ The Design Plan would provide for public spaces and it says such public spaces may include a pedestrian mall, an outdoor reflecting pool skating rink on the new mall, neighborhood open space, a creek walk and other well placed and well designed sites for public gathering and I guess it is worth emphasizing the word "may" which indicates it is not mandatory but it might include those items. secondly, the Design Plan shall include improvements designed to encourage pedestrian use of streets and walkways in the Near Souths ide neighborhood including elements that make public areas more accessible to people with disabilities and also make Burlington street easier, safer, and more attractive street for pedestrians to cross. So encourage pedestrian movement supposes the bottom line of that. Baker/ Jim, can I stop you there. It seems that there is two parts to that section where that word "shall" might not be applica- ble to the second part. It shall accomplish that second thing. It may be an unrealistic-that is too strong of a word. I am just wondering if that is the language you want to use for that particular aspect. The first half of that I have no problems with. Nov/ Are you talking about crossing Burlington? Baker/ Making pedestrian-Burlington more pedestrian friendly. It says we shall make Burlington more pedestrian friendly. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of tho Iowa City council meeting of December 13. 1994. F121394 -. - o J:",',,' -':.",'" - '\' .,.. , -".' . (t'Q " , , I I I I b m ~~ < r ",:15' ~,d, .-mr~':, " '" ( \ v'l I I II I i , I : I i I , I U '~j ~ ,,(~:~~ " ~: ~ ". , ,'":t:,\', " ',' ; ~ , '~.. . "";'-'" "":.. #8 page 3 Throg/ The wording would be something like "shall make Burlington street an easier, safer, more attractive street for pedestri- ans to cross?" Franklin/ What this is intended to dq is to give direction to staff and to the consultant as to what you all want addressed in this. And I don't think the "shall" there implies that we have to achieve that. It maybe an unachievable goal but the Plan should address that and that is the strength of that language. Baker/ False expectations, sorry. Throg/ The third element is that the Design Plan shall propose revisions to city zoning, regulations in a way that will prescribe design elements which create a "unified sense of place" through architectural design and public improvement projects. Fourth element: The Design Plan shall anticipate mixed use redevelopment for the Near South Side neighborhood south of Court Street at a scale appropriate for this residen- tial area including predominantly residential development integrated with small scale commercial enterprises such as restaurants, outdoor cafes, and small shops. The Plan shall also indicate technics by which public improvement projects can promote and encourage such development. And the last one is that the Design Plan shall define suitable locations for public art and shall define a process by which suitable art can be commissioned and produced. So, I mean, there is lots of other detail there but that is the core of it. So we can just discuss those elements and we can get a sense to what extent we agree with them and so on. Baker/ Jim, I am just wondering if there is anything in there that you think needs revising? Throg/ The one thing that I would like to suggest a revision to is there are two spots in the resolution that refer to 50% of the future incremental city property taxes being used and I would recommend that that be changed to a minimum of 75%. putting it out on the table. Pigott/ What is the dollar figure that comes out to be? Throg/ If it is 50% according to the memo we got from David Schoon, it would be only $550 over ten years if you take both phases of the Hieronymous project into account and the hotel project and if it were 75% the total would be $825,000. Pigott/ So that is really not a lot of money each year. Throg/ Correct. This represents onlv a raesonably accurate transcription of tho Iowa City council maetlng of December 13. 1994, F121394 r ~'- --f 1..', 0 ':'= f" --I I I I .,'-' I~' , I, 0, " I}f;. , a 0'" ,_~,~) U .t~~'3?,i ( I !:. \ .? "'7 I I I ) I i . I , d ~l "j '-I ~ ('- ':, 0 " ; '1 ". . , ,:t\,~'I" .~ '''., f" #8 page 4 Nov/ No, however there could be development in the residential area and it could not necessarily be asking for tax exemption. You are just talking about the two properties that have been proposed and have asked for tax exemption? Throg/ That is right. Nov/ So that is an iffy number. But what if there are some proper- ties that are developed without tax abatement? Throg/ They would not be included directly in this resolution. They wouldn't be subject to- Nov/ But there would be no reason why we couldn't use that money. Throg/ I think that is true. Kubby/ It would go into the General Fund without being earmarked. pigott/ That is right and this would be allocated for the improve- ments. Kubby/ And it doesn1t mean this limits the expenditures but it is the bottom. It is the floor. Nov/ Read that sentence once more for me. Throg/ Which sentence? Nov/ The tax dedication sentence. Throg/ Read it the way I am suggesting, the 75% part. Nov/ Just read it. Thank you. I am having trouble here. Woito/ Naomi, you can have mine. (copy) Throg/ It says Council states it intent to assure that 50% of the future incremental city property taxes levied and collected each year on property receiving property tax exemption within the Near Souths ide neighborhood be used for public improvement projects within the Near Souths ide neighborhood. And so all I am suggesting there is that we increase that to a minimum of 75%. Nov/ okay, Explain to me why you are saying this should be only the property that receives tax exemption? Kubby/ Versus every property that is redeveloped. Tax abatement or no tax abatement. This represents only a raasonably accurata transcription of thalowe City council meatlng of Dacembar 13, 1994. F121394 ...-_. - v _ -__ - o )::~. I ~i~i[( , Q I '.(;. ../ :,,) ~ D. ~~1l" I" , ". C~' c(\ ~" ,?,,~~ ~'(,' I !! ~ \ I I Ii .1 : I ! i i I I ~:, ' i I J \ \".V \,'\,....., ... ' , ~,.>,._,',.", ", I~~': "",-,.0;:, J .G:"-' , ' 0 " . -- , , , .' " '.', ~t: :\', ' '. ~ ',. ,'.. , , " , " .....'" ~, , #8 page 5 Throg/ Because the resolution is connected to the tax abatements that are a part of this whole package of items that we are discussing. Nov/ Maybe that is my specific premise. Why connect it to tax abatement? Throg/ Okay, propose a different dollar figure. Nov/ Well, I still think that this dollar figure and its source should be a budget discussion rather than a resolution discussion. I think if our Finance Director came to some year and said look we have extra money in road use tax and we would like to spend it on the Near Souths ide and I would like to take this 50% and spend it somewhere else because the total amount being spent is far more than what you have dedicated in your resolution. These kinds of things happen. Why do we have to have this discussion at resolution level rather than at city budget discussion? Throg/ I think my sense is that some of us in this discussion are looking for an insured source of funds to do some things that we consider merit it having to do with this overall Design Plan and we are trying to link those activities and that source of funds to the projects that are going to get tax abatement so there is a sense those projects actually directly contributing to the overall benefit of the Near Souths ide neighborhood. NOV/ Well, there is no question that they will and there is no question that once you pass a resolution authorizing a Design Plan you certainly are going to implement it. Throg/ I don't know that is necessarily true at all. Kubby/ Part of this, too, is that in the process that has been used in this whole discussion that Bruno and Jim need the assurance in order to support the commercial revitalization plan. pigott/ I think so. Kubby/ And whether it is a semantic game or not. That that seman- tics needs to be in there for those two votes. Throg/ I don't consider it semantics at all because I do think it is a substantive commitment, a substantive statement of council's intent to do something that has a minimum value to it. This represents only e reasonably accurate transcription of tha Iowa City council meatlng of Dacember 13, 1994, F121394 ~v ~".~"", : 0. )""'.,.,'. .:':: '. " I.." ,.. ., ,., .:~,:':': ~::;.: - ':'.' ll~ " ~ ~ r I .1 , IB,'~' 0'" '} 't:.. \ " ".) " <~~' \-"\ '~t: -' : ',' ,\l" . .,.. ". , "~' 1 . :';' #8 page 6 Kubby/ I guess I am saying it is semantic because I don't see Naomi saying she is not going to make that commitment to it. That the way that you do it, you don't need this to have that commitment. But you are saying that you need this to have the group show on the front end. Throg/ And we all know that future councils can change resolutions. That is all understood. Lehman/ I think it also tells future councils what our intent was and even though the money is small, the intent I think it does show intent and I really don't have a problem with it. In fact this whole #10 really is our vision for this area and we are going to give this to somebody-please, try to make this for us. Some of it you can do and some of it you can't do but give us a plan and I think it is a great idea. Baker/ Ernie, are you comfortable with the 75% figure? Lehman/ I don't think the percentage is going to make a lot of difference because basically we are talking about the way we have drawn the plans there is only going to be two properties involved. Baker/ There may be more. But Naomi had an interesting point which is why are we restricting it to simply the tax abatement money when other things may develop down there and benefit from those public improvements as well. ,C r-:"\ \, 1 ";~,' ! j' : I Atkins/ Can I make a suggestion on that? What if you added some- thing to the affect that Jim's language or equivalent funding from other sources. Basically you would be trading dollars. If, for example, I could say to you I just as soon do this project with road use tax monies as opposed to the commitment of the property tax, the decision remains the same. You get the project done and it allows us some financial discretion that that doesn't. I am saying equivalency. It is a dollar for dollar. You have the commitment of the moneys that you are proposing in your resolution. I am saying you just offer another option to do the same thing with another source of funds. " Pigott/ It does make a dollar commitment to the project. Throg/ Your 50 or 75% or whatever you settle on or equivalent remains the same. It just allows some financial discretion. II ; I I : I : I Kubby/ It doesn't decrease the obligation. It allows more flexibil- ity. ,f, I~~ J ' " Ii , i '~'i ~".,.,';:-::: -, " ,1 l!~~~;:' i1 ,~" 'i;~:~ ThIs represents only a reesonebly accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 13, 1994, F121394 C' : 0 '.; -",",,----.. ----~- ".. p .~ :, 0 -q.' <I];;' , , .,.. , T /~ ~:'*; 1,.' f " ~ 'g 'ii ~~' ,~,,' ~ D I )\ ~:iu: ';~I 0, " ;~fb ,~ J c-:'.:.\ \ \. iT , I. : I I , I , , , I I r, ,I' , I : i 'I, ~ ~~;,;',," f:", ." 'C-~.- ;', ., , '.~~, . :.\1,: , '~' 1 ", #8 page 7 Pigott/ You are right. It does. That is acceptable to me. Atkins/ Because you always have the opportunity to expand that as a legitimate budget decision. Sometime say I want to put more money for whatever reason. Throg/ I am not remembering the exact wording of the rest of the resolution and I don't want to read the whole thing right now but I guess I want to make sure that we understand and Karin, maybe you can help me know if this is true or not. I want to make sure that we understand that we are not saying that we are not setting something like 50 or 75% of these property tax revenues or equivalent sources which could then be used to resurface roads, to build sewers, to do all sorts of ordinary maintenance kinds of things. The intent would be to further the objectives listed in the resolution. Atkins/ You have a list of objectives. You have restricted it in the sense the moneys have to be used on projects on the Near southside. I am just saying to help relieve what Naomi's concerns were, if you put in an equivalency statement, that allows you flexibility to move to another source of funds but accomplishes the same goal. The dollar remains the same. That doesn't change. Franklin/ Public improvement projects may very well include some work within the streets cape which may be repaving, not just routine maintenance but we have talked about concrete aggre- gate or brick pedestrian walkways across streets to define the pedestrian way and so that would be included in this. But all of those expenditures, too, will come before you. I mean you will know what we are spending this money on. You or future councils. Throg/ I wonder if you have any objections to the or equivalent-? Pigott/ I don't have objections to the or equivalent. I think it is acceptable. Lehman/ I think it may be preferable. I think it is a good point. Atkins/ As long as you resolution spells out a goal then I am okay. pigott/ It doesn't-it is just a way to give you some wiggle room but it does not remove our financial commitment and- Atkins/ The financial commitment remains the same. Throgl I suppose there would be two places where that would have to be inserted, the or equivalent language. This represents only a reasonebly accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meotlng of December 13, 1994, F121394 ~ ~ -. '0- ),:. ,.. , ,rE' I i !D I , ~ " ." I 'I . .! r.. /'..', .0, ,7:~~'ji.~t~~' ~, "r--. ~ \ " ..\, c-:.\\ \, \'-' . .' ':~ ~,P'(-" , , , , " ! I, IN ! I I I I, I I I! I , , i i I : '{j'J ! [I'" ~ JJ 'r t,',r_""': ~r"" ~",,\ I ~,: ;:: .''''' (' - .:", ---~._, , , " ., ':',~t;.