Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-07-16 Transcription#2b Page #1 ITEM NO. 2b MAYOR'S PROCLAMATIONS Irving B. Weber Day August 10 Lehman: Item 2 are proclamations. (Reads proclamation). Karr: Here to accept is Judy Terry, Iowa City Noon Lions Club. Judy Terry: On behalf of the Iowa City Host Noon Lions Club I would like to thank you for this proclamation from the City of Iowa City. As you · know, Irvin wrote so much about Iowa City and we were so privileged to have his memory with us in these books and in his writings. And also in the sale of his writings and his books the Iowa City Noon Lions has been able to support many of the community programs as well as state and national and international programs. And we're very proud of that. We're very proud that he was a Lion. He was a Lion for 66 years, I believe. So that is a long time. The City has planned a lot of events for that week and we would like to invite the citizens of Iowa City as well as the Council and everyone to take part in those. I think you'll find that they're a lot of fun. The ice cream social on Saturday night is at College Green Park - that is what the Iowa City Lions is going to be sponsoring. And I understand there will be music and clowns and magicians also there. And we're also very pleased that the City of Iowa City has chosen to fund the statue of Irvin Weber and we appreciate the encouragement that you've given us in that. The sculptors (can't hear) cast will probably be at the ice cream social that evening and you can see a model of the statue. And we look forward in continuing our fund raising this next year and to have the statue in place next summer. So thank you again for supporting Irvin Weber Days and for this proclamation. Lehman: Thank you. Champion: Thank you. Lehman: Steve, we have a couple of our City Staff folks who are coordinating Irvin Weber Day. Mrs. Logsden is one of the folks. Atkins: Yes, Kara Logsden from the library. Correct. Lehman: Who is the other one? Atkins: Barb Coffey is involved. Lehman: That's right. Atkins: Lisa's involved. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #2b Page #2 Lehman: Those two City Staff folks are really coordinating and putting that together and I think we owe them a lot of gratitude for doing that. Atkins: Kara is in the audience. She can raise her hand. Lehman: (can't hear) a lot of work and we do appreciate it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #2a Page #3 ITEM NO. 2a MAYOR'S PROCLAMATIONS Community Development Day July 18 Lehman: (Reads proclamation). Kan': Here to accept is Amy Correia from the Housing Community - HCDC. Amy Correia: It is my pleasure to accept this proclamation proclaiming July 15 - 18 as Community Development Week. As many people don't know HUD establishes a nationally recognized community development week usually in the spring and we just do what we want here in Iowa City. And it was more convenient in the summer. My name is Amy Correia and I live at l 1 South 7th Avenue and I'm a member of the Housing and Community Development Commission where I feel honored to have the opportunity to serve the Iowa City community. And this week we take time out to celebrate the success our community has achieved utilizing these federal funds. In the past few years these funds have supported staff at the free medical clinic, the emergency housing project, the domestic violence intervention progrmn just to name a few. And provided needed - much needed rehabilitation money for Hillcrest family services, the neighborhood centers of Johnson County and the Wesley Foundation also just to name a few. Please attend Thursday's public event held at 4:00 to 6:00 at Pathways Adult Daycare on Pepperwood Place in Iowa City where you will learn more about how these funds have helped our community. I also believe that this week challenges us to look to the future and consider our City's goals and how we respond to community needs. And I think that one way to get started to do this in four ways. The first is we need to concentrate efforts to those most in need. We need to remember that this money doesn't belong to the City of Iowa City or the Housing and Community Development Commission or any one agency. This money belongs to low to moderate income people and we are important stewards of how this money must...can be spent and we're accountable to find out how the needs...what the needs are from low-income households and not through some intemalistic we-know-best sort of attitude. And I'm talking about all of those in the community with stake in how HCDC money is spent. I also believe that we need to face some facts about our community and how it affects low-income people. Forty-six percent of jobs in Iowa City pay below $10 an hour. This makes it next to impossible for folks earning minimum wage jobs for $7.50 to afford a market rate apartment. It makes it critical that we target efforts to improve the rental and affordable home ownership opportunities for low to moderate income housing. There's also a dire need for more affordable rental housing. A City commission study in This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #2a Page #4 1998 - the Maxfield research study - then estimated a need between 1998 and 2000 of over 500 affordable and subsidized market rate apartments. And over that time under 100 units were developed for non-elderly households. This need continues.., will continue to worsen as we loose 64 units of subsidized housing when the Cedarwood Apartments on Broadway Street goes off the market this spring...or this fall. And number three I think we need to address community attitudes that block affordable housing production. We need to say that not-in-my-backyard syndrome just won't hold here in Iowa City. And in tackling and naming these challenges I believe that we truly celebrate community development. Thank you. Champion: Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Kanner: Ernie? Lehman: Yes. Kanner: Since the other proclamation Persons with Disabilities Day is partially celebration of the ADA, could we read that and hit one of our staff to accept that since we're supporting the ADA celebration? Lehman: I'm going to be reading that at their celebration on the 27th at Hickory Hill Park. I've already talked to them about it. So, it will be presented. I should remind Council on the 27th at 10:30, Hickory Hill Park, ADA celebration where they will be accepting that proclamation . and it really should be a great celebration. Kanner: Thanks. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #3 Page #5 · ITEM 3. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED. Lehman: Item 3 is consider adoption of the consent calendar as presented or amended. Champion: We have a motion on the floor. Lehman: We still have a motion? Alright. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: We have a second. Karr: O'Donnell, Champion. Lehman: Now, we're going to discuss the motion. Kanner: Couple items in correspondence. Number three to start with. There was a note here about the fountain being turned off on Friday night for the...during the concert series and I personally would like to give a plug for leaving it on during there and hopefully we could arrange the sound requirements around that. I think that's a real plus. People have talked to me about coming down for the concert series with their kids particularly because of the concert. So hopefully we'll keep that on. I think that's our call. Atkins: It's your call. I would argue that we tried to accommodate as many interests as we can. One of the...it's part of the fun, but one of the common complaints is the 3-year-old who puts is foot on the...and it goes this way. He takes out the whole front row of the (can't hear). Wilburn: It's a tough call. People are really split about whether they want it on or not. Atkins: Yeah. Kanner: Not the biggest issue, but... Atkins: No, I understand. Vanderhoef: It is on...or it was on at least Saturday night for the Jazz. Atkins: Oh, yeah. Friday we have not done that. Kanner: And then even a lighter note perhaps, number 4 Tim Kelly had an intriguing suggestion of a minor league team and I was wondering if This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #3 Page #6 ICAD could approach him about that. I think that would be a good organization - that might be a good way to have some economic development of a minor league baseball team as he envisioned. Maybe the Reds. Atkins: Sure. I mean I haven't even talked to him about it. I think our friends in Cedar Rapids might not be happy about it. Kanner: Well, Single A...what's it called? Rookie league. Atkins: Rookie League. Kanner: But, if you could just mention to him and perhaps... Atkins: I will. Kanner: And that the final thing was number 6 - Caroline Dieterle. She had some concerns that I shared and I think a lot of people do in this city about the so-called patriotic act which a lot of people feel infringes on civil rights. And she asked that we consider what the city - North Hampton- I forgot which state that was in...Massachusetts. It is considered...1 think they did pass actually a response to the patriot act which requires that all...that federal and state law enforcement report to the local human rights commission all local investigations undertaken under the (can't hear) of the U.S. patriot act in orders. And that the community's congressional representative actively monitor the implementation of the acts and orders and work through a few of those sessions found unconstitutional. There is a lot of concern about it being unconstitutional targeting minority populations. And I would ask that the Council consider taking a look at this in the future. Pfab: Is that something we maybe could use as a work session? Kanner: Yeah, that's what I was thinking. We can get some more information on this - talk to North Hampton folks and people around here. Lehman: Is there other interest in putting that on a work session? I think that is what your asking isn't it? Kanner: Yeah. Lehman: We have two folks who are interested. Is there other interest? Well, maybe that is something we can... Champion: I don't know enough about it... Vanderhoef: I need information before... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #3 Page #7 Champion: Yeah, I do too. I don't know enough about it to even make that call. Maybe if you have any information that you can give it to us and we could decide. Lehman: Or read the letter through again and maybe we can talk about it at the next meeting. Kanner: Okay. Lehman: Any other discussion on the consent calendar? Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #4 Page #8 ITEM 4. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Lehman: Item four is public discussion. This is the time reserved on the agenda for folks who would like to address the Council on items which would not otherwise appear on the agenda. If you wish to address the Council please sign in, give your name, address and limit your comments to five minutes or less. Jay Honohan: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council I'm Jay Honohan. I have a new address, however, it's 1510 Somerset Lane in an area which is sometimes called by a prescription drag advertised by Robert (can't hear) Palmero. I'm here to report on the Senior Center Commission. I hope that some of you attended the New Horizons concert at the Ped Mall on June 1st which was we estimate maybe 250-300 people enjoyed the music that night. On a more serious note the Johnson County Taskforce on Aging has been holding seminars or presentations, whatever you want to call them, in regard to senior issues. And we've had State people come down talking about several things and we've had three sessions which were attended by 100-125 people. An item of business that the Commission adopted at its meeting this afternoon we adopted new guidelines for use by the Senior Center and you will be forwarded copies of those probably in your next correspondence. Something of vital interest to the Senior Center Commission is going to occur next Thursday at the Board of Supervisors in formal meeting which I've been told will start at 9:30 and at that time they will be discussing three options as far as the financing of the Senior Center through the 28E agreement. Those options will be to continue as it is now. The second option would be to amend it in some fashion. And the third option, which is being strongly considered, is to terminate the agreement entirely. This, of course, would drastically affect the Senior Center because it would be loss of 20% of our revenue - or our funding - approximately $145,000. We urge everyone who is interested to attend the meeting and attempt to convince the Board of Supervisors to continue their present plan. I have one response to a question that came up at the last meeting from Councilman Kanner. I believe the question was, are we considering charging rent to the Elderly Services Dining Program. At the present time to try to wrestle with the cut that we've had this year of approximately $45,000 in our budget and in pessimistic view of what the County may do we are exploring every option that we can to try to meet the demands of the Senior Center as far as our costs. So obviously we are going to explore renting to everybody that uses the Center. If you will recall formally that was part of the County's contribution was that the agencies that they funded and support were allowed to have space in the Senior Center. And of course we have This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #4 Page #9 not only dining but the Visiting Nurses Association use the Senior Center at no charge. If we can avoid it we don't want to charge anybody rent, but we don't know if we are going to lose $150,000 out of our budget we don't know how we're going to raise that kind of money. We have already instituted delay some capital projects that we wanted to start this year. Now they're delayed and hopefully we can find ways to fund them in the following fiscal year. We have done something which is saving us approximately $600 a month in mailing costs as far as The Post publication is concerned. That is a nice savings of $600 a month, but it stings from a standpoint that we are unable to send literature out to people that don't know about The Post as we have in the past to try to encourage them to know about the Senior Center and to use the Senior Center. We are considering possibly a membership fee with certain limitations as to what you can use at the Senior Center if you are not a person who pays a membership fee. We are also considering the possibility that if you're out of the City limits you pay a different fee than if you are within the corporate limits. We're trying to do...to look at everything we can because we have a serious problem here and we have no answers. And we have not resolved any of these questions at the present time except we have cut the circulation of The Post and as I've said delayed the capital improvements projects. Hopefully, we were informed by a member of the Board of Supervisors this afternoon that we should know by September what the County is going to do. After we learn that good, bad or indifferent we will then know what we have to look at and then we'll be probably talking to you people and to other cities in trying to raise money to run the Senior Center and to keep it open - that's one of my personal concerns is one of the great things about the Senior Center is that it has always been open to everybody. Anybody could come in the Senior Center and this may restrict some people from coming in and that is going to be very unfortunate. If you have any questions, our next meeting is the afternoon before your next meeting so you can come down and ask us. But we'll be happy to have you. We don't have many visitors like you do and our meetings don't last near as long, but we'll be glad to see you. Lehraan: Thank you, Jay. Pfab: Jay, a point of information. I was told that that starts at 9:00 that Supervisors meeting. Does anyone know? Honohan: Carol told me this afternoon about 9:30 would be the time to come. Pfab: Okay, but the meeting may start earlier. Honohan: A regular meeting - a formal meeting starts at 9:00 she said and then the informal starts at 9:30. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16~ 2002. #4 Page #10 Pfab: Okay. Honohan: Thank you. Lehman: Thank you, Jay. Carol Spaziani: Hello. I'm Carol Spaziani and I'm speaking for the public power initiative for Iowa City. I'm co-chair for that organization and Saul Mekies who is the other co-chair is here. As you know we are a coalition of local residents who for the last year have been studying and researching the topic of municipal ownership of electric utilities. We have brought in speakers for public presentations who are knowledgeable on this subject. Jay Logel, executive director of Muscatine Water and Power, Merlin Hove, manager of the Ames Municipal Utilities and Bob Hang, executive director of the Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities. We studied the favorable and stable grates and City income realized by 137 other Iowa cities currently operating their own electric utilities. As a result, as you know, we've been encouraging the Iowa City City Council for many months now to do these things. Not to renew the now-expired contract agreement with the present electricity supplier to Iowa City - MidAmerican Electric. The rate freeze agreement between them and the Iowa Utilities Board is due to expire in December 2005 and we did not believe that it made sense to bind ourselves to a contract in view of that fact. We're glad that you agreed with us. We've also been urging you to become informed about the possible benefits to the utility consumers in Iowa City as well as to the City's tax base which may come with municipal ownership. We've also encouraged you to undertake a feasibility study which would document for us whether this would be a beneficial project for the City to undertake. Our public power coalition now with over 500 supporters wishes to thank the Council for directing your staff to pursue the idea of developing a joint request for proposal for such a feasibility study. We're pleased that Bob Haug of the Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities has been able to coordinate the efforts of at least 11 interested Iowa cities including Iowa City to see how they can work together in the most economical way to get the facts they all will need to make an informed decision. We commend you for sending five relevant City Staffmembers to their upcoming August meeting. Public Power Initiative supporters will be continuing to observe with interest the progress of this effort. As the process moves along we continue to be available and offer our services in any way that you would find helpful. Thank you. Champion: Thank you. Lehman: Thank you, Carol. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #4 Page #11 Kanner: Carol, this is an aside, but it's in connection with Irvin Weber Day, I'm thankful for Irvin Weber's history. It was in one of his histories in the library that I first found out that the citizens of Iowa City in fact voted for municipal electricity back in the early '30's. And I think citizens of Iowa City find all kinds of interesting facts that Irvin Weber maintained in his columns and his books that he put out. Spaziani: Maybe that could be part of lrvin Weber Day - that little... Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Karr: Do you have a motion to accept correspondence? Pfab: So moved. Vanderhoefi Second. Lehman: Moved by Pfab, seconded by Vanderhoef to accept correspondence. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. Holly Berkowitz: Holly Berkowitz, 612 Granada Court. I'm here to encourage you to amend...to support the amendments to reinstate the wetlands regulations. Lehman: Holly, that's going to come up later on the agenda. Berkowitz: Can I talk then? Lehman: Then you may talk. That is correct. Berkowitz: Alright. Lehman: Okay. Berkowitz: Thank you. Lehman: Any other public discussion? Gary Sanders: It's unfortunate. With your forbearance... Lehman: If you would give your name first. Sanders: Gary Sanders. Lehman: Thank you, Gary. Sanders: Since this is item 17 and I can't stay till then, with the Council's forbearance I'm going to speak about it philosophically. I wonder if This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #4 Page #12 you'll give me five minutes concerning the project which you're about to sign tonight since it's obvious what the vote will be and there's no need to argue it one way or the other on its financial merits - time will tell on that - nor on its political merits - since the vote is there. I just wanted to say... Lehman: We had public discussion on this. Tonight the only discussion that's relevant is whether or not we want to sign...whether or not we sign the agreement and whether or not - we obviously haven't received any competing proposals. Sanders: Five minutes? Three minutes? I'll vote for you next time. Lehman: Two minutes. Go. Sanders: Thank you. Champion: I think that's a bribe. Sanders: In contemplating this project I turned to page three in the agreement which is available in the Clerk's office - a massive document. And it says that this site... Lehman: I don't mind you talking about this philosophically. The agreement has passed. Sanders: Yes. I understand. Lehman: So please don't refer to the agreement because that's not open for discussion anymore. You want to talk about the philosophical part of this... Sanders: I was coming to that. Lehman: Okay. Let's start there. Sanders: If I could just say one... Lehman: (can't hear). Sanders: Because what's on page three it says this is block 64 of the original town of Iowa City and when I read that phrase the historical weight of this moment I think should be noted that when you vote on this 14- story building - Steve how tall is the Sheraton? Atkins: 10. Sanders: So we're talking about a building that's 40% taller. 