\'I' , '. , ". . , '... . ...' ,,;,-:::',:';., #8 page 8 Woito/ You will have to amend it. You will have to amend it after it gets on the floor. Throg/ Maybe Karin, you can be finding where those spots are. Well, how about the minimum of 75% or equivalent. Horow/ All right. Baker/ But we are still talking about just from the tax abatement increments. Throg/ Or equivalent. Just agreed to do that. Baker/ It is based upon what is generated by the tax abatement. Throg/ Yes. Pigott! Larry just raised the issue of why not broaden it. Baker! Naomi t s question and I just wondered if that made any difference to you. pigott! In other words, even an establishment that was built that didn It receive a tax abatement. Because it benefits fthe improvements we make in the area, revenues we get from that we add- Baker! Even for non tax abatement. NOV! The equivalency phrase does lot of that. pigott! No, I don't think it does. Baker/ only it does because the city of Iowa city is still based upon the tax abatement generation. I don't have any problems with that. I just wondered- Nov! He said 75% of the moneys on properties that receive tax abatement or in an equivalent amount from another source. That equivalent amount from another source could be from another piece of property. Baker/ It is based upon- Woito! It is based upon the increment. Baker/ What will be generated by tax abatement? pigott/ That is right, Not based on the increased taxed value of all of the properties in that area. This represonts only a reasonably accurate trenscrlptlon of tho Iowa City council mooting of Dacombar 13, 1994. F121394 - ---- ._~ l , . =o~, ~):.... ,: ',';, .,.. " I /~ ~l I t,'fjj. b..... ~~1 I" ~ ~ r~ I I .. I , , ~, f ~*.' ~IO ,!;i>:"0~ .....-... ,( , r~::l ~ .,' ( \ " I , I I I I , (-- " 0 '~,- """"------~-- " ':, '.., :.f" '~" , ", . .. , , ,.:" \ .., . #8 page 9 Kubby/ I think that is the rationale right there. That we have done something to create incentive and as part of that commitment to creating that incentive is the commitment to earmark the money. You are not creating the incentive for those other properties. other properties aren't using it. Baker/ I have no problem with either way you want to go on this but I just wanted to see which way we were going. Throg/ The way Karin phrased it is my understanding and I don't feel that I want to push it strongly the direction that you suggested. Horow/ All right. Okay, remember that when we get to the amendment on the floor. Throg/ So we are all in agreement with the other elements of the Design Plan. Kubby/ So then the other big issue is the parking impact fee that Naomi gave us her memo. Throg/ You want to describe that, Naomi. Nov/ I hope everybody read it because when we didn't have time to discuss it last time I said I have got to be sure that everybody thinks about it sometime between now and then. I think that all of the things that we have talked about it a Design Plan and in our general plan for redevelopment have been very positive to encourage development. Not to encourage a parking structure. Yet, when we get to parking in the CB-5 area we require so many restrictions and I just don't see the point of not being flexible. If somebody says to us I really want to put in underground parking and I am sure that I can get a better deal our of it. I don't think I can do it for the same price that you can. I think I can do it for a lower price. I may not agree with that system but if they have put in underground parking and have removed our obligation and increased our expenses in this new parking structure I don't see any reason why not. I think if we negotiate on parking, it is a small item. I would like to be very firm about meeting design standards and meeting our requirements for commercial properties within that structure and whatever else we feel is important. I just think a parking impact fee is much less important and could be negotiated on a site by site basis. Kubby/ Is that a substantial change, Linda? Woito/ Are you suggesting that you believe the commercial and go back to where we were like-? This represents only 0 reesonebly eccurete transcription of the lowe City council meeting of December 13. 1994, F121394 , p--- " :-'n~~ ' r)'u 1" ... ,.. ~:'1';-l\\ ~~~ bil i!~' ~ ~ " ~ f:l ~ r , " f~ ~ 1,'5" ~O, , ,.\ , .' . "'~t ~'~'I' , " ..,~, ,,-',; "..' ". , ;'::'. 1 "N #8 page 10 Nov/ No, I am not deleting the requirement. No, 1 space to 1,200 square feet is the requirement. What I am deleting is the obligation to put only 75% on site-I mean only 25% on site and the requirement to put 75% into a parking impact fee. I think if somebody would like to negotiate- Woito/ I need a copy of the ordinance and of all the things I brought tonight, that was not one of them. Nov/ Well that wasn't one of them that I brought either but it seems to me that we can say easily enough that parking impact fees are something that can be negotiated. The amount of parking on site and the amount of parking devoted to a fee should not be that firm, Kubby/ You are saying if people can provide more than 25% parking on site, meeting all of the other criteria we have, that they should be able to do so and they should not have to pay the impact fee on those spaces. only ones they cannot provide on property. Nov/ Also I am sort of equating this to what we have done on neighborhood open space. We have said we will either accept money or we will accept dedicated space. We will do this on a site by site evaluation. Franklin/ In the Neighborhood Open space ordinance, excuse me, that is at the discretion of the city. you can make a relatively simple change in this ordinance which allows the develop 100% flexibility in terms of whether they provide the parking on site or in a municipal facility. If however you are talking about that decision being made by the city, that is another little twist to it. Nov/ okay, I don I t think that I am wed to the idea that the decision must be made by the city but I do believe that we can be more flexible and we can encourage commercial development with that flexibility. pigott/ Is there a way- I think one of the goals is to encourage development of that area. Unlike the Open Space plan where we are happy that the owner dedicate a parcel of parkland. I am not so sure that am happy if the owner of the property devotes it to parking. I want it those commercially used. Nov/ We have already said no more than 50% of the first floor may be parking, However if they want to go underground, why are we restricting? This represonts only a reasonobly accurato transcription of the Iowa City council mooting of December 13, 1994. F121394 ,( .__i~~ - , " ---=. ....:~- , )' , " '/\ '0, .,.. " t*~ o d I a :~ b ~ O. ,~::l' " " ,'- \ \ ,?, I.,.t , I I I I i I , i 11 I , I i: i i I \ ! ! ~, "'j ~' ,I; ~I (',' ~i;" ': C_o . " i , ,\(, ' .;. \~Cr " , 1 ""'" #8 page 11 Kubby / But maybe there are some other scenarios. For example, someone has a lot and instead of building a big building, maybe they are building a very small building and going to have a large amount of surface parking. What in the ordinance prevents that from happening? Franklin/ We have in the ordinance now design requirements that require the parking spaces to be either inside the building or to the rear of the building. You have also are in the process of putting in the restrictions on in terms of access for the street. So, the kind of parking that people are going to be able to provide is evolving is either within a building or behind a building with access from an alley. KUbby/ Okay, but every lot has access to an alley. You have your business right up to the sidewalk and you have a big parking lot in the back of that is accessed by an alley. with this flexibility that could happen. Nov/ We still have a restriction of no more than 50% of the ground floor. We- Franklin/ No more than 50% of the lot. pigott/ Of the lot, period. Franklin/ At the street level can be in parking. So- Kubby/ That is how that is prevented. That is what I am looking for. All right. Then what is the problem, Throg/ Let me tell you how I reacted as I read the memo and see where that goes. I guess my inclination was not to make the impact fees a negotiable item. Though I did you a good possible reasons for making the 25% figure more negotiable. Let me put it this way and we discussed this some Hme earlier, too, that maybe we could retain the 75% parking impact fee but allow more parking on site. Nov/ I don't understand that. Throg/ So it could be more than 25% to get the developer more flexibility in terms of providing parking on site and yet not losing the parking- Nov/ Why is your primary purpose to collect the parking impact fee? Kubby/ Because Larry wanted it. Nov/ Let Larry answer it then. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of tho lowo City council meeting of December 13, 1994. F121394 - - .:: __'0 1.> ...~ \:-' ~' T /~ ~j '" I ~~',',' re~1 ~ I!I f €I io. ;!.i1'E ( " v: , , I Ii ~, '. j'l' " L,',; i~. :Co' , , .'~t ~'\ 1..~ ". , .. , f" ',;. '_."," r'" .'J' :\it_ 4~ ~ #8 paqe 12 Baker/ I have said this a few other times. I will say it again. For me to support a tax abatement program there has to be some sort of parking impact fee process. I thought we had reached some agreement on a plan. I said this a year ago. I still say it. I am not going to vote for a tax abatement unless there is some sort of parking impact process. Now, we can fine tune that process but as I said before there are political, philosophical and pragmatic reasons, in my mind, for an impact fee. Those haven't changed in my mind. Novl Why can it not be flexible? Baker/ I think we have gotten a lot more flexible as this process has developed. We have, for example, changed the square footage requirement that we had talked about. We are allowing some on site. As Jim said, I am perfectly willing to look at allowing up to 50% on site but still requiring the 75% impact fee which means if they want to put more on site let them. But there is still a cost for that development. I, for example, would like to see a distinction made and an option made on hotels and all commercial property on impact fee versus parking contracts. That is flexibility. So far nobody seems to agree with that. This is not as complicated as it seems to be in other people's minds as it is in my mind. Lehman/ Larry, if I could build on my property a building and meet the total parking requirement using no more than 50% of the ground floor and below ground. What possible argument can you make for me having to pay an impact fee and also pay for the parking? I don't think that can happen very many places. But if it could happen I can think of no argument where we can justify an impact fee for somebody who has provided and paid for all of his own parking. Baker/ First of all, if, for example and hypothetically, if you had a regulation in place that said look, if you can put 100% of your required parking underground and not use any of it-O% for ground level parking, I find myself attracted to that idea and that being not subject to a parking impact fee. 100% under- ground, no ground level space allowed for parking. I think that most developers will opt for a parking impact fee in that case because of the cost involved. But if you want to write it that way, you can certainly talk and I am not saying I oppose that. But as long as we are restricting all allowing the avoidance of an impact fee for underground parking as long as they are not allowed to use any ground level space, I think it is something that we can talk about. Horow/ I think his question still stays. What rationale would you have for the greater percentage of an impact fee if given rl:. '. r ,,; i:l 1 I~','" t: 1,1;>,{ " " ~ 10 ,!. This represents only e reesonebly accurate transcription 01 the Iowa City council meeting 01 Dacember 13, 1994. F121394 ~ fJ, [i'J: ~~l ,', ,~li, ~o, r~__~_=__. 0,' ..J." I .t;., , ,.' ~.'~ _,C, __ - " 1"Ii~, \0 " '~, 1,\ 'i ~ . " , ~ .~.. ,.. . I",'j " 'J:'~ 'I: r; #8 page 13 let's say if they were able to provide 50% on site? Why still the 75% impact fee? What is the tie in with-? Throg/ The answer to that depends on what X is. What I mean that it is .25X where X is the required amount of parking. Now, one space per 1,200 square feet, I think, That is the requirement, right, So, the question for me would be well how many parking spaces would that type of commercial facility actually generate. We are doing one per 1,200 square feet. I don't know that that is firmly substantially by literature in terms of actual impact. So my sense is that the impact is probably substantially higher than 1 per 1,200 square feet and that we are actually giving developers a break in a sense if I am right in that assumption and I don't know for sure that I am. Kubby/ Other rationale would be if you are getting the tax abate- ment, you are getting that advantage then you should help compensate for our rules not being sufficient. Maybe our rules are sufficient. Although maybe that is a whole-I mean, we have already decided. The majority said 1,200- Novl All right, we have said 1,200. Not all of us agreed on it. We compromised on 1,200. But we never said the impact on parking are necessarily connected to who or who does not get tax abatement. If you built a building and packed it with parking. So I would like us to stop saying that this is connected. Baker/ Unfortunately it is. pigott/ It is in a some sense. We have-In terms of making a deal to get a package passed it is part of the process. Horow/ But the original reason you went in the swamp was to clear the swamp. In other words, the creation of economic develop- ment south of Burlington and we keep throwing alligators into this swamp. Throg/ We have been here before. And the tax abatement provides a substantial incentive for redevelopment and many of us many months ago thought that that tax abatement was unnecessarily large, One rationale for having a parking impact fee was to help reduce that tax abatement. Though the more direct purpose is to help accommodate future demand for parking and providing ways for that parking to be accommodated. Horow/ I can see the overall demand for parking and the overall commercial area. The question that I asked Larry was sort of rhetorical because I think that I can see a 50% parking provided but 75% impact fee required because of your overall I o " This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 13, 1994. F121394 rr--:v= \~ ____I -- - :~~. - oJ. .,\ !) , WI!.~, ;( i." I/;'~ ~o. ". , "'l>';' '\''.'{t, ,I ,.cl.~f"~~' i",,:. " ". I '"" , ....' f" " ';';'-' ~W' "'I , #8 page 14 impact of parking on the whole area. In other words, each building is not an island to itself, Together they make the whole commercial area. So I can sort of see that rationale. Baker/ Ifothis were an ideal debate right now, what I say we ought to do is agree on the easy stuff and if you want to amend something later we can look at it. But I am not going to amend the concept of a-I will not support an amendment to the impact fee structure. If we want to talk about some exemptions to that I want to get a clear definition of what underground and this other stuff. But my more immediate concern is not that issue. It is the other issue, the hotel commercial. Horow/ But this is the one we are dealing with right now. '. Lehman/ Everybody seems to feel that because of the impact fee or because of the tax abatement we need the impact fee and yet this applies to every piece of property in that area. Baker/ That is right. Lehman/ Would you go along \vith an impact fee on tax abated property only? Baker/ Can't do that. I understand, I don't think you can do that. Kubby/ And there is lots of rationale having an impact fee in that area. The advantages are you have to provide less parking on your lot and then you have to make up for it somewhere else, Most people will choose that option. Nov/ Yes, I really believe people will choose that option. And I really would like us to be flexible. I don't think it is going to make that much difference in terms of money coming in. I think that it will create more incentive to develop and more goodwill. Baker/ What do you think about this idea? I don't know if this is a variation of what you just said or not. That indeed that if you are talking about providing underground parking spaces and those spaces not being subject to an impact fee what do you think of the idea of predicating that on saying they can't use any ground level space for parking. Nov/ Then you are going to say our 50% rule applies only to those who pay parking impact fees. Baker/ I am sorry, say that again. ~ ~ ~ ~ ,,' "~ r -~ \ \ . , \ ~"~r'~' , ' ! ' I I r~ I I Ii I : I , I , i 1(.' II';' 'i I, I I 'I j \~ "{r11 ,~ ~ This represents onlv e reasonably accurate transcription of the lowe City council moetlng of Decomber 13, 1994, F121394 f .,~.. -" -~~.,' - ':l~'i," .. ' \ I 0, ',,[-~.- 0, 0 r., ~ ..,.~ 'til' ----A8.__r ,:rz:;}.Bj, I ,; r \ ~ '/', I ; I I i i I I II I ,I ~\. "'j \" , 1, 1/:' ~.;'" ( -:;r-V" :" __ 0 r I ". , :_~t~\'1 , . '. , '. . " ..,'. #8 page 15 Nov/ We already have a general obligation, a design standard, that says no more than 50% of your ground level may be parking and the other 50% should be commercial. Now you are saying that only those who have 50% parking on grade will pay the parking impact fee. Baker/ I am saying that if you want to have underground parking being exempt from an impact fee, you shouldn't allow any parking on the first floor. But this other ordinance is a moot point. Woito/ That would be at the developers option or mandatory. Nov/ We also have the option at this point of parking on the second floor. You want to eliminate that. Kubby/ That is not eliminated in anything we have talked about. That option is there- Nov/ Right, that is why I am saying- Baker/ But we still require- Nov/ Why eliminate the parking impact fee only if it is under- ground? What if it is on the second floor? Baker/ Because that is the way this discussion started on under- ground parking. And as a way to avoid impact fee. So that is what I was dealing with. Kubby/ Non-surface parking maybe a better way- Pigott/ I don't like it. I don't like it on the second floor. I would rather have it underground if you have to have it. I still think that intensive commercial development on the ground floor and up is what 1- Horow/ Having just come from Minneapolis where there is intensive commercial on the ground floor, two or three floors of parking and then three or four floors of commercial, I mean office space, it looked very nice. Pigott/ Maybe it did but I would rather have an office building that is completely office and not some part- And so I would like to encourage that instead of allow for the other. Nov/ Minneapolis requires new construction to have four levels of underground parking. They don't give you any options. This is the way you have to have it. This represonts only a roosonably occurato tronscrlptlon of tho Iowa City council mooting of Docambor 13, 1994, F121394 -~. TL ,--- ~-~~ 0 li,' , l J .,.. , t,',"l v , ~. . l, ~ " , t , i 10 I/j 10. ,w;Y,'3, .L r -:' \ d '.i' , . , r : I , , Ii I r.~ i I'i , , \ ;".:J "~ ?~ ~ ,(~-~~ , , ."t' , ,:' \\l,~ ' , , i..' ",:. , ", ::l. #8 paqe 16 Pigott! The underground I- Kubby! There were two people who mentioned that they could support a slightly more flexible option than what is in here. Of saying that you still have to pay for 75 but you can't have- 75% but you can't have up to 50% of on site. Are there other people who are willing to become more flexible but not totally flexible? Baker! I don't know if you still support that idea. I could certainly support that idea. Kubby! I could go to 50. Throg! Well, I think I can support the idea. Pigott! I would support it grudgingly. Throg! The idea of providing more flexibility is okay with me but I want to see the parking impact fee remain. So, if you had some way to solve that problem. Kubby! I am not trying to garner two votes but just to move the process along. Nov! I understand your point but if you are requiring 75% of the required parking to be paid for through parking impact fee that is not being flexible. Kubby/ The flexibility is that you can have more of it on site and it is an advantage. People have said it is an advantage to have parking on site. And if you want that greater advantage then you have to pay for it. Baker/ Especially the larger the project they may want more parking on site. Nov/ Well, I am trying to provide some way to encourage development and I don't think that is one way to do it. pigott/ I don't think the affect will be that, Nov/ I don't think so either. pigott/ But I would support it to move the process. Horow/ All right. We discussed that. Do you want to- Kubby/ Are there still four people that support a parking impact fee? That is real important. This represents only e reesonably accurata transcription of tho Iowa City council mooting of Dacembor 13, 1994. F121394 - ~I,~ ' , -"0 ');?' , ., .,.. " ~~1fl It.". t , !. 10 ~ .. h, , "'I,i)' ~,O, :~~.;;tl' ,. , I ". . . ,\~', '1\,\I:t , .' ~ "'., . #8 page 17 Council/ (Can't understand). Kubby/ Because of my past comments I won't be supporting it. Nov/ I think I can't support a parking impact fee unless it can be more flexible. Kubby/ You are down to four. You had better make sure you are four. Woito/ There is four. Franklin/ Four for what is here or some change. Horow/ Well, we are about to make some changes on the impact. Baker/ To allow up to 50% on site. Woito/ Are there four for the change to 75% impact fee plus up to 50% on site parking? Horow/ Right. Woito/ There are four. Throg/ In your view that makes this more flexible and yet meets some other needs, Franklin/ Linda, do we need language on the floor tonight to vote on it? Woito/ Yes, we will stick in 50% and (can't hear). Franklin/ I don't think you can do that. You have to make other revisions in the ordinance. You can't do that. You have to make other revisions in the ordinance because what you are saying is that you can provide up to 50% on site but you still have to pay for 75 and that is not how this is constructed now. So we will have to-you will need to give us a few moments to figure out how to right this. Baker/ This is making it more flexible and less restrictive, right? Franklin/ It is making it more flexible in terms of the number of spaces you can provide on site. However you still have to pay just as much. So, it will be up to the developer. It is comparable in some ways to the residential in that you can provide more than 50% on site for the residential but you still have to pay 50%, Tnls represents only a reesonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council maotlng of Dacembor 13. 1994, F121394 :(, - 0 "J",__ -w- _ - --._ o ), ,,'.,",.",. ':\' ,i , ',,1", ---- ~. , ~;';i* r;' r " , ! ~ ~ ~ I Q ", .~ ~ \ .. " " :i i'" "'- 10, ': " , , .' '''~'''''~r' ~ "~ .-, '''\1:' . , ", . ". , , ..,.,:i. , '~'''I, , "--,.,, :-"; . :, ~'. #8 page 18 Baker/ My question is what does that do to the voting? You seem to say we couldn't vote on that tonight, Franklin/ No, I just said we need a moment to figure out what the language is going to be so that what you vote on is what you want. pigott/ Okay. Kubby/ One of the affects of allowing more flexibility is that if people have the room on the ground level of the lot, to have that flexibility be surface parking. We will have more surface parking. Pigott/ Maybe. If they still want to pay the impact fee and- Kubby/ I guess I want people to-that that is probably a more common affect at this point with technology than underground. Multi- levels of underground. Throg/ But the parking impact, unless I am making a mistake in saying this. The parking impact ordinance applies to that larger area south of Burlington. Not just the two or three blocks for the commercial and tax abatement. So, people who develop in the far south would have a long ways to walk to some hypothetical parking facility. I think it is reasonable to provide some more flexibility. Horow/ Okay, are you willing to go back to item #8 in terms of considering a resolution? Baker/ We got another- Horow/ Do you have another issue? C' \ Baker/ The other issue about- I will bring it up for the last time, I promise. Talk about flexibility and fairness. It seems- Lehman/ When have we talked about fairness. Baker/ We are talking about the two F words: flexibility and fairness. It seems extremely flexible and fair to say that to allow all commercial properties in this zone the option of paying a parking impact fee or an annual parking contract with the city. Lehman/ I don I t think that is possible. There aren I t enough permits available. .? ',." I, I I , ~ This rellresents only 0 reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 13, 1994, F121394 ~1 t,' 'I " <' .' ,Co ~,......., ,T ~~-__._ -.- ~~ .~'O"'I)\".' " :, .,.. ~ IG ! '" ~"5': ~O, .:.?J?.&rii " ' C _A":~ (~'\ \ ~i ',,-,.'"' \ I . I I I : I i! : i : i , i I 'f.l I I ,~, I" , :Wi J , \ ,..~I Q~."'~ '; , ' .', ;~.~.;;',',:",' /;,~; i';JIJ '",",' ",", ......, G-....... :, 0 '~, ' , ,-,_..,.. , ; l' '.~ . ;',\\1,. '" , .',' ~ " . ::.',_",,;i #8 page 19 Baker/ Then, Karin and I talked about this and she can address it. But there is a way that it can be worded to make it where then you would end up paying the impact fee. Pigott/ So by luck of the draw. Baker/ We are going to build another parking ramp down there. Lehman/ Right. Kubby/ It is first come, first serve basically. Baker/ And we can allocate that ramp anyway we want to. Look, Karin just disappeared. Woito/ She is getting me copies so I can redraft it. Baker/ And Karin and I have talked about the administrative hassle involved and I don I t want to speak for her, in separating between hotels and all commercial projects. It is not like- tenants change and so administratively do-How do tenants tie into a parking contract. That was the initial road block in letting a non hotel project have a parking contract because commercial tenants will change and to they some how want the same sort of contract and- Kubby/ And if they don't. Baker/ One of the ways you can do it is it becomes part of the-the building owners leases. The building owner buys it and it becomes part of the lease process. Horow/ Can we take this under #12? Baker/ I thought we were discussing this all together. Nov/ Yeah, we were discussing this all together. So you are talking about it as something similar to the commons fees. CHANGE TAPE TO REEL 94-142 SIDE 1 Baker/ Part of the homeowner's association or condo association. Nov/ So parking is also part of the common fees. You have no choice to participate. Baker/ And what will probably happen is most building development will not take the contract. They will pay the impact fee. But This reprosents only a roasonably accurata transcription of the lowe City council meatlng of December 13, 1994. F121394 .-~ ~ ~:'~ 0, ]',..,'.." , ,-".. . " ~" " ",J: .." ,", " \' '~r~'~ ,.., ",J f'>:'~ r':X' ~l f,1 4 ~ ~: ~ ,~' " ~t II~ ~ I ~ . f\~ ,~\~I 0, , .-~E: .r~'~ ,.,.-.:>., \ ' , \ \ \, ,~~. '~( , 'I' I', \ (;, , f[,j \ ;',- ~ 'I' I.,' .. I'" .1 i'l I' ! I II I j' " I ~ I 1 1 I I' I'r.' I! 'I'l,' ',1 I ", ; ,I , " ii' I, I!, ,I I' ~...l-oIl ' ,.j....P " ,{ , (to ., "'1 ". , "t' ,,",\1,. . . ,..,. .' '0' ','-,:' 1 ". . ':'-' ;--,:i,"'" #8 page 2 0 there doesn't seem to be in my mind any reason for a hotel project to be penalized and have to pay both. And this is one way to avoid that double penalty, And we are talking about incentives. Nov/ I would like to hear from Legal on that one. Kubby/ And since hotels are the only people who might have to deal with paying both, why have that change that we might consider be applied to anyone except hotels? Why broaden it? Baker/ I don't understand what you mean. Throg/ Why not limit it to just hotels? KUbby/ Why not just limit it to just hotels because they are the only people who might have to pay both. Limit the option to have a parking contract with the city. Baker/ Because-that is fine with me except that I was told at one time that, to be consistent, you couldn't do that just for hotels. You have to offer the same option to all commercial- Kubby/ Is now hotels considered commercial? We did that. Baker/ Sure. The easiest possible way to achieve it is what I am looking at. If the Council agrees that that is fair. Lehman/ How is that so different than someone proving 100% of his spaces underground and still making him pay for 75%? He is paying twice. Baker/ Because almost every hotel project we look at cannot-they got to have a parking contract. Lehman/ No, you said they would have to pay twice, We are telling everybody else who can provide the parking, you are going to pay twice. Throg/ (Can't hear) is not being required to do that. Lehman/ No, no, no but you could if you could provide it. Throg/ That would be a voluntary- Lehman/ You could pay for constructing your own parking and then pay a 75% impact fee. Throg/ But they chose to do that. ThIs represents only e reasonably accurate transcriptIon of the Iowa City council meeting of December 13, 1994. F121394 ""'I"'~ .- ~ ),.",.".,,;',...," 0",',' :.', ", "',,',' - - ~I ,.. ~'--. ~~. ~,li ~;, , " I: f ~:. 11> \~ r~, R \ "I (,,, lij ~ I i " ~. '~ i& 1"':5 I []. ,"""" ,~,1t;..y",,:;JI, " ~ ..... (:~\ \ \ ~ .