40% taller. Think This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #4 Page #13 about it. 100 years from now when everyone in this room is dead. Everyone watching on T.V. will be dead barfing cryogenics or whatever. Kanner: Ted Williams will be here. Sanders: This building will still be casting a giant shadow across downtown Iowa City. In the words of the developer - also in this booklet - this is a dense vertical development. Now this is not my concept of Iowa City of what we should be about. I wonder how many of you read the full page article in March of 2001 in the Wall Street Journal. Full page about Iowa City - what a wonderful place this is. And we have something here that people around the country are dying for and that's authenticity. And I do not see how this project will help us to become unique or different. Now my vision...my vision is quite different. It would be on that block a world renowned downtown park with lawns, gardens, a giant fountain - a real giant fountain 50 feet high such as another world famous parks. Perhaps a sunken amphitheater, a skating fink like Rockefeller Center. I think this would of course generate no tax revenue, but I do wonder if we're trying to create a destination - and that is the point of this - a destination downtown. What would bring people offthe Interstate? The 14-story building or my vision? Now I realize that at this point the Moen's have or will have very shortly the legal right to proceed and I have nothing but thin air, and some would even say hot air, but I hold on to one very slim reed of hope this past Sunday for the first time in my life I bought a Powerball ticket. Champion: Did you win? Sanders: And I pledge to you that if I win tomorrow night the 35 million dollars I will give the entire amount to this City so that we could have this downtown park. I won't even ask that my name or my family name be on it. I'm completely serious. O'Dounell: Can we get that in writing? Sanders: You can get it in writing. I'll even read the numbers out loud. Lehman: You got it on tape that's okay. Sanders: It's on tape. Because I honestly think - all humor aside - that if we created some sort of oasis downtown for time and memorial 100 years from now I think the residents in Iowa City would prefer this vision to the concrete canyon that we're going to have. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you, Gary. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of.the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #4 Page #14 Kanner: Mozol Tof on those picks there Gary. Lehman: Any other public discussion? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #5a Page #15 ITEM 5a PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. Vacating 32,710 square feet of frontage road right-of-way along the front of the property at 801 Highway 1 West. (VAC02-00001) (1) Public Hearing Lehman: (Reads item). This is a public hearing. Public hearing is open. For those of you not familiar with the property this is the Carousel Motor's property and the vacation is the frontage road. Public hearing is closed. Do we have... Karr: Motion to accept correspondence? Lehman: Hold it we have,.. Wilbum: Move to accept correspondence. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Wilbum, seconded by O'Donnell to accept correspondence. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. (2) Consider an Ordinance Wilburn: Move first consideration. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Wilburn, seconded by O'Donnell first consideration of the vacation. Discussion? Kanner: Now we were talking and I brought up the point yesterday about compensation... Lehman: That comes up under number 18. Kanner: Alright. Lehman: It's on the agenda for tonight. Karmer: I tell you my vote though obviously they're connected. We're vacating in order to convey it and so I think that the discussion is warranted at this point. Lehman: I disagree. I think that if you're not happy with the amount of money we don't vote to convey it. Kanner: But we're...the vote...you move along vacating it, it leads to only one This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #5a Page #16 place for the most part to convey it. Lehman: Eleanor, am I not correct? We do the first consideration of the conveyance before we finish the or right at the same time we do the final vacation? Dilkes: We...the resolution disposing of the property and the final reading on the ordinance of vacation we do together. Lehman: You do it together so they are tied together. Unless - why don't we do that during the discussion of the conveyance. Karmer: Okay. Well I do have some concerns because what happens if we do vacate something and don't convey it? Is it sort of in limbo? Dilkes: I think it's fair to say on this piece of property that the reason that we're vacating it is to dispose of it. I mean we wouldn't be vacating it if we weren't going to dispose it. Lehman: Right. Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries 5-2, Kanner and Pfab voting in the negative. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #5b Page #17 ITEM 5b PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS Changing the zoning designation from Medium Density Single- Family, RS-8 and Low Density Multi-Family, RM-12 to Planned Development Overlay, OPDH-20 to allow 43 elder congregate housing units on 2.12 acres of property located north of Benton Street and east of George Street. (REZ02-00009) Lehman: I have a conflict of interest because I am chairman of the Oaknoll Board of Directors and I will have Dee Vanderhoef conduct this item. (1) Public Hearing Vanderhoef: (Reads item). Public hearing is open. Bob Downer: Madam Mayor Pro Tem, member of the Council I am Bob Downer here representing Christian Retirement Services, the owner of Oaknoll retirement residence. Over the last several years you've heard a great deal about Oaknoll's expansion plans and I won't belabor that this evening. Oaknoll today succeeded in requiring the last of the 10 lots that is involved in this application which also includes Benton Court which was recently vacated and conveyed. I believe that through the Staff report you have seen a site plan and some renderings of what is intended to be developed there. I would have to say that this process, I think, from the standpoint of all parties has worked very, very well here the Staff has examined the proposed plan for this expansion, has made many constructive suggestions with respect to improvement of those. Those have been incorporated into the plan and I believe because of Staff's input there is a better plan for this property and for the neighborhood then was present formally. We did have a neighborhood meeting in which some 20 or 25 neighbors showed up all who indicated felt that Oaknoll had been a good neighbor and were appreciative of seeing these plans for the new development taking place. As you noted Planning and Zoning voted 7-0 in favor of this plan. It is not intended that this would be implemented for approximately five years, but as you know in connection with some of the other rezonings that Oaknoll has had concerns have been expressed because plans were not locked in for the areas being rezoned. This does lock in a plan with the OPDH overlay and one that we feel will fit very well into the neighborhood. If this is adopted I believe that I can safely promise you that we will not in the future be taking up the amount of time on your agenda that we have in the recent past. If there are any questions that any of you have I'd be happy to attempt to answer them. Kanner: Bob, one of the concerns that was brought to my attention was what happens if Oaknoll goes under. You have the zoning here for a more This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #5b Page #18 dense operation and instead of having elderly people with less cars you have regular apartment use in this area. Does you...you're a non- profit organization? Downer: Yes 501 (c) 3 tax exempt - non-profit organization that pays property taxes on the residential portion, but not the health center. Kanner: What happens upon a dissolution of your organization? Who gets any assets? Downer: Those are required to go to another charitable organization that is also a 510(c) 3 organization. I don't recall, frankly, from the articles of incorporation whether there are further restrictions on that. It's been years, frankly, since I've looked at them. But it is required that they go to another 501(c)3 organization. That was a condition of getting the tax exemption. Kanner: Okay. Thank you. O'Donnell: Thanks, Bob. Vanderhoef: Any other questions? Downer: Thank you. Vanderhoef: Thanks, Bob. Anyone else to speak for the public hearing? Seeing none, public hearing is closed. Karr: Motion to accept correspondence? Wilburn: So, moved. O'Donnell: Second. Vanderhoef: Moved by Wilburn, second by O'Donnell. O'Donnell: Right. Vanderhoef: All in favor signify by saying aye. Motion carries. (2) Consider an Ordinance Wilburn: Move first consideration of the ordinance. O'Dormell: Second. Vanderhoef: Moved by Wilbum, second by O'Donnell first consideration. Discussion? Roll call. Motion causes 6-1. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #5b Page #19 Karr: 5-1 Wilburn: Emie's gone. Vanderhoefi 5-1, excuse me [Pfab voting in the negative]. Okay. Call Emie back. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #5c Page #2~ ITEM 5c PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS Public hearing on an ordinance changing the zoning designation from Medium Density Single Family, RS-8, to Historic Preservation Overlay-Medium Density Single Family, OHP-RS-8 designating 3 acres of property located at 747 West Benton Street i a Historic Landmark. (REZ02-00005) Lehman: (Reads item). Public hearing is open. William Buss: My name is William Buss. I live at 747 West Benton Street and I really don't want to take any of your time, but I can't resist in telling you in view of the events of the evening that Irvin Weber's histories mention Cyrus Ranck and/or this house twice. Lehman: Okay. Kanner: How come he went to Michigan to die and didn't die here in Iowa City? Buss: That's a good question. I don't think I have the answer to that. Lehman: Everyone can't die here. Buss: There are a lot of questions about the end of his life that we're not experts on. Lehman: That's very amazing. Buss: So unless there's any questions. Lehman: Thank you. Champion: Thank you for that wonderful... Vanderhoef: Thank you for offering this property to the historic preservation. Lehman: Public heating is closed. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #5f Page #21, ITEM 5f PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS Public hearing on an ordinance changing the zoning designation from Medium Density Single Family Residential, RS-8, to Planned Development Housing Overlay, OPDH-8, for Windsor Ridge, Part 16, a 31.1-acre, 10-lot subdivision located north of Camden Road and south of Lower West Branch Road. (REZ02-00006) Lehman: (Reads item). Public hearing is open. Gary Watts: I'm Gary Watts with Arlington Development. The main thing that I'd like to say is I like to hopefully you will keep us in mind for West Branch Road in your capital improvements projects when you look at that this fall. We're going to need that probably I would say in the next 3-5 years. So I think we're in the five year plan and I would like to see that moved up to possibly in the three year plan because we have this area, Stone Bridge, Southgate's next (can't hear). So if you look at the whole area we're probably have 500-600 housing traits out there shortly in the next 3-10 years. Another thing is I'd like to compliment the City on being proactive with Lower West Branch where I understand the City is going to pay for half of it. The other half is the responsibility on a per acre basis to the developers. And I think as a developer if you lay those things out and be proactive with it as we develop we know what our costs are and I think that makes a drastic improvement on how things develop and as infrastructure comes out more, more housing units will come. So I'd like to compliment the Council on that being proactive with Lower West Branch. Thank you. Lehman: Gary, I think that I should just say that even if Council is acts in a positive fashion on these items that isn't probably to be construed as moving that road project up. It doesn't mean it won't, but it certainly doesn't mean it will. Watts: Right, right. I just wanted you to keep it in mind. Lehman: Okay. Champion: Thank you. Watts: Thank you. Lehman: Eleanor? Dilkes: We need to continue the public hearing. We're making minor revisions to the conditional zoning agreement to August 20th. Lehman: Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #5f Page #22 Vanderhoefi Moved to continue the public hearing to August 20th. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: We have a motion to continue to August 20th by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Dormell. All in favor? Opposed? The motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #5h Page #23 ITEM 5h PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS Consider an ordinance changing the zoning designation from Neighborhood Conservation, RNC-20, to Sensitive Areas Overlay- Neighborhood Conservation, SAO-RNC-20, for a 0.41-acre property located at 341 N. Riverside Drive. (REZ02-00004) (First Consideration) Lehman: (Reads item). Vanderhoefi Move first consideration. Champion: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Champion. Discussion? (End of tape #02-59. Beginning of tape #02-62) Kanner: We're on number H I'm sorry right? Lehman: Right. Kanner: Okay. On Riverside Drive. A couple things. We received a letter about the side area not being wide enough. I had a chance to read that last night and I was wondering if we could hear from one of the Staff in regards to that. They said...the letter stated that even though we're allowing a special exception to the rule about the height of the building it's still is not exempted from the side yard requirements which says for every foot you go up you have to have two feet on the side yard. So we're going up an additional three feet or so which means we need another six feet and they're claiming that this does not meet the side yard requirements and I was wondering if anyone could comment on that. Dilkes: I can do that. I think Mr. Prowell and I just have a fundamental disagreement about how you interpret these various provisions of the zoning code. The provision that he sites 14.6q.5b provides that as a matter of right you can go up an additional one foot in height for each two feet of side yard. As a matter of right you need no minor modification. You don't have to do a SAO zone...rezoning. You don't have to...you just get that as long as you can provide the additional side yard you can get the extra foot of height for each additional feet of side yard. My interpretation of the SAO is that it allows for a variance in the height and when you do that...if you choose - now you have some discretion there as we've talked about - but if you choose to provide for that variance in the height you then do not go back and modify the side yard requirements under this This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #5h Page #24 provision. I'll give you another instance in where a similar thing happens. One can request a modification up to 10% in height under the minor modification procedure - the administrative procedure that goes through building and housing. When they grant...if they choose to grant that minor modification that's a height adjustment and they're done. They don't then go back and look at the provision sited by Mr. Prowell and make the side yard adjustments. So I guess the bottom line is I don't agree with Mr. Prowell's interpretation of the Code. Kanner: Is their side yard - the way it's planned now - meet the criteria if it would be at 35 feet? Dilkes: Yes. Their side yard requirements are met. Vanderhoefi One of the things that came out in the minutes from the P&Z is number one that it's only going up 1½ feet and they were doing it for aesthetics 15urposes in that they thought it brought the roof line to look more in tune with the other buildings in the area. And if you recall the photos we had showing the stepping down of the hill the building to the north is still considerably taller than this building. So I thought personally that this was a good addition to get that additional foot and a half. Kanner: It is awfully close. I took a look up there and I'm just worried about the side of the north building not getting too much sunlight. Going up any further having a sense of being crammed in there. I had another question. We got the minutes from P&Z and from the 6/20 meeting McCafferty or our Staff member was talking about geotechnical and soil report and it appeared that she was saying that we will have the rubble removed from that slope and that there will be samples done to see if it's adequate for the footing. Before it appeared to me that we were being told that there were no soil samples going to be taken from that area where the rubble was so I was wondering if someone could comment on that. Did other people get a chance to read that? The 6/20? Dilkes: Rick Fosse, City Engineer, is here. He'd probably be... Lehman: Go ahead. Dilkes: Or someone from the applicant...or I just wanted to let you know Rick was here. Ralph Stoffer: I am the site engineer on this particular project. There's many different levels of rubble in this area. The area just to the south of this was planted as an alley and in most of Manville Heights the alleys were deep valleys, so we strongly suspect that that has miscellaneous This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #5h Page #25 fill where the existing.., where the proposed building is. There's another area of rubble that's a stable slope to the east of Clark's parking lot and I... everybody agrees that we shouldn't....it's stable now and we shouldn't fool with it. So there...I hope that straightens out any confusion. Kanner: This says here the quote from the minutes: "The applicant had proposed to remove all the existing rubble down to the natural soil." Stoffer: And that's under the building. Dilkes: I talked to Rick Fosse to some length about this issue of soil borings and it seems to me there's some confusion as to when and if they'll be done and for what purpose and I think probably Rick is best qualified to clarify this. Rick Fosse: The design approach as they presented it for the footings for the building is to excavate through the fill material that's there - the rubble and other fill - down to the native soil and then once that native soil is exposed have a geotechnical engineer evaluate the load beating capacity of that and then design a footing that's appropriate. Make a decision at that time whether to go spread footing or deep footing or what's the best way. And that's a reasonable approach to a foundation design... Lehman: And that's on the building site only? Fosse: Yes. Lehman: Okay. Pfab: Is there a possibility that after you do the boring that you will not be able to develop a foundation that will be able to support that building? Fosse: There's probably some minor risk there, but I think it's very minimal because there's all sorts of different foundations systems you can go with. You can go with augur cast piles, regular piles, spread footings, and it's just a matter of evaluating the soils that are there and coming up with a foundation system that's right for those. Pfab: I was always curious why those borings were put offwhen you could've bored down through the rubble I thought and know where you're at. Fosse: I think they've taken this approach because it's economical in that the soil