~ lr " , I I I I I , , I , I I , ,,, , I"" I " I, i I · i '\ ' ;,~ ~'W'I ,1 ',i,'I,',,:,",.., f'; .' ,,~ K ' Ii " , H' L_, :('- 0 T " \"'j ". , "t , .-",\\'1,. . , ,. . .,. , , ~." , ,"' f~.:~l ,f ';.,' ;, ,;, '" '" ;:':~ , '. ~, " #8 page 21 Baker/ Hotels, themselves, it is my understanding, can still provide some on site parking and will for commercial spaces on ground floor and stuff like that. Lehman/ But you said they wouldn't have to pay twice. But the guy who can provide parking will have to pay twice? Kubby/ Right but that is their choice. with the hotels, Larry is saying, it is not a choice. They have to factor that economic impact into the choices they make on a non hotel commercial area. But a hotel doesn't have that. Nov/ I thought they had some choice. They could provide parking or they could pay for a contract. It seems to me they have that choice all along. Kubby/ I don't know. Horow/ You are saying you would go along with both impact fee or annual parking permit for all commercial properties. ~ ~ ~ ~ l.t , Baker/ To achieve the affect of not having hotels be subject to both. Kubby/ An argument-What we talked about before was that because hotels require to have a contract that they are not really helping with the capital costs of a ramp. They are paying the maintenance and the operating of a ramp and the debt service at the current ramp but they are helping create a need by filling that ramp up for the next ramp. So they should help pay the capital- Pigott/ Which justifies the parking impact fee. KUbby/ Doing both pays for the operation and maintenance of the ramp they are in and for the pressure created to do the next ramp. And that is why the majority didn't want to deal with that, Because it is a substantial impact on future needs for parking to make it a shorter lag time until we need that next facility. Throg/ Here is what I would prefer to do. Act on the proposal-I mean the ordinance or resolution, whichever as presented to us tonight, vote on it, and then if someone prefers to bring up an amendment to that ordinance at some point in time in the near future, I would be real happy to consider it. Kubby/ I really think we need to be clear on the front end what the next few years is going to look like with this whole package deal. I think we have worked on this long enough that if there This represents only a reasonably accurate traOBcrlptlon of tho Iowa City council meeting of December 13, 1994. F121394 ..~ : "-, --. 17'1 ~ v-,', '~~~:):," ',." i I 0/ \ /:, },;"i1~,j .f ,~~ \ ,~ ("f . i I , I , I" I I I I I i I , , i : ~~ , " II I \ ~,-;J ''P ~ L_ J[ 0 ; , "l I ". . :.~t ~.\ I : , ~' \ '.... ".' 'I:' " "':'-." ~~~r:i l:;r'~ f\; ~'f #8 page 22 are some changes we should make them tonight and work through it tonight. I don't think its- Throg/ We are not capable of doing that. Kubby/ But we have talked about this three different times and we always concluded no and Larry is doing another try. And we can say no again. Throg/ The problem is there are layers of complexities in each of these items and the more we tinker with the layers of complex- ity, the more it either unravels or becomes something a bit strange. Right. Nov/ It is already a bit strange. Throg/ I don't know if that is true but it has its own strangeness. But the more we try to tinker with it up here on the spur of the moment, the more we are going to get befuddled. ( ~ ~ ~ l~ t;t ~ ~ [i 110 I Kubby/ okay, my question really is this is the third time Larry has brought it up. He has received zero support. Go forward with this unless there is four people who say that we should look at it in the future, we should-or look at it now, we- Baker/ Let's step back and take the minor amendment that we have already agreed on and step back and say all right, in the near future and Jim, to me the near future is very near, consider a separate amendment on the hotel question. I don't have any problems with that. Horow/ I think what you are hearing is that there is not support for that and once we pass the ordinance, let's not keep bringing issues back up. Pigott/ I don't like the affect of it. Baker/ If there are four people who are willing to look at it in the future. let's decide it tonight. My suggestion is that there ought to be some way to make it so that hotels are not sUbject to both contract and parking impact fee. That is the goal. I had once suggestion. If you disagree with the goal it is a moot point. If you like the goal but you don't like the remedy, give me another one. Nov/ So you are saying they should have a choice? Baker/ My goal is to make sure that hotels are not hit twice. Now, to achieve that, it requires that all commercial property be given the same options to allow hotels to have the option, This represents onlv e reasoneblv accurate transcription of the Iowa Cltv council meeting of Decembor 13, 1994, F121394 -- : ..~~~v - ),' I 10, 0, .r;, ",I..,J , .,,~!l, " , :'t:., . " \, \ ~, ~ ". , . ',' ., ~ .. .,,' ,',-;.; I~" #8 page 23 that is fine with me. Most commercial properties will still take the impact fee because it is a shorter term commitment financially. Nov/ But will the hotel take the impact fee and is it fair to the city. Baker/ Hotels still go to have parking. Nov/ But you give them the option and if it is cheaper for them, we still have to say something to the hot~l about providing parking for the people who are going to stay there. Baker/ They have to have a contract with us. Nov/ So you are saying they have to have a contract. They don't have a choice. i ,~ ( . Baker/ They will-I am not saying that we have to make that choice for them. Hotels have to have the parking. They have to have a contract to guarantee the parking availability. Kubby/ Because there are instances where the city is going to have to say no if enough hotels were built. We wouldn't have space in our current facility. So they are going to provide the impact fee. Nov/ Well, that is my concern. If you are saying a commercial development, an office building for example, is going to take the cheaper route which is the impact fee. How can you possibly afford to offer that to a hotel. Baker/ Because if the hotel takes that route, they are still going to have to have parking and they are going to have to go somewhere to get it and we are the only game in town. Horow/ We aren't getting any farther than we were. Baker/ Do we disagree with the goal? Horow/ There are not four people to go along with this. Baker/ Hotels should not be subject to the double, in a sense, the double fee, \ 1 , Ii LehmanI Susan, - ! I Throg/ I am personally willing to come back to it but I want to get on with this whole thing. : ,~ Ii !( , This represents only e reosonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of Dacember 13, 1994. F121394 'y f, "i ~;, ::fl' 0- " 171 0",.)','" .1.1_....... " f" , 'Wi f'1::' , I? , ~ m il 10 \:::J '\ B /' ~) " u D, ,,,x,'TI \-j .. . . . .~ f \,\ I. ~ .. ~ .,.. '::' . . "".;. " .. 1->;\\ If!. , \ #8 page 24 Pigott/ I don't want to come back to it. Throg/ And I don't want to decide that particular point right now. Horow/ John- John Rummelhart/ Thank you. Just a couple of things. A very important discussion going on up here. The development of the area is important. The parking is an important part of that. I think the direction of this amendment is in the right direction. On site parking-if development is what we are looking for here, I believe it is from what I hear up there. If a private developer can provide the on site parking on his ground, in his building, below it, above it, however you want to restrict it. I wouldn't restrict it. You are insulting every architect in the city in doing that. But the on site parking is going to be the vehicle which can spur the develop- ment. In the ordinance you talk about valuable large chunks of ground being taken up to-that is needed for the ground. with the private developer and that ground is not used for the parking, you are right, the city-currently a healthy city parking system is going to bear that burden and what are they going to do. They are going to take the ground to build the parking and if I have got it and I can put it on my site, why not get some tax revenue out of it instead of taking more and more out of commission on the next ramp. I think it is the wrong focus to burden an impact fee on anybody who can get the parking on their site. At this point I would take below parking and leave it at that. I think Susan brings up a good point. Look at some buildings. somebody who has a piece of ground like Hieronymous, you could have 14 floors of parking and in a beautiful building and you are sitting here and you are cutting it out from your discussions and it makes me sick. I am not an architect but boy, I can't believe that some of them are here. That is just-you have no faith in anybody's possibilities for design in a structure. Again, small parcels that need development, the impact fee is a very viable direction to go and it can help boost that Near South Side. It is a good way to go. , f~ ,~ ~1 ~'l ~r I~ r~ !l ~, ~l ~ m@ I v Horow/ John, your time is up. Rummelhart/ I appreciate that and I appreciate the discussion. Thanks. Horow/ John, did you sign in? John? KUbby/ Our discussions don't preclude any of what John is saying people can come up with. It is just saying you also to pay part of the impact fee. Personally I don't want to see 14 ~ This represonts only e reasonobly accurato transcription of the lowe City council mooting of Decomber 13, 1994, F121394 ~ f~ C' 0 - ~r- _.:-_ -:: ",0 J.,,' '. 'ill ~"'5 10, "-",'" '. ,'., ,. .g.'l ," Ie :', . . ~~ t \: '! ; ';"."'\"\' .'-. ,,' ---;/..' , ~ , , "',~I' , . " ....",.r:". #8 page 25 floors of beautiful building with cars inside of it. People and jobs in those beautiful buildings. pigott! I think what spurs development in this area is not a parking structure or parking space but what we have been arguing up here has been a tax abatement for the area is going to spur development. Not a parking to. Horow! Okay, we are back to item #8, The motion is on the floor. We have had discussion. Roll call- This is the Urbanization Revitalization Plan for commercial. ; /. Throg! I am sorry. Before we go on- Woito! Is everyone ready? Throg! I am not. Woito! Do you have more discussion? "''-, Throg! I just need to be clear about the parking thing. Has a majority decided to adopt a parking impact fee? And has a majority decided to do the 50%!75% thing or do they want to keep it at 25%!75%? '~'- ,....:--0 (' . . , " ,I r'~' " \ ~\ Horow! As far as I heard, I heard 4 for 50!75. Throg! That is what I understood, too. woito! Then we will come up with the language that will do that, Horow! Okay. Any other discussion? Kubby! Just that I can't support tax abatement, so I will be voting no on the plan. Horow! Roll call- Okay, 6-1, passes with Kubby voting no, .~ \ \ ,I , N I I I I I I I , I ! i I ~) I l" , I I ~) 'I, This represents only a reasonably accurata trnnscrlptlan 01 the Iowa City council maetlng 01 December 13, 1994. ~,','I'~.'~'.' " ", fu l~ F121394 ( re' " 0"," '- -------,-~ - '- ". . ],." , '......,-,.,',",. , .".:'.: .,\"," "',' , ,0; .' ','. \ . ~.l. ,.. , I " I r " ...... ~,. ....t ....,: t:~1, ft .1 : 1.0', , '~"" '..."r ,,'.,' ;!W.M..~ '.' " \,'.\. ' ';":'" ";~t\ '\',: " '~ ,~' .',' , , '~ , '"" , " , ~, '. '..,.,. ;." -."'< .:'.'.-:'..~'.', !,-'_,~!,,:: .';,' I, ':' ,..", , Agenda Iowa City City Council Special Council Meeting December 13, 1994 Page 5 ITEM NO. 9 - CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE NEAR SOUTHSIDE RESIDEN- c;LJ. - ,;Sl, TIAL URBAN REVITALIZATION PLAN ,', Comment: The Urban Revitalization Plan outlines the improvements which qualify for property tax exemption in the proposed Near Souths ide Residential Urban Revitalization Area, The Urban Revitalization Area includes an area zoned Planned High Density Multi-Family Residential Zone and Central Business Service Zone, generally located south of Court Street along Linn, Dubuque, Clinton, Capitol and Prentiss Streets, Action: ~ 11/~ /Z() ~~ ~}'/ p;fi4/ 7~ % ITEM NO. 10 - CONSIDERARESOLUTIONAUTHORIZINGTHEPREPARATIONOFADESIGN N- ~~'i PLAN FOR THE NEAR SOUTHSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD AND DECLARING THE COUNCIL'S INTENT ON THE ALLOCATION OF INCREMENTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUES. COlT\ment: This resolution outlines the urban design elements the City Council wishes to incorporate into a design plan for the Near Southside Neighborhood, In addition, the resolution states the Council's intent of allocating future incremental property taxes to fund public improvements in the Neighborhood. Action: 7~:lf~A ;!.Il,V Jjtw /.i..r:J /.i/mP..Af --/ t::'~ ~)~ r ,~~ "''--'j \ . \ I~ r r "1" , ~ , , , , I i ITEM NO. 11 - CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, "UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT -1':1- 31,55 CODE," OF THE CITY CODE, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 9, ARTICLE A, ENTITLED "PARKING FACILITY IMPACT FEE," TO INCLUDE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, (PASS AND ADOPTl Comment: These ordinance amendments would require new commercial developments in the Near Souths ide Neighborhood to pay a' parking facility impact fee, Adoption of this ordinance should only occur if the Council intends to adopt the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to require parking spaces for commercial uses in the Central Business Support Zone. I , , I I I r. : I ',,\ ~ 'l--tV M~ ~1.3 h ~mdf/ ,/M'I Action: " k~ ~1~ L, (',Jr_~=:n~~,"'lT'" " , 0 '." i:.. _~~__,_.,_'_~ j~"'M c,.~ '",." j......_--".. " ~,:{\:',:'/ ':',' '" ,~J>,':' , . , :.".']':': " ", c. ., ... ~j ....J I 0', -~"--~:..~ , ,,-"II~ ~-c "', '0,..',', "-,';",:::"","',, ,.,,< -, .,.' ., r I I i ( r ,., E.t~/ .. , , .~," ""1' . ',',','~t~. \'i; , , '~ ,.. . " " .~ . ~ '-., 1'1:,,'; #9 page 1 ITEM NO. 9 - CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE NEAR SOUTHS IDE RESIDENTIAL URBAN REVITALIZATION PLAN Horow/ Moved by Kubby, seconded by Throg. Discussion. Kubby/ In looking over the plan I noticed that it didn't specifi- cally say that if you only provide some of your units for low mod income households that meet the guidelines you only get a prorated amount of tax abatement. Is that just assumed, Linda, in the language? Woito/ Yes, but we have come up with some language that will, we believe, will correct the problem. It is in front of you. Oh, I am sorry. It is only in front of Karen. Kubby/ It is only in front of me but I will share it, My concern was that people would be misled that their whole building would be eligible for tax abatement even if they just had three out of twelve units that was targeted for low mod income tenants. So the language to add would just be an extra sentence that says "If the development project within these categories contains less than 100% qualified real estate, only that portion meeting the low mod income household guidelines will be eligible for property tax exemption under the Plan." That just makes it crystal clear up front. So if this is the document a developer looks at in deciding how to put their figures together, they have the whole picture here. Woito/ And they know they don't have to do all low mod. Kubby/ Right, it doesn't have to all- Woito/ They can still-still build a building. KUbby/ I would like to move that sentence be added. pigott/ Second. Horow/ Moved by Kubby, seconded by Pigott to add this sentence just read. Any discussion about that amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye (ayes). Okay, now back to the main motion. Consider the resolution approving the Near Souths ide Residential Urban Revitalization Plan. Any further discussion. Roll call- (yes) Great. Plan adopted, passes 7-0. This represents onlv e reasonablv accurete transcription of the Iowa Cltv council mooting of Decambar 13, 1994. F121394 :.( : - I - -'"~ )",',::C: :'\0 '",:' ~';;':...', - ~ ,."...--:':,. o - ,:.: - - ~ j .,.. , ":~ , , I i i CD ! i , , I ." " ,) ~" i." , 10', ,t~nI' , ( ~ , , I 'I ,I I : I ::.' 'I ij !~; ~': ~. C__o ij ". . '~r: ~'j' , ',,~, ., . ~ ". ,i!.:. #10 page 1 ITEM NO. 10 - CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF A DESIGN PLAN FOR THE NEAR SOUTHS IDE NEIGHBOR- HOOD AND DECLARING THE COUNCIL I S INTENT ON THE ALLOCATION OF INCREMENTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUES. Horow/ Moved by Throg, seconded by pigott. Discussion. Throg/ I think I would like to say something. I really sort of meant this for the whole package and maybe this is as good as any. A fairly short statement but crystallized. So refer to the whole package of items. I am pleased to be able to support this package considered as a whole. This package of items is likely to stimulate and enhance the d.t. area by encouraging mixed use, higher density commercial development between Burlington and Court. It will take development pressures of neighborhoods to the north and east and provide incentives for building affordable housing in the Near Souths ide. It will compliment and reinforce our transit system and it will offer the possibility of creating an exhilarating and urban public space that lies within walkable distance of jobs, shopping and campus. All and all it is a package of actions that will help create a Near Souths ide and in Iowa City that is more afford- able and more sustainable over the longer run. So I am happy to support all of it. Horow/ Are you going to move to amend? Throg/ Yes. Let's see. I would like to move that we amend the resolution pertaining to item #10 to indicate that council intends to insure that a minimum of 75% of the future property tax revenues-what was the other phrasing-or equivalent, or an equivalent source of funds. Franklin/ Or an equivalent amount from other funding sources. Throg/ So you worked out the details there, right-? Nov/ You want to read that sentence, Karin. Franklin/ There is t\'lO points I'lhere this change is. One in the whereas, that is not as critical as the resolved section. So let's just go to that #3 on page 2. In order to carry out the city Council's goal of providing city support for the design concepts and goals envisioned in the Near Souths ide Neighbor- hood, including city Financed public improvement projects which create a unified sense of place, the city council directs the city staff to establish an administrative method of assuring that at a minimum 75% of city property taxes collected on the added value of improvements from each Near Southside Neighborhood property receiving property tax This represents only a reesonably accurate transcrIption of the Iowa City council mooting of Decamber 13, 1994. F121394 ,'- T...-& L. o )'::, -<,,: ' - "'. , JTJ " Ii: ~ tl ! ~' , I @ , ( fl, io, I ,r; / ,,) -.",:',,, " " ~~i" " ':\'....,', ", I ,,:::ht,~, ~ . - '.. l ," ,,' - :;,~ ,:,"" 1 , ~., '. '., .:,";:.",,'-', #10 page 2 exemption, or an equivalent amount from other funding sources, shall be allocated to a Near Southside Redevelopment Fund. Throg! Fine, that is what I moved. Pigott! 1111 second it. Moved! Moved by Throg,seconded by Pigott. Any discussion on the amendment. pigott/ Except that it has been a hard fought amendment and the whole process has been hard fought but I think it has been better because of it and thanks to everyone including the staff. Horow! Any further discussion on the amendment, All those in favor signify by saying aye (ayes). Okay, go back to the main motion. The resolution authorizing preparation of the Design Plan. Any further discussion on the main motion. Roll call- (yes) Great, passes, 7-0. (, 1 ,.~ C~- \ .AI ''''(' /" ! I ! I : I iJ , ThIs represents onlv a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council maetlng of Dacember 13, 1994. F121394 :~ " .' 11' {; !'I I:, . ::('o~~' -_._ .W =_=:_. - " j,',"',:"',','" , ,',,", ,0,,', '::',: , ., ' ' , , " " ",' ,"" " .--~,,,',',..,.,'-,."': \, ,....-~ . '. .,.. , ':_;,',' , w " i I I@ , I .~ "',, " . . 1[1 .'?Z'J~'J ..-:....., " r ;'\ r , '\l ':\~ ~.!J "'.(~\ I I \ , I' . I \ ! I I 'J I I I' II i 1'1 ! I I , , I i, I ~; , [I" : I ' :' J :;,\> t,.:~" ," , ) , "Ji'_'die f,l':',~,2,', ' ~'er,:' L.'..',< .' -~ (,-'- - :, 0 , " i , .. , ,': ~t ~' \', ': , .. . ',.. \ '. . :. :,',<':",,:': )! ' . -", ""..,'" #11 page 1 ITEM NO. 11 - CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, "UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE," OF THE CITY CODE, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 9, ARTICLE A, ENTITLED "PARKING FACILITY IMPACT FEE," TO INCLUDE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. (PASS AND ADOPT) Horow/ Moved by Baker, seconded by Throg. Discussion. woito/ Anybody going to move to amend? Baker/ Move we amend the ordinance by allowing up to 50% of the required parking on site while still requiring 75% impact fee. In other words phrased as in- Franklin/ In section D., page 4, revised (page 7, 14-9A-7), the council further finds that the commercial parking facility impact fee shall be paid to reflect 75% of the parking spaces required by the city zoning ordinance for commercial uses and then continue with what is in the paragraph, New language being to reflect and delete otherwise. On page 4, revised (page 7) section F, to delete the word minimum from the first line. And on page 6, revised (page 10) 14-9A-11, section A.1., in the underline section, and payment of the commercial impact fee shall entitle the commercial fee payor to provide no more than 50% of the parking spaces otherwise required for commer- cial use on the site. Baker/ Which achieves the goal. Franklin/ That gets what you want. Horow/ All right. Discussion. pigott/ I'll second it. Horow/ You are seconding it. Any discussion about the amendment. Kubby/ I am going to vote for the amendment so it is more flexible but I will be voting against the main motion. Even though I believe in a parking impact fee because the reason this came up was to have it be part of the conversation of tax abatement and since I voted against tax abatement I have said that I would vote against all of the commercial aspects of the package to be consistent even though I am giving up a vote for something that I want. Because I am saying no to another part of it I am willing to give that up. Horow/ Okay, fine. Any other discussion. All those in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye (ayes), 6-1, with Nov voting against it. Now back to the main motion, the ordinance itself. This represents only a reasonably Dccurate transcription of the lowe City council meeting of December 13, 1994. F121394 -~ - - '0".:),.,' ,.. , - ~i:J ':..', If" ~? ~ ~ .!~. ", " ~,( l\l ~)\ (\ ~ ",,' ~il ~ i' I , I r ','0, :r.. ~ ,..', ~,,'" h "w.-iJI.J, .. . j~ {~ ". ,,...~ ~,. " . 'j .~'- ", ~ v8~ iT'1 I I I, , J ,.([]- .' (;,',." , , ,'';'',', .' . "'t'. ,,/,w.~ ,. '.4_ ,.' , - , "'-'.' ' , . ,:i, , ", .,.., . ".; #11 page 2 Any further discussion on the main motion. Roll call- passes, 4-3, Lehman, Kubby and Nov voting no. This represents only a reasonably accurata transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of Decamber 13, 1994. F121394 ,,'-"~' .-- --7'_ 1~ -,~ )"",.," . -,,',' , 0",: 'Y'. , ......,-." , ,...' :; '~' " " " '.;, " "{',''''' ,,'.",".' \ .,.. " t "! . '" n I" ~ ""~ , ''';."-,, td, ...-,....'. .; .'; " ;!f'~ .'" ! ' .'...., ~ir",~~~ .. r~, '~\\ fr'\' , I' r \ , " I j'j ., ,: e I ' , i i i III I I I ir, I ":, 1 J ',l, ' ~,,~ , , ' .' f' ' ,. ' ",;'_"";"'..1" ','i, '! 'i', ~~i .' ~. .. ":""",' , ' ,") 1.....;-.........: ,IT l~_.. ': ..1 " ~ I I , " . ~t... , .,?,~\I,'1 . '..- ., ,;.; ". .1 \':,' '1 ". ,.. ...d.....',,'. ._""_...""",, . \ ': .., ._ ...".... . ,.' .. c',' -"" :'} .'; 'i'. ",' ", _' , . '." : ,': .', ;_~,. ,,~'-.. ~ " ,c.' ",";, ",I,.. / Agenda Iowa City City Council Special Council Meeting December 13, 1994 Page 6 1 ITEM NO. 12 - CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TOTHEZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 14-6N-1, qlf _ 3<<.. s(., OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS, TO REQUIRE PARKING SPACES FOR COMMERCIAL USES IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS SUPPORT ZONE (CB- 5). (PASS AND ADOPT) Comment: At its October 6, 1994, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission, by a vote of 4-0, recommended amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to require parking spaces for commercial uses in the CB-5 zone at the rate of one parking space per 1200 square feet of floor area, No comments were received at the Council's October 25, 1994, public hearing on this item. Action: ,iJft':/';tk/;P-1) P ~tLJ ~ kr) ~%- ~I ITEM NO. 13 _ CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING AN AREA OFTHECITY OF IOWA 1//1IJ II . ~'t~ 31,5'1 CITY, IOWA, AS AN URBAN REVITALIZATION AREA WHICH SHALL BE KNOWN AS THE NEAR SOUTHSIDE COMMERCIAL URBAN REVITALIZATION AREA. (PASS AND ADOPT) Comment: Adoption of this ordinance designating the proposed Urban Revitalization Area is required to implement the Near Southside Commercial Urban Revitalization Plan; therefore, final passage should occur only after the Council's adoption of the Plan, Action: ~/ tfMhJiA./J(.) f 'I- c.u dJ!. ~/ '.J,/~ ~.d/ ~ t!i9 '(I ,t,I.b ':;~;r ITEM NO. 14 - CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING AN AREA OFTHECITYOFIOWA ~'i- ;b~~ CITY, IOWA, AS AN URBAN REVITALIZATION AREA WHICH SHALL BE KNOWN AS THE NEAR SOUTHS IDE RESIDENTIAL URBAN REVITALIZATION AREA. (PASS AND ADOPT) Comment: Adoption of this ordinance designating the proposed Urban Revitalization Area is required to implement the Near Southside Residential Urban Revitalization Plan; therefore, final passage should occur only after the Council's adoption of the Plan, Action: 7.~ I ~ (aUf ,. b+t:U ( ~~ ., 1 , , ,'" ...-~ " J,".,"..,"',"'" ,'..... ",'. , , , ':' .",'" '~," ,:.I/y~~'," .:;" ".':'J I'''''''''' ',/:, 0 ~" ""\ " .." " - o , 0, ''', I' - ""''', " ,. . ':'1 ~,' .il1f!k~", . ". , , 'It, , ':-, \~!,~. '. '. ,'. ';.' '.',:-_:. 1 '"..., ,~ ~' " >>, I. #12 page 1 ITEM NO. 12 - CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SEC- TION 14-6N-1, OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS, TO REQUIRE PARKING SPACES FOR COMMERCIAL USES IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS SUPPORT ZONE (CB-5). (PASS AND ADOPT) Horow/ Moved by pigott, seconded by Baker. Discussion. Throg/ I think I would like to ask a question without expecting an elaborate discussion about it. At some point in time in the past we have talked about modifying the boundaries of the CB-5 zone to delete some portions along Gilbert and am I correct in assuming that that is something that might still be considered or not. Baker/ See, I looked at that wording in the design package about zoning, appropriate zoning. That there is something in there about that. That that might be a consideration. Throg/ It probably would be a good thing to do. Do we want to instruct staff to pursue that or do we want to bring it up for an informal discussion and instruct staff-? Horow/ Why don't we bring it up for informal discussion? Any other discussion on this. Roll call- passes, 5-2, Kubby and Lehman voting no. o [ (':' \ 0! ,;,"lr i . i I ~ I' ~ I : I Ir.:' I ' , ! , , ~ '. This represents only a reasonably eccurate transcription of tho Iowa City council meeting of Decembor 13, 1994. F121394 C' ; -~- - ,,! q, - - - 1"',',""',., '0; :/ ":,.-,, ',. ,:":""",, ,;'(",-, I "'S' oJ" , -... '"~' '-;, 10, ~: I' . . ;,"1,:',,- "., .- 1 (-:'1 \ ~r- , " , i , , I I~ i I I I' , I i I I, 1 i ',' I~:' ! " I \ \ ~ ~ ('- , I 0' .. ' -..----,-- .. . "1'-' . , ,- :~, '\ ,; , ',,',": , ~ ~_u -------=1 ~. J , \ "/ " 1',' ;.. , , ....... #13 page 1 ITEM NO. 13 - CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING AN AREA OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, AS AN URBAN REVITALIZATION AREA WHICH SHALL BE KNOWN AS THE NEAR SOUTHSIDE COMMERCIAL URBAN REVITALIZATION AREA. (PASS AND ADOPT) Horow/ Moved by Pigott, seconded by Lehman. Discussion. Baker/ Sue, can I just say one brief thing? On this part of this whole process I wanted to thank everybody involved. council, even those people that disagreed. All of you put a lot of time into this and I think we deserve some credit for getting something done. staff, especially for having to put up with us and help us. Jim and Bruno put a lot of time in this. You, in particular Sue, I know on particular votes you swallowed hard and I appreciate that. It has been very important and I just think that I am glad it is over and we can go on to something else. Kubby/ I know my applause is premature. I realized that a moment ago. Horow/ I am refraining from commenting anymore. I want to get done with this whole thing. Roll call-GOd, it passes, 7-0. Kubby/ Did I say yes? I want to recant that. In the spirit of things it is a no vote. Lehman/ Think of all those people that turned their t. v. off by the time you voted and recanted. Horow/ All right, let the record show that Kubby dissented. She got carried away. This represents only e reasonably accurate trenscrlptlon of the Iowa City council meeting of December 13, 1994. F121394 ~. " -''-',','', 'it' ,1:e r " -- :: ~_ l 1 0, , ",":,' : "', ,.,,' ",',:! , ' , , " , .:.._- ',:~'" ;,,,<;" ,.'