borings ahead of time are somewhat expensive and the approach that they're taking is relatively low-risk for them. I don't know there's enough value in doing the boring ahead of time to be worth it the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #5h Page #26 money. Pfab: So what you're saying that there's about one chance out ora million or a thousand that you wouldn't be able to build a foundation there - a suitable foundation? Fosse: I wouldn't try and quantify that risk. I think it's relatively small though. Pfab: Okay. Relatively small like one out of five? Kanner: Which is a better chance Sander's ticket paying off or the boring? Continuation, when you say the boring will happen where the apartment is going to be built, does that include where the retaining wall is going into the buffer zone that there will be boring done in that area? Fosse: The way I understand their design approach will be the same for the footing and the retaining walls it will be for the footing of the building and I should point out that there may not be actual boring there depending on what they find. They might use a hand penetrometer or just some sort of spoon to check the soils that are right there. So I don't know if they're going to be out there with a full-blown rig doing borings. Kanner: So, whatever they use they have to come back and report to your department what they find? Fosse: To housing. Yes they'll report. Kanner: And say we're going to use this footing and you'll have to check off on it and say yes or no we'll allow you to use this footing? Fosse: Right. The geotechnical engineer will make a recommendation. Then Housing makes a decision whether or not to accept that and generally when it comes from a licensed engineer who practices in that field they defer to that individual's judgment. Kanner: Okay. Thank you. Lehman: Rick, just (can't hear) I hate to waste your time, but has this project met all of the engineering requirements that we have and essential various ordinances? Fosse: Yes. When we...the Sensitive Areas Ordinance the central question from an engineering perspective is will reducing this buffer create a hazard and we looked at two aspects of that - one is the footing design which we just talked about and the other is is it possible that the runoff This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #5h Page #27 from the site improvements could destabilize the slope. And what they're doing is taking the roof drains and tying that into the storm sewer system that's south of this site. So that addresses that second issue. Lehman: So, you're comfortable with the engineering in the project? Fosse: Yes. Lehman: Okay. Champion: Okay. Lehman: Other questions? Thank you very much. Fosse: You're welcome. Lehman: Other discussion from Council? Roll call. Motion carries. Karr: Motion to accept correspondence? Vanderhoef: So moved. O'Dounell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell to accept correspondence. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #5i Page #28 ITEM 5i PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS Consider an ordinance amending the Sensitive Areas Ordinance to regulate isolated wetlands. (First Consideration) Lehman: (Reads item). Vanderhoef: Move first consideration. Wilbum: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Wilbum. Discussion. Kauner: I'd like to offer an amendment. This was the discussed at a previous meeting. The amendment is activities that disturb less than one-tenth acre of a wetland...activities that disturb one-tenth to one-half acre of wetland will be subject to compensatory mitigation or payment in lieu of mitigation. Final approval of the mitigation plan or payment in lieu of mitigation shall be made by the Iowa City Planning and Community Development Department Director. Lehman: Okay. We have an amendment. Is there a second? Amendment dies for lack of second. Discussion? Kanner: I'll be voting against this amendment. The previous level of enforcement that we had under the Corps of Engineers included the level that my amendment proposed. When we asked for the Staffto come back with an amendment that would bring us back to that previous level of enforcement to protect isolated wetlands this was left out. It should have been in there and I feel that the present amendment that only protects isolated wetlands that are ½ acre or larger in a multi- unit development or anything other than single family does virtually nothing and I think it's worse for us to pass this than to not have it. I think our protection would be nil and we need to have a stronger sensitive areas ordinance. I'll be voting no against this. Lehman: Other discussion? Wilburn: I think it's important what these sensitive areas ordinance as we try to implement this and protect some of the areas to help guide development. I think it's important to help strike a balance between the development that's going in and restrictions requirements that we mandate while also trying to afford some protection to those sensitive areas to try and make a difference when we can and do what we can to do some of those things to protect some of our waterways. We talked last night about the ability of some of these smaller ponds to collectively help with recharging aquifers and perhaps in some cases This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #5i Page #29 with flooding control. So I hope the Council will see to try to continue what is at least an attempt in seen in some people's eyes through the legislation and the activities of the Corps prior to the Supreme Court ruling to continue to do what seems to be or has been a practice established in terms of philosophically what we want to have to cover so I support this. Lehman: Other discussion? Pfab: I will be supporting this. I think this is probably not a resolution that is going to directly effect us as much as it is for people - future generations down the road. Lehman: I have just one comment. We have...the recommendation that we have received from Public Works, Engineering, and the Planning Staff was that we follow the Army Corps' regulations. I do not believe that our staffwould have recommended that if they felt there was going to be a negative effect on the area. I also understand we're probably talking about very, very small areas the ones that may not be significant. My other feeling is that if this proves not to be the case we can certainly come back in some future point and be more restrictive so I will not support this. Roll call. The motion is defeated 5-2, Wilbum and Pfab voting in the affirmative. Kart: Motion to accept correspondence. Champion: So moved. Lehman: Moved by Champion. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Seconded by O'Dounell to accept correspondence. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. Holly Berkowitz: Hello. Lehman: Hello Holly. Go ahead. Berkowitz: If you're going to protect sensitive areas you have to be sensitive and big regulations and big pieces of equipment are not sensitive to the cellular levels of life that you need to develop the productivity of the land. And you need the productivity of the land to carry the life like humans forward. And I think that we need to strengthen this even more beyond the largeness of it. And I feel that the Supreme Court action in 2001 was wrong. And I think that we need to make a strong stand against it. I think we need to reinstate the original intent and we need to...I heard that smaller is not significant. That is wrong. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #5i Page #30 If...the atom is significant. It has caused the most fear in the 20th century. The cell is significant. We couldn't be here without the cell and the cellular organisms and the cellular functions that it produces. It's amazing what the cell can do, but it's also amazing that the cell is so sensitive to abuse. And humans abuse cells and life and lands and they put everything asunder. And humans have to protect the life and the land or else they're going to kill themselves. They can't go around trampling the land and killing off the vegetation, covering it with concrete and expect the land to carry them. I rest my case. Champion: Thank you, Holly. Lehman: Thank you, Holly. Yes? Berkowitz: Are you going to strengthen this? Lehman: We just voted not to for the time being. Berkowitz: But, you didn't let me talk before that. Lehman: But I just did let you talk. If someone on the Council would like to reconsider the vote who voted in the majority I would certainly entertain a motion to reconsider. O'Donnell: No. Berkowitz: Connie and Dee I was fairly disappointed that you did not consider this important...that the sensitive areas ordinance is not worth protecting. Vanderhoef: Oh, but we are protecting the sensitive areas ordinance. We just are taking one small piece out of it at this point in time and we may put it back in. Berkowitz: Please do. Champion: Thank you Holly. Lehman: Thank you Holly. Becky Soglin: (Can't hear) for point of order we did not hear the opening for public discussion on that. Lehman: Public discussion was at the last meeting. Becky Soglin: We were confused then we thought there was public discussion allowed at this item. Kauner: Public heating was at the last one. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #5i Page #31 Lehman: Right. Kanner: Tradition is you could speak usually, but Ernie is usually good about that. O'Donneli: We've already voted. Berkowitz: How do we know when to come up? I mean you voted before... Lehman: Holly, generally speaking we have public heatings so the public is invited to attend. Whenever we have a resolution on the floor I have as Mayor allowed public...the public to speak. We did have discussion among ourselves. That is the time when I generally will allow the public to speak if they choose to. Berkowitz: So when you say discussion that means we're suppose to come up? Lehman: Discussion generally after a public hearing is for the Council. I, however, have also allowed the public to discuss it if they choose to to come up the podium. No one came up to the podium. The Council discussed it. We voted. We had the public discussion and the public heating two weeks ago. The public has had an opportunity to speak. Generally speaking it's probably not the proper protocol, but I do allow people to speak after the public hearing. But, no one came up to speak and I don't generally encourage folks to speak after we've already had a public hearing because the entire public knows of a public heating. It seems somehow a little unfair when you have a public heating and you close that heating to then allow people to speak without other folks having the oppommity. In other words the public heating was at a time advertised for the public. Those pro and those con had an opportunity to speak. Berkowitz: Then I should have been able then allowed to speak during the public discussion, I think. Or the opportunity should have been made more clear I think. Lehman: Well, I apologize for that, but that was the point. Berkowitz: Thank you. Lehman: Yes? Pfab: This brings up just a little interesting point here. I'm wondering if this procedure is something that we may want to talk about at a work session. Lehman: Well, or we can talk about it when we get the Council time. Let's go through the agenda. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #5i Page #32 Pfab: But in a sense because you found two separate individual people that were totally unconnected came up with the same problem. Lehman: We'll talk about that later. Pfab: So, I think it's something we ought to take a look at. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #6 Page #33 ITEM 6 A LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND NEXTEL WIP LEASE CORP. FOR USE OF CAPITOL STREET PARKING RAMP SPACE FOR AN EQUIPMENT SHELTER AND SPACE ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE ELEVATOR PENTHOUSE FOR ANTENNA USE. PUBLIC HEARING (a) Public Hearing Lehman: (Reads item). This is a public hearing. Public hearing is open. Alex Novak: Good evening Mayor and Council members. My name is Alex Novak of Novation Group Consulting, Minneapolis, Minnesota. I represent Nextel Partners in acquiring telecommunication sites and the real estate on which to put those sites. Please to have reached an agreement between the City of Iowa City and Nextel Parmers and with regard to leasing space on the Capital Street ramp. I just wanted to publicly acknowledge the efforts of Joe Fowler and Chris O'Brien of the Parking Department and also Andy Mathews of the City Attorney's office. The lines of communication between all parties was very open and the discussion was very productive and the end result was a lease that was agreeable to all parties. I'm hear to answer any questions the Council may have on the project and just thank you for your time and entertain any questions you may have. Lehman: What is the range of rent that you typically negotiate per month for an installation such as this? Novak: Such as this...actually this is near the top end. We have been looking for a site in downtown Iowa City since September of 2001 and we went...we've gone through three other properties in downtown and for whatever reasons on all three hit stumbling blocks and ultimately came to the parking ramp. And at first it took a little convincing on the part of the Parking Department. Our initial offer to the Parking Department was significantly lower than where we ended up, but you know it's a bit need for Nextel. It's a capacity site which means Nextel has existing coverage in the area, but it has so many users currently that the service isn't up to where it should be. So this site will serve the additional capacity. I think there's at least one department at the University of Iowa that uses Nextel phones exclusively and at least one other department that's currently reviewing a proposal to purchase Nextel phones. I know the Sheraton all of their staff has Nextel phones. So with that demand it became very important for Nextel to add a site in downtown and than goodness we were able to work it out because we were running out of options height wise down here. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July ! 6, 2002. #6 Page #34 Champion: Can you just explain to the public that this is not a big...what this actually is. It's like - it's not a big tower or a huge antenna coming off the... Novak: Correct. This is not a tower. These will be 12 panel style antennas which are affixed to the face of the elevator penthouse on top of the Capital Street parking ramp. They're going to be painted to match the exterior of the ramp and they will not exceed the height of the existing elevator penthouse. A lot of people probably won't even notice. Kanner: Alex, thanks for coming here. I'd like to know exactly who we're negotiating with and I'm glad you put a face to that. Can you tell a little bit of the history or where your company is and what they do. Is this the only thing they do? What exactly are these signals going to be and what communication devices will be making use of them? Novak: Yeah. You know .... Sure. A brief history on my company. My background is in the real estate industry - primarily in development and I started Novation Group Consulting about two years ago. And through a couple of different channels got involved in the development of telecommunication sites. So, you know, my clients are the carriers and whether it be negotiating space to lease in a farmer's corn field or bean field or leasing a rooftop in a metropolitan area, my charge is to find suitable real estate for the carriers on which to place their equipment. We do build big towers or find space to build big towers or you know likewise rooftop space. With regard to what type of equipment this is going to serve - this is specifically Nextel Communications. This is digital, cellular phones or to put it in easy term Nextel's specialty is the digital two-way radio feature which is popular with a lot of small businesses. You know that two-way communication between whatever home-base and employees in the field or whatnot. To put it in basic terms it is digital cell phone coverage. Kanner: So, you're contracted out by Nextel. Who is Nextel? Novak: Nextel is - well let's see I'm trying to think of size - I think they're the fifth largest carder in the nation based in Kirkland, Washington. You've never heard of Nextel? Kanner: No, I'm not familiar. Novak: Really. Okay. Lehman: U.S. Cellular? Kanner: What. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. '#6 Page #35 Lehman: Heard of U.S. Cellular? Kanner: Yeah. I've heard of that. Lehman: They're pretty close to the same, aren't they? Novak: Yeah, they're basically the same service. What really puts Nextel above and beyond normal cell phone carriers is the two-way radio feature that their phones carry. Oh, let's see. A couple of stats for you Nextel added 1.99 million subscribers in 2001, ending the year with 8.7 million wireless subscribers. They expect to add another 2 million customers in 2002. Kanner: (Can't hear) company? Novak: Excuse me? Kanner: Publicly traded company? Novak: Yes it is. Yes. Kanner: Thanks. Pfab: Do you follow the stock market on the stock of the company? Novak: You know what quite honestly... Pfab: No, no there's a reason. Novak: Okay. Pfab: Go ahead...just I'm asking the gentleman the question and I'd like to have the right to right to do it. Novak: Sure. Pfab: Are you aware of what the stock does? Novak: I have several clients, I don't really follow the stock. Pfab: I think today there was an interesting thing that came across the wires today and I think if I understand correctly this company deals primarily with large companies. That's their focus. Their customers are generally business - large businesses. Novak: I would tend to say in general terms more so than a normal cell phone carrier. Pfab: And I think they have an exceptionally good day to day and I think This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16~ 2002. #6 Page #36 the...I'm just remembering a couple little things that I came across. I did not connect that at the time I was listening to it and it said that their profit margin was like 40%. Now my problem is did...is this a...is the City getting a fair rate or a place in this unit in the tower. Novak: The City is getting a well above average rate for what we normally pay for lease amounts. Kanner: For a downtown area? Novak: Yes. Pfab: Okay. Is there any other examples of where you have placed these units in comparable cities recently? I'm concerned...and I'm also concerned and I brought it up last night at our work session that there's only a 3% increase in the rental unit over the next five years. I think that's extremely low. Novak: It's 3% a year. Kanner: 25 years. Novak: It's 3% a year. Pfab: Yeah okay 25 years. It's five years or five options. I think that is... Dilkes: Well, they're options that the City...with City consem is required. Pfab: City consent is required? Novak: Yes. Pfab: Is them...is it a renewable - start all over? Or does the City have to strenuously object if you find out that the cost or the rent we're getting is extremely low. Dilkes: The City need only give notice that they don't want to renew for the next five year option. Pfab: And then it's over? Is that it? Okay. Novak: And it's...maybe our signals were crossed here. You said 3% over five years - it's 3% per year. Pfab: Yes I mean 3% growth rate. Novak: CPI was a little of 1% last year. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #6 Page #37 Pfab: Yeah, but this is an extreme high end technology. Champion: I guess you buy some other stock. Pfab: I didn't say I wasn't. Novak: I've done rooftop leases. P£ab: But that's not my position here. My position here is to protect the Parking Division of the City of Iowa City that they get the best deal that they can. Novak: Right. Pfab: That's my only interest. Novak: Right. And I can honestly tell you we're paying a lot more here than we are in most other places. Pfab: Would you...are you willing to give us a list of ones around that you've negotiated with? Novak: Yeah. Pfab: Okay. I would like it. Kanner: Just tell us one off-hand in another City. Novak: City of Muscatine I did an $1100 lease a month just a few months ago - it's a brand new lease. Karmer: For comparable size with the three parking space size? Novak: Yeah. Pfab: But, citizen base is a lot smaller. (Can't hear). Novak: I did one in Moline on the Bank 1 building - that one is $1400 a month and that includes reimbursement for utilities. So the rent was $1100 and we added on $300 for utilities. In this case we're paying for our own utilities. Pfab: Okay. It was just a question. Novak: Sure. Pfab: I don't know. Novak: That's exactly what I'm here for. That's great. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #6 Page #38 P fab: Okay. Lehman: Does anyone else have any questions? Thank you very much. Novak: Thanks for your time. Kanner: Thank you. Lehman: Anyone else wish to speak at the hearing? Hearing is closed. Do we have a motion. (b) Consider a Resolution approving O'Donnell: Move first consideration. Champion: Second. Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Champion. Discussion? Roll call. Dilkes: It's a resolution. Lehman: All in favor. Dilkes: No, no, no I'm just noting it's a resolution so we're done after this one, · Lehman: Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #7b Page #39 ITEM 7b PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT, AND ESTIMATE OF COST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE VOICE COMMUNICATIONS PHASE 2 OUTSIDE PLANT PACKAGE PROJECT, ESTABLISHING AMOUNT OF BID SECURITY TO ACCOMPANY EACH BID, DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, AND FIXING TIME AND PLACE FOR RECEIPT OF BIDS. (b) Consider a Resolution approving Lehman: (Reads item). Do we have a motion? Champion: So moved. Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef- Champion, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion. Kanner: We're not going to have to rent space from Nextel for this are we? Atkins: No, sir. Kanner: Okay. Lehman: Roll call. Pfab: I have a question. What types of data signals will this take care of?. Atkins: As I understand it when we've strong all of this cable in fact between all the various city offices it will give us option for voice, data, and video. Pfab: Voice... Atkins: Data and video. Pfab: ...and video. Atkins: And (can't hear) facilities. Pfab: Plus phones. Kanner: Will we allow other access channels to hook in on this? To the video? Atkins: I don't know. Didn't have that question posed. I can ask that. Pfab: Is there capacity built into this thing (can't hear). This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #7b Page #40 Atkins: Yes. There's plenty of capacity. This is a long, long term decision. Pfab: Okay. Lehman: Roll call. Motion canies. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #8b Page #41 ITEM 8b PLANS, SPECIHCATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT, AND ESTIMATE OF COST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE ANIMAL SHELTER HVAC PROJECT: PHASE II, ESTABLISHING AMOUNT OF BID SECURITY TO ACCOMPANY EACH BID, DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, AND FIXING TIME AND PLACE FOR RECEIPT OF BIDS. (b) Consider a Resolution approving Lehman: (Reads item). Do we have a motion? O'Donnell: So moved. Champion: Second. Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Champion. Discussion? Vanderhoef: I just think it's very nice that we have assistance fi.om the animal shelter gift fund within fi.om community funds that are helping to pay for this project. Kanner: How much are they kicking in, Dee? Vanderhoef: I don't know. Atkins: And I can't tell you just yet until we've received the bids back. Then we'll put together a cost sharing. (Can't hear). Excuse me. You have a great deal of latitude in making that decision. When we get the bids then we'll get a better idea on it. Kanner: Good Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #9b Page #42 ITEM 9b PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT, AND ESTIMATE OF COST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE 2002 CURB RAMP PROJECT, ESTABLISHING AMOUNT OF BID SECURITY TO ACCOMPANY EACH BID, DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, AND FIXING TIME AND PLACE FOR RECEIPT OF BIDS. (b) Consider a resolution approving Lehman: (Reads item). Wilbum: Move adoption of the resolution. Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: (Can't hear) by Wilburn, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? Roll call. Motion carries. Vanderhoefi Could we have an update sometime in the future here to see how we're actually doing - the progress on these throughout the City. Atkins: I think this represents 60 plus locations throughout town.- it's a pretty good sized contact. But I will get you an update. Sure. Vanderhoef: This one is 60...? Atkins: Yes. Vanderhoef: Just in this contract? Atkins: Just in this contract. Vanderhoef: And this is the third year or the fourth year that we've been doing... Atkins: More than that. Champion: More than that. Atkins: I imagine it's the seventh or eighth. Lehman: Didn't we have one year that we weren't able to do it because we didn't (can't hear). Atkins: We have traditionally put... Lehman: Every other year. Atkins: ...over $100,000 a year into the project. We found we were having This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #9b Page #43 ' trouble getting bidders so we would bunch them up trying to get - and this is a group we put together that we think we can get a pretty good bid from. Wilbum: This ought to help increase accessibility. Atkins: Yes. Curb drops. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #10 Page #44 ITEM 10 AMENDMENTS TO THE FY02 AND FY03 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN BUDGETS, THAT ARE SUB-PARTS OF IOWA CITY'S 2001-2006 CONSOLIDATED PLAN (CITY STEPS) AS AMENDED, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT SAID AMENDMENTS AND ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND DESIGNATING THE CITY MANAGER AS THE AUTHORIZED CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER FOR THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN. Lehman: Item 10. Wilbum: I need to as in the past meetings abstain due to a conflict of interest with the CDBG Home Funds due to my employment by a receipt agency. Lehman: Thank you. (a) Public Hearing Lehman: (Reads item). This is a continuation of a public hearing that commenced on July 2nd. Public heating is open. Michael Wright: They never want to come offdo they? Good evening I'm Michael Wright, 815 Roosevelt in the Longfellow neighborhood. Speaking on possibility on disbursement of these funds to the developer of Metro Plains. The Longfellow neighborhood is a very diverse one. I do not attempt to speak on behalf of anyone but myself. I am very in favor of low-income housing being developed in this site. However, the current plan calls for 22 units which would radically change the character of the existing neighborhood. Those are all rentals with the ability to own only coming after 15 years. We have local agencies which I think would show more flexibility and more willingness to work with the residents already in that area. I think this is something we can probably do better at home. Thank you. Kanner: What did you say as far as affordability? Wright: I didn't say anything about specifically about affordability. Kanner: I thought...what did you say 15 years? Wright: After 15 years of renting, the homes might become available to the tenants (can't hear). Kanner: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #10 Page #45 Lehman: Let me point out before we go any further that the amendments before us do not include Metro Plains project. We have, I believe, if I'm...help me on this one if I misspeak - we can accept the recommendation of HCDC which removes the Metro Plains project from the program and gives the funding to another program. We can reinstate Metro Plains - that's the second option. We can re-advertise - we can follow the recommendations of HCDC and not award Metro Plains, but re-advertise for projects for the $250,000 that would have gone to Metro Pl~xns. Or the fourth option for Council is just to put the $250,000 is contingency. So the amendment as it is presented to Council is to remove the Metro Plains project from the plan and in place of it give the $250,000 to Bums & Burns Project. So that is what the public heating is relative to and obviously we have four different choices. Okay, public hearing is still open. Jeff Schabilion: My name is Jeff Schabilion and I live at 431 Rundell and I'm glad that you still have lots of options before you. I see two basic issues involved in these kinds of discussions. One has to do specifically with the issue of is the Longfellow neighborhood and Longfellow Manor redevelopment area an appropriate area for affordable housing. And I think that question is answered with a resounding yes. Longfellow neighborhood is a great place to live. It has incredible social, economic and ethnic diversity and high energy level. It has a real sense of neighborhood pride and involvement. There is a thriving neighborhood school. There's active neighborhood association that has neighborhood garden walks and nature trails and ice cream socials. And virtually the whole neighborhood is included in various historic districts and conservation areas. So obviously it's a great place for anyone to live. So the real issue, I think, becomes Metro Plains plan for affordable rental housing in the Longfellow Manor a good plan and I think the answer there is a clear, resounding no. So why do I believe that there are major defects in that proposal. One of them I think is the high concentration of rental units in a really a very small area. Why do I find that a problem? Well Longfellow Manor was established as a planned development involving a home owner's association to oversee the on-going maintenance and to have design review of new townhouse units. This foster we thought a good sense of community, of ownership and pride and involvement. And Metro Plains plan if they were to succeed would give them controlling rights of that association. So in a very real sense it would disenfranchise all of the people who live there as renters and all of the people that live there now as home owners. They would have no real voice in that association because Metro would have the controlling vote rights. Another important potential problem is a lack of architectural diversity in the 20-some units proposed in Metro's plans. I've seen proposed plans for one unit and actually that looked very nice, but the issue is This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #10 Page #46 having just come from a meeting with Metro and seeing other developments that they've done is they take that plan and they will repeat it most likely 20 times - twenty similar if not identical units. So you end up a cookie cutter look. You end up with a cloned neighborhood if you will. I just wanted to call your attention to the fact that Howard Moffet - the person who built the house I live in built over 100 rental units in the Longfellow neighborhood - over 100 rental, for-rent units - no two of them are alike. Champion: That's