..,,"."'1:: "~ ' .. '\ ~.. 1'0. tt1~~1J" " ,. \:"i' , , '~ .' , , , ,'. ~ t\\., ~ . . \' '. 1'" , , '. "'. . ' " . ,~ :.', '. ". " '.' '.," .-:::,'.;,;~':~: '.',;::.. _'. _.' ......_,.',L'...", .',.,. 'M.....~'" "_~h' .:;'),'__':. :::J;:~,:~;':';"_':':,:,'~_:'.:;,',~, ,:J!', .~', /,.": ,',,-.. """-:-:-'''_''".'. Agenda Iowa City City Council Special Council Meeting December 13, 1994 page 7 , iWw ~~ ITEM NO. 15 _ CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AND REGULATING THE LOCATION OF ENTRANCE DRIVES TO PRIVATE PROPERTY ALONG AND ADJACENT TO U,S. HIGHWAY NO.6 FROM THE WESTERLY CITY LIMITS TO ROCKY SHORE DRIVE IN IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, (SECOND CONSIDERATION) r I , r I Comment: This ordinance regulates the location of entrance drives along U,S. Highway No, 6 between Rocky Shore Drive in Iowa City and First Avenue in Coralville in conjunction with the Highway No, 6 Fifth Lane Improvements Project, and as required by the Iowa Department of Transpor- tation, The City Attorney and the City Engineer recommend approval. Action: ~.cx// 7{tH~ J1uf r!. 111/) &p ~ ZY!J!::J ITEM NO. 16 - CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, ENTITLED "TRAFFIC," ql./~ ~t.5~ CHAPTER 9, ENTITLED "DEFINITIONS, ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCE- MENT OF TRAFFIC PROVISIONS," SECTION 6, ENTITLED " APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS" OF THE CITY CODE BY ADDING A NEW PARAGRAPH 1,0,',',' APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF THE TRAFFIC TITLE TO BICYCLISTS. (PASS AND ADOPT) &/tW ~zi ~. Comment: This amendment applies the traffic regulations to bicyclists, and requires individuals riding bicycles to follow the "rules of the road" applied to other vehicles. This action makes clear that bicyclists must follow the rulea of the road, and tracks state law, Staff recommends approval. Action: t~A/ ~ ~~d) ITEM NO. 17 - CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3, CITY FINANCES TAXA- TION AND FEES, CHAPTER 4, SCHEDULE OF FEES, RATES, CHARGES, BONDS, FINES AND PENALTIES, SECTION 3-4-4 WASTEWATER TREAT- MENT WORKS USER CHARGES (SECOND CONSIDERATION), ;j} 'f.tV I ~% t .J. C-: \ v'1 '-1 I , I : I II" II' i( , l:H ~ L Comment: The proposed ordinance increasas rates for wastewater by 35% the first year effective for bills issued on or after March 1, 1995. The rate increases as proposed will be applied as a flat increase across-the-board to all existing rate blocks and minimum charges. Action: 7L4/~ .#~U ~./ " ~(jl/~ ;t;;; ~ ~n~AA1 ~ '1;:;:'0- I~ !If" /l{) , ,C, "",""~'- ~ ...-r ~ ':. ~~- --~., . ~I - :_ _: o:~j)..:" I m [J ,/5' U .', , """'" ;l~Mi:itJ;( t C,!~ \ ('f it Ii k I' i.[ , "~~"',', " 1'\ " i'l I' L ( -AW'" "...... , ,;" 0 !\ ' . ~_._. ,. r'l' ' ~ "./ '~t:::,{. , ~ "'.' , '),i .-,. . , " '.' . ,...,,: , , '~'1' ,.' " ,;',;.'..,'_.-,_:;-,,;.,.._,;-..:.-^,;; l; #15 page 1 ITEM NO. 15 - CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AND REGULATING THE LOCATION OF ENTRANCE DRIVES TO PRIVATE PROPERTY ALONG AND ADJACENT TO U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 6 FROM THE WESTERLY CITY LIMITS TO ROCKY SHORE DRIVE IN IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. (SECOND CONSIDERATION) I I. Horow/ Moved by Lehman, seconded by Nov. Discussion. I have one piece of discussion that has been requested-A request was made as to why people could not turn right as they emerge out of Rocky Shore Drive onto Highway 6. Why there is not right turn on red light. In investigating this with the City Traffic Engineer, unless we had more space for a dedicated right turning lane, we would be creating more problems than just having people wait. Nov / There are two left turning lanes' coming from the other direction. So there is no room. Horow/ Right. I just wanted to get this on the record. Any other discussion. ~ Karr/ This is second consideration. Horow/ Second consideration- (yes) passes second consideration. A \0 I I , I I I ThIs represents only a roesonebly accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meatlng of Decembar 13, 1994. F121394 : ' ~ ~ V-IT'17 ~ ),',"','",.. '0,_ ',\'. 'I" ') t. ',C ~~) ,10, ,',: ., ;)j,'l?E.t }" I " ",~t:\'I' ','\. . ..,.' ". " '. ',:-" 1 -.,. . ,':';'.,:.".'_\ #16 page 1 ITEM NO. 16 - CONSIDER AN PRDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, ENTITLED "TRAFFIC," CHAPTER 9, ENTITLED "DEFIllITIONS, ADMIN- ISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF TRAFFIC PROVISIONS," SECTION 6, ENTITLED "APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS" OF THE CITY CODE BY ADDING A NEW PARAGRAPH APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF THE TRAFFIC TITLE TO BICYCLISTS. (PASS AND ADOPT) Horow/ Moved by Kubby, seconded by Pigott. Discussion. I just have problems with this having been raised in New York state where you go against the traffic. But, because I am now a resident of Iowa, I will go along with this. But this goes against everything I was taught as a child. Any further discussion. Roll call- (yes) Pass and adopt. \' \ o I I i I I I ~. 'I This represonts only 8 roesonebly occureto transcription of the Iowa City council mooting of Docember 13, 1994. .1 F121394 , "~' ,~o"/, "w ~\ i. , , Co "__..' -- .' __PI ~- 1~".",""','" ',' '0'" ',,' '., .:" ",'" lI': :' I,'. ",'/ -',' :\", '" .d._'l,.,~::':',' .. .- , ,-' ,.' , ..-'".,...,,::.;:,'-'....,':,',':. I ~ CD .1 ~~ , ~, .., '~} 5" I D, .1lrt,j r~ ( :;;:.".i ',' \ , , \ l ~ ..' " . ,,;;" ( \ , \ I' i i , I , , , , , , I '(;'.. I!'" , : I ~\",,; , r , :i'l ~~".:""," ~", ,~l , ~ ' HI.' ' " .",., ""..... c__~ \'j ". . ',~t: \', , '. , , " ',. . .'..,;',.,.. .:',;, ',.."..' #17 page 1 ITEM NO. 17 - CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3, CITY FI- NANCES TAXATION AND FEES, CHAPTER 4, SCHEDULE OF FEES, RATES, CHARGES, BONDS, FINES AND PENALTIES, SECTION 3-4-4 WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS USER CHARGES (SECOND CONSIDERATION). Horow/.Moved by Nov, seconded by Lehman. Discussion. pigott/ Sue, I do have some discussion about this and it is not just the wastewater treatment user charges. Jim and I prepared a memo because at Tuesday's p. h. we heard a lot of people suggest a variety of alternatives to the city's proposed water and wastewater treatment plants and I think the suggestions that we heard involved three different areas: finanQing, kind of construction and alternative means of treating water and wastewater. And when.the council passed our rate increases, the first consideration of the rate increases, last week, many council members explicitly stated a desire to investigate all or at least some of the alternatives which could possibly save us some money and spread rate increases over a number of years perhaps with a different plan. Although it is possible none of these options would improve the city's proposal, I think it is important to let the pUblic know in a very public manner that we are seriously examining individual options as well as effective combinations of these proposals offered by citizens and once those options have been examined I think it is equally important to let the public know why the proposals have been accepted or rejected by the staff. And so to that end, Jim and I suggest and would request that appropriate departments in the city create and publish in local papers a schedule for investigating the proposals listed that we have heard which I have listed and Jim and I have actually listed below in this memo as well as others they feel merit atten- tion. We think that the staff should report the result of the investigations to the city council within a maximum of about three months and in addition to that we think we should adopt a strategy for presenting the results of staff's new research to the public. We think that this give the public an opportu- nity-we should give them an opportunity to respond prior to the city hosting another p.h. on another rate increase. The presentation of research should not merely be a sales pitch but should consist of ~ public forum for discussion only. Also a series of televised call in shows, private conversations with people who have raised these issues, a special televised council meeting devoted exclusively on our reply to the public based on the investigations we received. So that we say to the public we hear you , understand their things we want to investigate, and we have done out homework on it and here is why we think they are good or not so good. That is the purpose of what Jim and I are requesting tonight. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council moetlng of Decembor 13, 1994, F121394 .,...A la_ ___ ~:~ ~~~: - . 0 lP , .,.' 1:~l.1:' I,,', i if I I Ih ;a ~ ~, fi ~ I II) , R i ~iI I:~ ~~, f)\~ :,','1 ,il '~W, I,,:j'll], ,I;::~;3 . , . . '~t \ \'1: , <'~, , , .. 1 ',.., ":: ';' ":;':',.-' #17 page 2 Kubby/ I like it. Pigott{ So I would like to kick that discussion. Horow/ I have questions right off the bat. Did you talk with the staff on any of the suggestions that you heard last time? Throg/ No. In fact what I would say to that is the point is to demonstrate to the public that we heard what they said during the p.h. That we are asking staff to look into what we take to be the most important issues that were raised during those p.h.s and that we are instructing the staff to report back to us about those issues. Now, I can imagine that staff would have different levels of analysis depending on a particular issue. Some they have already looked at and had good reason to reject. others they may not have looked at and have good reason to explore more. So- Horow/ I am concerned, Jim, because the last time that you raised a lot of these issues and the staff did quite an answer on many of your issues, you said you didn't think the staff took you seriously. And so I really have a little bit of concern that no matter what the staff says in answer to Mr. Thompson or Vince Neary, there is always going to be a confrontational mode and you will never be able to answer their questions because they believe so fervently that their way is right and I am frustrated with giving the public, first of all, a public health issue that has got to be resolved. It is not a debata- ble subject. But I am concerned that there will be certain people to whom staff will-for whom staff will spend a lot of time on giving them an answer to their issues but it will never solve- \ pigott/ Sue, can I answer that. I think there will, of course, be those people that will never be satisfied with our decision. I voted for this. I voted for that 40%, 35% and I said to myself after hearing them, I still want to hear. And I think for the public the one thing that I heard from some of the members of the public was I am frustrated because I don't know whether or not my suggestion is going to be taken seriously. Not whether or not it is going to be accepted, you know, and I wish we would evaluate this. And I am not saying that we are not going to or we didn't plant to in the past. The focus of this memo to you folks is to say let's make that process a very public one so that everyone will know what we are doing and so everyone will have a part in the give and take of it. Horow/ I think the information aspect of this is certainly valu- able. I would also like personally ask council that this not be dragged out long. ~ , i , ( i I ! ' I , I \ ;,.. "j This represents only e reesonably eccurete trenscrlptlon of the lowe City council meeting of December 13, 1994, F121394 ~"i ;.:~ ~; ~ ,(~ 0 :~_ ~- , r" -- _ '-0 ), -, 'I I I ... , V.'fj', ~ ~, .' ~; ";r r-~ f;, ,,~ ~?, ~1 ~ iJ '" f;: 1 , " () ~ !\ ~h~ !r,'~i r.;;IA ~,t.i~,; ~D, I " I' " "'I n \.,; ~~!\trj .J \ ~ ""-, , :~ " I' I, , l '''1 ~ (: j'i ". , ., ~ ' "\ '. ~ i,:, , , \ " , ,.' , :i :." ~. , ..'.., "''''.','..: #17 page 3 Pigott/ We have got some time on our hands after we vote on these. Kubby/ I thought it was a commitment on everyone to look at options. Lehman/ Susan, I can't imagine that staff who probably already has looked at some of these options. I just cannot imagine that we would not look at them. If we have looked at them and we have rejected them then let us know. We have got what I consider to be time. I don I t think we do have time when it comes to putting a rate increase in place. I think we have to do that. But I can't imagine that we won't look at them. I hate to see this go into some real depth in something that we have already discarded. If there is a legitimate reason why it won't work. let us know why it won't work. Pigott/ Indeed. Kubby/ And let everyone out there know. That is the big- Pigott/ Right, that is the point. Horow/ What is your strategy in terms of the number of times that we will have public meetings? How many public meetings are you talking about? Pigott/ I am suggesting that we evaluate the proposals and I know the staff is going to do that. The staff has taken time and has been diligent. I really trust the staff. I think that they are doing a darn good job on this issue. Part of the reason I voted for this rate increase was I felt very comfortable with some of the need for going ahead with this. But at the same time I thought it would be really important to investigate the options and I said to myself well, let's go through- I am sure that the staff is going to go through and investigate these opportunities. Of course, they are going to talk to me at the end of the day but I want them to talk to the public and us and it is incumbent not just upon the staff but us to act as that broadcaster and let's do it all in a very public and determined way to show that we have got the message. Kubby/ I think there is already a commitment on staff's part to continue the conversation with the public. I mean Carol sweeting has said throughout various stages of this they are going to go back out into the public with updating people and maybe what this does is just broaden that conversation a little more to say not only here is what we have decided upon finally but this is how we arrived at that decision. because even though we have done a lot of public informational work, people don't pay attention until the decision is imminent and This represents only a reasonably accurata transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 13, 1994, F121394 ." - . --,..~ - ".,'~,",j,,' "'- . . .'.. , \ o .,.. , t;tv' ":.& Y fli " " ~ , ~ ~ Ii 10 l ~ll , I .1' " .) 2l.7J-'i!'i ( v \ " M , !( , , , , -I.', , .-, \~j., .. ,',J ~ , .,' ,,' :~ #17 page 4 maybe the weakness was that we didn't plan that fact of human nature into our schedule and so now is the point to back track while the majority says still go ahead. Go ahead a little bit but backtrack on the-people are paying attention now so now is the time we need to make sure that we use that attention to its fullest and they have got our attention now to explain options that we have rejected already that have been offered and to look at options that have been offered that we haven't looked at. . Horow/ As long as that is the understanding for this. That it is not a debatable situation where you know there is a false sense of feeling on the part of the public who have made these positions. That we are going to stop everything in mid stream and adopt their proposals. Those that I think the staff are flexible enough and can use, I don't have any problem with us considering them. But I sensed in those two public meetings a very real frustration that came forth that was very under- standable. But a need to vent and I, unlike you, I guess I didn't really see that people were giving an opinion. They just don't want a rate increase, period! pigott/ That is not necessarily- I don't necessarily agree with that. Nov / Well, there has been a lot of that. I haven't heard anyone say we don't want good quality water. No one has said that and the main complaint has been it is too expensive. We don't want to pay that much money. Horow/ Frankly, I have been getting remarks from people who have been saying I am glad you finally made the decision, why don't you go ahead and get the whole thing, multiple year percentage increases done at one fell swoop. So we have all heard from different people different- pigott/ You know, interestingly enough, we are following up. I know Steve has been investigating an option that he presented to us in a memo. And so we are investigating other options than the initial city proposal that was put in front of us in terms of financing this plant, You know, in terms of stretching it out and paying in increments in stead of the 40%/75% increase over '95 and '96. All I am saying, through this memo, is let's make all of these options, which we promised already to investi- gate, a very public part of the process. And if they work, I know Ed Moreno is going to want to institute the things that work and we ar going to want to be able to champion the fact that we saved a lot of million bucks if it is possible. I want it. I just want to do it publicly. This represents only a reasonably accurata transcription of the Iowa City council meotlng of Docomber 13. 1994. F121394 ~~ , - -' - o ,0 u ):.,:i " ..A_ .,.. to',' 11& o l ~!III "" .0JA ~,.' I " '1:... '0 ;i ,)' ,~.n, " ~:' I " .' , , . :'~t\ '\'i ' ,','1 ... ' \ '-. ,. ':" , " ,#~ ''-, ,:,;f,,'::"'" #17 page 5 Nov/ I think he is just making up a number. I think what we have here is certainly something that no one wants to say we don't hear you and we don't want to listen to you and we don't want to think about your options. My only concern about this is you didn I t give it to us until tonight and nobody has read it before tonight. Pigott/ I understand and this does not commit you. There is no vote on this tonight. this is a memo asking for us to. -'-, Nov/ So we will think about it. We will consider it and the other concern I have is putting a specific time line on it because we are going to have an awful lot of extra meetings between now and March due to budget concerns. So, if we can postpone it until after budget I would be happy to do so. Throg/ The point that Ernie and Sue made is that we need to get on with this. I heard you saying that. If that is the case, I would assume that you do want a reasonably accelerate time line. So when we proposed three months, the idea was that it gives staff enough time to do whatever investigation they have to do,. Gives us enough time to have deliberations with the public and then gives enough time to go on with whatever rate increases are appropriate after that. Kubby/ And if three months isn't enough, then what that time line says is that staff comes to us and says we have looked at the following things but we haven't looked at these other things because of budget considerations, because ~le have been dealing with the budget for the next FY and for these following reasons we need this many more weeks to finish looking at those last two options. I think that is the purpose of the time frame is to have a goal and if that goal needs to be adjusted, we need to have a rationale for it and then we adjust the time frame. Nov / I am more concerned about our extra meetings. I think the staff budgeting has probably pretty well been taken care of. They put their hours in on it. We haven't. Horow/ Mr. Atkins-Well, we will get back to you on the timing of this. 11"1 I ,I I 'I . i I ; : , ! ,I I ! r.', I r.. i : I I i' ! ~\,,;; 'c. I ~T ~ KUbby/ I guess I would ask that people look at this and before our third vote that we give direction to staff? Throg/ That is totally reasonable. Atkins/ Two things to think about about this issue and one is certainly do whatever you would ask of us and I would want to This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of thalowa City council mooting of Decembor 13, 1994. F121394 ((__'~V __' ------"------------- . ,:~. -~~...");;:':',',' ~v . \ ' .~, .,.. , r'~'! './~ J' ," ~ i\1 ~ ~1 I';' , , , ,!. i; i " ,\" jii.:r. .,')1,11", 0', ," r-' ',) ,t;, I,' .,) .!El~t1 r \ 1:1 I i i : I d J ~'\IJ ,J ~\~, ('~ ( ". , "t . ~\ r.', ~ " .. ,,~, , " . ",','''.',~ c:' #17 page 6 check the schedule. I received directly suggestions about other, options that have not come before you or before the microphone and I want you to have an appreciation that some of them are hey I think you ought to do this instead of that. Well, some of them don't have a lot of merit or just simply are not or just so out of the realm of possibilities. Under- stand that not everybody and every idea is going to get the detail. Just so you understand that. Secondly, if we conduct this process and I am not opposed to doing it, we cannot enter into negotiations with the DNR or EPA on the schedule change. CHANGE TAPE TO REEL 94-142 SIDE 2 Atkinsl So you understand that debate we heard was go talk to them and change everything. They are going to react to what we propose to them. Just so you have ,that in mind. That is not a big deal but it is just something to keep in mine. Horowl Is it- Atkinsl The point remains that I can't really negotiate if I don't have anything to negotiate with. Right now if we are going to come up with some other issues. I am okay on that. Just so you understand that, Throgl I guess I want to say a couple of things. Not in response to what you said but just about the issue at hand. And that is if we do not show directly, concretely, publicly, that we heard what people said and we are taking what they said into account in our deliberation and that we ~re adopting whatever is reasonable from what'we heard, then we have made a sham of the p.h. process. I don't think any of us want to do that. So, I think that is the main thing we have to do is show that kind of response. The second thing I would like to say is I just want to disagree with you, fundamentally Susan, about what something you said about this is a p~blic health question and it is not open to debate. I think you are terribly misguided and let me explain. It surely is a public health issue, absolutely it is a public health issue. But it is also an issue about ecological stability of the waters downstr~am. An issue about federal regulations, federal laws, an issue about economic growth otherwise we wouldn't have had people worry about economic growth. It is an issue about affordability of housing in Iowa city. It is an issue about taxation and various ways to generate funds to finance this thing. It is a big bundle of things and it is not just a matter of public health. ' Horowl I will agree with you that it is a bundle of may things but I will retain the most important factor for me is clean This represents onlv e roasonably accurata transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of December 13, 1994. F121394 ~,-,~~~. ~- " .., ~,' ','. , ':~' ,.',,' ',' ' . ',' ',.,', ,"0 ,]!" .llf ." o .: .,.. . ...'-" . , I '! t. ... ~J '~' o . 1 t ;, 10', ..jr;;:;t.~l " I ',~t ~\'i ". . , .,,1 ~ , ' ,. ,'....:-.,.".._" #17 page 7 ..( ( , \ drinking water. Nothing else is that important. If you violate, change standards or do anything to violate that, I think we put our public at risk and I think the age of our water plant distribution is such that we can't wait any more. We do disagree on this. . Lehmani The way I heard you and I think maybe this is a better interpretation. I think it is a matter of public health. It is not a matter of if we are going to do it because we are. It is a matter of how we might do it because clean water-a matter of public health. KubbYI It was interesting because that the first p.h. for commit- ting mass civil disobedience and just. saying to hell with the federal regs. That we can't afford to do it therefore we won't do anything. And my ear perks up when I hear the word civil disobedience or think it because I participate in that but when I do that I do that putting my personal self on the line knowing the consequences and willing and able to live out the consequences and it is not responsible for us to think about doing that for the whole population because not everyone can afford the possible consequences. Public healthwise or financially. If there was a way for people who were in that room that night who applaud to be targeted with the fines and penalties and those people were willing to take those conse- quences individually, I might be very, willing and encouraging other cities to have those movements across the country. Not about the standards themselves though because the standards are for public health and they were generated because locali- ties weren It taking that responsibility upon themselves. Because we have a non sustainable from of industry upstream whether it is agricultural or not. I also want to challenge some of the people who have come to us and have said you know stand up to the feds. I guess .I want those people to stand up for a couple of things. 1-To be voting for people at a state level who will institute things like vegetative filter strips on the edge of streams, I want you to stand up'for that as individual citizens because preventing pollution from getting into the waterway is a lot more economical and better for public health on the front end than the expensive results that we are seeing of that non sustainable industry on the back, end which is your water bills. The other things I would like you to stand up for is national administration who doesn't filter any moneys back for water and sewer projects. A lot of people who were in the room are self described Republicans and it is the republican administrations that cut funds for municipali- ties for sewer plants. So I think we need to look at our own backyards when we ask people to do things and to maybe look at how we act politically when we vote and lobby. The other thing that hasnlt really been talked about very much is the options ~ "4.('" , I I ,~ I I i I : '(,.' , ,,,.. I I" , , I , \ \, ,.1 "J'" ., ,l This represents only e roesonsbly accurate trenscrlptlon of the Iowa City council mooting of Docombor 13, 1994, F121394 ,~/~:,\ ~ 'c~_ - ~,',= -'_-'-- , ',~O-,) ','" - .,.. " ~!l I I 1 ~ il ~ Q ~ ~;~: .~ ,~. Vii I ~ It, ,.) 0, l~'U'ij::;i ,C'.. [ ,~'\ V '~1 .,;-~...'" ''', " .) : '" \ ~ " I"' , ; ! 'I I I!;: : 'I" I i J,l :J",; · , , ! '~ ~ ~.- ' , ," (', J1 "JI~' i:1~~' " I",~, , L_-"-_ 't=~.o-- " ; ". , ':':\'\: , '~ , 1 " " ~: '" . ,', ~ ' " "L", #17 page 8 that we looked at for the financing structure on how we are going to pay for these things, I guess I want to take a few minutes to talk about those things because when I first talked about it with some people I was like well, we only looked at one option. But I realized, after thinking about it, that that wasn't totally true. Ernie brought up the idea of paying for some of this through property tax as a way of decreasing the burden on user fees. And we rejected that because some of the users of the water and sewer plant are people who are exempt from property tax. Whether that be churches. Whether that be the University of Iowa which is the biggest one that we thought of or any other entities that are nontax paying users of the water system. So that would shift the burden away from those entities onto individual businesses and residences and that is not fair. The second issue we looked at was sales tax but we really didn't talk about that too much and I am glad we didn't because I think a sales tax is a very regressive tax. There have been ties. when people have said well, there is a city service that issued by people who live outside of the city but come in and use that service. That is what a sales tax should be earmarked for. I can follow that logic. Even though I might disagree with the source of the money or the regressivity of the source of the money but I understand the logic. But I don't think the logic is here for this issue because people who live outside of Iowa city who use water are mostly patrons of hotels, motels and restaurants. And those people are paying for increased water and sewer bills through the cost of their meal and their rates of the hotel and motel. So the last thing we looked at was borrowing 100% of the money and then we looked at three different schemes of how to pay that back and that is what we decided on. So it wasn't really, a lot of times you say the staff proposal. Well, it was out proposal because we gave direction to staff of what to bring to us and what items to be finally voting on. So we chose one to those three proposals as how to raise the rates to pay back the 100% borrowing. But the two other issues that we were given: 1- The sunday night before the meeting when we first voted on this and one the Tuesday afternoon of the meeting which gave us no real fair amount of time to look at the proposals was a way of stretching things out so that we could borrow at different paces or borrow less money which means paying less interest back. And I feel real uncomfortable voting for this because I feel an obligation for us to tell people up front what we are paying for technically and how we are paying for it financially before I vote for such a substantial rate increase as 40%. I believe we need to do these projects. I don't want to wait 5-8 years to do them. I am willing to look at options. but I can't, in my good conscience, vote for this unless we can tell everybody everything up front, I am very glad that every council person This represents only a roasonably accurate transcription of the lowe City council meeting of Docember 13, 1994, F121394 -- - - o l:. ... I' " (., ( ~,,) -I ~"~' iiS rt! po" d , t ~'1 (" -.'. ~:, Wi i? ,''I .'J: ~1 ,,~ ~~, ~ & I i~ I'~ ~'I\ "Ill. .m:i3!1 " .1 . \ . \ ..8 :T I" I I i ! i , I I r : I: I ~ "f~ ~ CT !.." 0 . -- , i -" , , ~r: ,', " 1 " #17 page 9 had committed at the last meeting and continue here to look at those options. I think that Jim and Bruno's memo helps us more clearly define how we are going to look at options and how we are going to communicate that to people because I think that has been our weakness and not that we have done a bad job, I think we have done a good job but I think we have done it when the masses of people weren't paying attention. Now people are paying attention, as I said before, and we should look at Bruno and Jim's ideas seriously and devise a plan that we will all feel comfortable participating in. So, I agree with all the stuff but I won't be voting for the increase because we don't have everything up front. Horow/ You didn't vote for this the first round either. KUbby/ I did not. Novl I have to comment on that, Karen, because you and I were both on the council for the last couple of years when we said we don't want to put in an increase until we have a specific plan and my hindsight being 20120 tells me we should have put in small increases along the way before we had a specific plan. It would have been far easier to do and I think that even without absolute specificity this is the right thing to do. We should start an increase now. Kubby/ I got the transcript of the meeting where we talked about that and it isn't clear who supported what. I haven't had a chance to look at it so I can say I was on council when that decision was made. I can't as yet say that I said no to raising 10% as Steve's memo suggested we do. Novl I can't say specifically either but there was a general agreement. We did not have an ordinance. We did to have a vote yes and no. There was at least a general agreement to put it off. Kubby/ There were at least four people who nodded at an informal meeting not to go with 10% increases as suggested. That is as strong as I can state that. Horow/ This is now just for the first year. As you remember we separated it out. The first separating is as Jim wanted, the wastewater from the water. We also pulled it back just for one year with 35%. At this point I think that we do need to think about what the delay is going to mean in terms of increase cost. The costs certainly aren't going to be stationary the longer we stretch this out and that is a concern to me. But I am willing to take this compromise of voting on just the first This represents only e reesonebly eccurete trenscrlptlon of the lowe City council meotlng of December 13, 1994. F121394 - _~ 0, ,,);'~ ' Ii u- '. -.~ f" ~,~~; ,,' ~ ~ H ~ ~ I o .i ,. ":Th I"", " f~l ,lIi,I. , I I " ~ ' ,.,5' 0, -illt5i \ ./! r.,,' i I I : I I : i I: I \ ~" "1 'i ~ c,',., ~'" " " ',\ v , , :':r:,'" "'I , . " . , . ",'-' ,'.'. ..'. #17 page 10 year so we can start the credit clock ticking. I appreciate what you are saying. Lehman/ I think this does leave all of our options open and one of our options is not to leave rates the way they are. We know they will have to go up. We also know the longer we wait the higher they are going to go. Horow/ Okay. Any other discussion on this? Throg/ I will be voting no, Sue, for the reasons elaborated in the last meeting. Nov/ I have a question for clarification on this. Don Yucuis, am I correct in saying when we voted to decrease the base rate, the first 200 cubic feet or I shouldn't say it that way. We voted a smaller increase of the first 200 cubic feet, we did this for water only, not wastewater. Yucuis/ correct, just water. Nov / okay. I just wanted to make sure that everyone understood that because I couldn't remember and I read your memo that we had not done it for both. So I want the general public to know that this smaller increase is just for the water bill. Horow/ Any other discussion? Baker/ I just want a clarification. I don't know if the public would hear some of the comments tonight and think we have ruled out the possibility of using sales tax as a financing option. We never talked about it. We are going to at least talk about it in the next few months. Horow/ Sure. Pigott/ I ~hink it is an option. Nov/ I think we have to consider it. I think we have to be sure all of Johnson county considers it also. Baker/ But it is not ruled out. Throg/ It is mentioned in the memo that Bruno and I- Kubby/ I guess before we vote I did have one last thing I wanted to say about the declining rate structure, I think it is real important for me just to say out loud that I think that rate structure is unfair and that it shifts the burden from larger users to smaller users and that it is not fair. It is another This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council maGtlng of Dacamber 13, 1994, F121394 _.- -- ---, ,"0-, )' r'" ,'",. ...... .,.. , I i ,(. " "J l I':-~~ i"'~' 1'~ K ~ ~ I 0, '. ~[1 \,", ,!li.1~Za '" ~r \ ~I;. , , .. ~ , .,:, 1 '. . " #17 page 11 way and when I say this I am not- I think it is important to verbalize that whether you say yes to the flat rate structure or you say yes to the declining rate structure. That it is important to verbalize that extra support and subsidization the smaller users give to the larger users, both apartment buildings and businesses and that may be a fine thing for us to do. I happen to think in this instance it is not. Nov/ However, I have to clarify, in wastewater there is a flat fee. Everything beyond the first 200 cubic feet is $2.08 per 100. It is only in the water that we have a decline. Pigott! Sue, I will vote yes in this tonight as well as the water rate increase, I voted yes last time. I voted yes because, you know, we said that we would consider the options that the public presented us, the public that were here, and I really want to make sure that we and that is the whole purpose of the memo, really follow through on that. I believe that rasing the funds necessary to start on a ~later treatment plant is necessary. I think that we have to go forward. It is not a decision that I feel bad about when I go to sleep at night. I feel comfortable saying we are raising the funds to do so. I do feel, however, that we want to do it the most inexpensive way, providing the highest quality water for the residence in this city and I think that pursuing it in public and in front of people will really make people feel comfortable with the decision that councilors make and that is really where I come from. Jim and Karen and voted differently on this. We all agree. I think the whole council pretty much agrees that pursuing the cheapest options and the best options are something that we all want to do. So that is the purpose of the memo. ,~ '. r \ .':..1 r . Horow/ Any other discussion? Baker/ I don't have a lot to say because I said it last time at 1:45 in the morning. I did want to make one comment about the rate structure that we are adopting with these ordinances. Especially the water rate structure. Clarification on what we are doing with a declining rate structure. I think a declining rate structure is a fair rate structure. That the flat or uniform rate structure would, in the long run, would have been counterproductive to the goals that we are trying to achieve and would have shifted the burden around but it would have shifted the burden around unfairly so that is why I am happy with this particular proposal. Horow/ Thank you. Okay. Roll call- Second consideration passes, 5- 2, Kubby and Throg voting no. \ (.~ ","" , I w , I I I i Ii I , I , I , '(,... i 1';' , , : I , ThIs reprosents only a raasonably accurata transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of Decomber 13. 1994, F121394 "."~,:; .' . ,I" ~, ~;,~ " j;l* , L' (l"'" ..,.- , 0 ~ ,- - - - 0")" . . \.' - ,.. I~V! &V , iK ~ G , ~" ~ D, 'L, . ~ , / .J .,..'-,,' ~\'" ,- ." j (' \ ~ i I ! I I' I ~ 1\ i' ~', , ;\~.' ~\' ~, Ii' Q " ~ \": 'I'" '".' ,', .':)t'~.~.;.:;,;:: .', "',":,""... r'; , . ~, :'1 '1 , . '..;." . Agenda Iowa City City Council Special Council Meeting December 13, 1994 Page 8 ITEM NO, 18 - CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3, CITY FINANCES TAXA. TION AND FEES, CHAPTER 4, SCHEDULE OF FEES, RATES, CHARGES, BONDS, FINES AND PENALTIES. SECTION 3-4-3 POTABLE USE (SECOND' CONSIDERA nON). Comment: The proposed ordinance increases rates for water minimum bills for up to 200 cubic feet of usage by 24% and for consumption over 200 cubic feet by 40% effective for bills issued on or after March 1, 1995, The rate increases as proposed will be applied as a flat increase across-the-board to all existing rate blocks and minimum charges, Aolion: lL'j:!~~AL~~~PA ~ ITEM NO. 19 - ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION (LITIGATION). ~h I!#a/~ . ~ % 1.15 "JIb' NOTE TO COUNCIL MEMBERS: The special meeting will be telecast. ' ~/J(~ 1: ,ts dfr ",':. ' 22 ,.. 'O".):;::'i':""" ..'..'.',..."""..\"',"'" , It.:. I.~ '"\;l 11"'--;- - -- :'L":,' ','''.1' -"-'. .,.' .;- ,I,"" r I, "', ~ I . 10', .;m." 1.-',"' "~ . .:~ W.'; ". , ~ '. "',:..'" .... ",,-,';"..J~' #18 page 1 ITEM NO. 18 - CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3, CITY FI- NANCES TAXATION AND FEES, CHAPTER 4, SCHEDULE OF FEES, RATES, CHARGES, BONDS, FINES AND PENALTIES, SECTION 3-4-3 POTABLE USE (SECOND CONSIDERATION). Horowl Moved by Nov, seconded by Lehman. Discussion. KubbYI In my office hours this week I received a paper that is basically a survey that is entitled a public opinion poll concerning water quality in Iowa city done by two students in an environmental geology class. It basically surveyed, at random, 200 people in Iowa city about their feelings about water. Very interesting. I hope staff will look at it. Some of the comments that people made. I have the raw surveys with me. I encourage them to do this again at a later point to see some comparisons. So I would like to move that this be part of the public record. The we accept this correspondence. Horow I l-loved by KUbby, seconded by Throg. Any discussion. All those in favor signify by saying aye (ayes). Back to the main motion. Kubbyl I will give this to Marian. Does everyone want copies of this? Novl I would like to read it. KUbbYI Okay. I would like to give Steve the raw data because there are comments on there that will be interesting. Horowl Any further discussion. Novl I have further discussion. Excuse me, we got so side tracked on the Osterberg study. On page 2 in the water, it says monthly user charges for water in excess of 200 cubic feet per month about half way down about the middle of the page. Ad then it says the next 2,800 cubic feet $1. 54. I think it should say $1.54 each 100 cubic feet, shouldn't it. We are not charging $1.54 for 2,800 cubic feet, are we? No we are not. So I would like to insert the word each 100 cubic feet immediate- ly after $1.54. Let's be very clear. In the next two numbers it says the next 17,000 is $1.10 and the next 20,000 is $1.10. Why don't we say anything over 3,000 is $1.10? Why do we need to two increments? KubbYI We don't. Novl As far as I can tell. So can I amend on the floor to add each 100 cubic feet and then also to add over 3,000 cubic feet This roprosonts only a raasonably accurata transcription of tha Iowa City council mooting of Dacombor 13, 1994. F121394 (- , 0 "" .~_.._----"-~- -- -- :..- - )..:', 0' ~- f" , I ...t.. I~ ,." ~':riIIf" \~~t , I Ii o 10, :m;Zi ( i I I i ~ ~ ~ ,:co' ,". . " \.'~, .' , , '?~'~':l'(~,.. ' , ,':-,( 1 ", ,',".",1'"., " ,',...','.... ,', :.- ~, " ".' ~.-". ,i, '-'! #18 page 2 $1.10 each 100 cubic feet. Delete the line that says 17,000 and delete the line that says over 20,000. Okay. Horow/ Nov proposed the amendment, Kubby seconded it, Any discus- sion. All those in favor signify by saying aye (ayes). Back to the main motion. Any further discussion. Roll call-passes, 5- 2, Kubby and Throg voting in the negative. This represents only a reasonobly eccurste transcription of tho Iowa City council meeting of Docomber 13, 1994, F121394 - ~~- ,'" ~ " "'. -~'"~ T~~ rly'^ "" ' '. ~. , ..,..'-,-..,. \ " t' " j ,.,' ',,' ,~ G " '...., i 0', ,~~, l.~ .', '-",',:,;"....- ,~( ( , \ Yi1 ( I ! ~, ! I , I ~ I , I if \, -, \},j {(:-~"~- , ., ....; , , , , "",, , "t' , .;'\d ~ , "',': ~ . ,~' q,: , , , -- '~..,. .. ,,': ,.' . " ..,:',-,:::':"";,.'. ";, ',;, ~" .:..."),, ;;,',,1" _"~;,.." ,,,.... ,'~',','.' ' City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM r DATE: December 9, 1994 TO: City Council FROM: City Manager RE: Work Session Agenda and Meeting Schedule Tuesday Special City Council Meeting - Council Chambers Adjourn to Executive Session (Litigation) December 19, 1994 Monday 6:30 P.M. - City Council Work Session - Council Chambers December 13, 1994 6:30 P.M. - December 20, 1994 Tuesday ~ 7:30 P.M. - Regular City Council Meeting - Council Chambers December 23, 1994 HOLIDAY - CITY OFFICES CLOSED December 26, 1994 HOLIDAY - CITY OFFICES CLOSED Friday m Monday r Monday January 2, 1995 HOLIDAY - CITY OFFICES CLOSED 6:30 P.M. - City Council Work Session - Council Chambers Agenda pending (meeting may be rescheduled) January 3, 1995 Tuesday 7:30 P.M. - Regular City Council Meeting - Council Chambers .!. PENDING LIST Appointments to the Airport Commission and Broadband Telecommunications Commission - January 17, 1995 ,- '~":T l ',,"',., ',,' - ',~ I;' ,r." If! . _ ;:::/,..,,', r- . . t. ,I, ,_) Ii, ~.' 10, 0, ,,', ," . I