for sure. Schabilion: And that's why people love the Longfellow neighborhood. That's one of the reasons why it's become a historic district. Not because all of them are alike, but because all of them are different, unique. So, Metro Plains plan proposed plan likely to make Longfellow Manor incompatible with the rest of the neighborhood's architectural diversity. So in conclusion Iowa City needs good affordable housing rental or to-buy or whatever. That is clearly acknowledged and I think accepted by virtually everybody in the City. Longfellow neighborhood is a good place for such rental housing, but wherever such rental housing goes I would urge you to think in terms of dispersed geographic location. Developers always think we've came from a meeting where Metro Plains said they couldn't consider less than 22 units being built together. It was just not economically feasible. I urge you not to fall under that mindset. Geographic distribution of units. Architectural compatibility with the diversity. In the Longfellow neighborhood or any neighborhood I think architectural diversity would be good. And if possible have local involvement in the development and the oversee of such projects. Metro Plains plan may be economically feasible and rewarding for them, but it is not in the best interest of Iowa City. So I ask you please to find a better solution for affordable housing. Lehman: Thank you. Kanner: Jeff, perhaps you're arguing...you are arguing that the City shouldn't facilitate the things you object to, but on the other hand the City could facilitate some of the improvements you'd like to see. And isn't it the case that Metro Plains it's a good chance that... (End of side 1, Tape #02-62, beginning of side 2) Karmer: ...anyhow if they don't get...even if they don't get this money. Schabilion: Well, I doubt that very seriously. I'm not an economist. I'm not a developer, but I doubt that seriously. If they don't get that margin I doubt it. But ask them that question. I certainly can't answer it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #10 Page#47 Lehman: Okay. Thank you. Before we go...in all fairness to the...and I think I see a large number of folks from Longfellow and I don't know Eleanor is it appropriate for me to ask the Council if there is any interest in the Metro Plains project before we...I don't sense an interest on the part of the Council in pursuing the Metro Plains project and I would...if those folks are interested in convincing us of something we're already convinced in. Is the Council willing to indicate their lack of interest in Metro Plains? Pfab: I would like to respond to what you said. I think that to not let these people speak. Lehman: I'm not saying that. Give them an indication if there is support on this Council for that project might make a difference - some of these folks may not wish to speak, but feel they need to speak. O'Donnell: That's right. Pfab: Well, but I think they came here wanting to speak and I think to shut them off. Lehman: No, no I'm not saying... Champion: It's not shutting them off. Lehman: You don't get it. How many people...are people on the Council willing to... Dilkes: There may also be people here from Metro Plains who wish to speak Lehman: I'm well aware of that. Champion: And they're welcome to speak. Lehman: Okay. Go ahead. I do not support the project, but that's fine. Champion: I do not support the project. Wilbum: And I don't Vanderhoef: And I don't either. Lehman: Okay. O'Donnell: That's four. Lehman: Public hearing is still open. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #10 Page #48 Public hearing is closed. Do we have a motion approving... Karr: Motion to accept correspondence. O'Dormell: So moved. Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Vanderhoef to accept correspondence. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries (b) Consider a Resolution approving Lehman: Do we have a motion consider approving the amendments? Vanderhoef: I will make the motion. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef. Champion: I'I1 second it. Lehman: Seconded by Champion. Discussion? Pfab: I'm sorry. The amendments - you mean as... Lehman: As presented. Dilkes: As presented. Pfab: Voting to change the money to Bums & Bums. Lehman: That's correct. That's the way it's presented. And we have as we're all aware of four (can't hear). So, discussion of the resolution. Vanderhoefi I would like to offer an amendment that places the recaptured dollars from the Metro Plains project to be placed into contingency and go out for further bids. Champion: Dee, can I just question it a second? Vanderhoef: Sure. Champion: Do you mean out for new proposals or contingency doesn't necessarily mean that they would ask for proposals now does it? Vanderhoef: We could ask for that and that's what I was recommending. Lehman: But, you're asking that we re-advertise it. Dilkes: I think that Karin can you... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #10 Page #49 Vanderhoef: Can we do both at this time or do we need to separate it? Franklin: If what you want to do is go out for new projects, then you want to choose option three to go through a reallocation process and solicit new projects. You don't want to put it into contingency. Champion: Right. Dilkes: And so that would be an indefinite deferral of this resolution with direction to take proposals. Franklin: Yes. Vanderhoefi So if we put it into contingency then you're saying that it would sit there tmtil the next funding. Franklin: Right - until the next allocation cycle. And I think one of the efforts is to try to get this money used productively. O'Donnell: Then option three would... Vanderhoef: Then option three rather then put it into contingency and go out for it I will restate it - that we recapture the money that had been allocated to Metro Plains and to go out for new proposals for those dollars. Champion: I'll second that motion. Lehman: We have a motion and a second. Now that in effect. Kanner: Eleanor was advising that we perhaps withdraw the amendment and do a deferral? Withdraw Dee's amendment and do a...? Dilkes: My understanding is that once this - and Karin correct me if I'm wrong - but my understanding is once this amendment passes it goes to HUD and it's to be in final form. If you still have further process that you want to do before you want to put these amendments in final form (i.e. solicit additional proposals) and before you decide where you're going to put this money then that seems to me to be a deferral not an amendment to this resolution. Vanderhoef: Rather than an amendment. Lehman: Would it be appropriate then to request a motion for deferral and struck the Housing Development Commission to re-advertise for the monies and come back to us when they have a recommendation? No I'll ask for... Dilkes: We need to withdraw the motion to amend. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #10 Page #50 Vanderhoefi But we can do it by the deferral. Lehman: Right. Do we have...? Vanderhoef: I will withdraw. Lehman: You withdraw your second? Champion: Yes. Lehman: Okay. Now we're back to where we're started. O'Donnell: I'd like to defer this but... Lehman: With instruction to .... Dilkes: Send it back to... O'Donnell: So we're going to send this back to Housing for option three. Lehman: Okay we have a motion by Mr. O'Donnell. Kanner: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Mr. Kanner. Discussion. Atkins: Emie, may I participate for just a moment? Lehman: Please. Atkins: Just so we understand our instructions, it is your intent with this legislative action that you want us to go through a formal proposal process. That is back out to the world, let them know these monies are available, let them submit proposals, Metro Plains could submit, Bums could submit - it's open. Lehman: Is that the intention of your motion? Atkins: Is that what I understand you want? Champion: Yes. Atkins: You're not limiting it other than the typical (can't hear). O'Donnell: (Can't hear) and I don't think we should limit it. Lehman: You're understanding? Okay so the understanding that is correct. Atkins: Karin is that...Karin's nodding yes so that's... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #10 Page #51 Lehman: So we all understand each other that this is an open playing field. Champion: I guess I'd like to say the reason that I would like to do this is I (can't hear) would like to see some affordable housing for citizens in the community dispersed throughout the community and I think we have some wonderful ways that we can do that with our affordable dream homes, Iowa City Housing - I can never remember their whole name. What is it? O'Donnell: Greater Iowa City Housing. Champion: The Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship. I think there's some oppommities out there that this money could be used for and I'm hoping that those kind of projects will apply for this money. Lehman: Okay. Any other discussion? Pfab: Yes. I'm going to respond to a couple things that were said. First of all Jeff says Iowa City definitely need low-income housing and what we are doing by sending it back is just delaying that process. The money is here, there's a developer here that will go ahead and do this. Jeff also made the comment that he wants local development. This is where you have the Bums & Burns. Also, Connie you said that you wanted a way to disperse this - these houses amongst the population. That's exactly what Bums & Burns are going to do. What else do you want. I mean I think that if we do not do this I think that we are not...we're talking one way and walking another way. Lehman: Irvin, I believe, if I'm not mistaken and correct me Karin if I am - last night's statement was made that the Bums project still has to apply for tax credits and going out and re-advertising is probably not going to take any longer than it would take for the Bums project to get their application for credits anyway. And Bums project is eligible and still could be acceptable along with any other project. But time wise there probably is no difference. Kanner: And also we had a 3-3 vote at HCDC with a couple people missing and I think it merits going back through the hopper of HCDC to review this. Pfab: How....I don't know how I can walk amongst the citizens of Iowa City and say I support this because I think this is just dragging on a desperately needed operation. I think it's here. It's ready to go. There's been a lot of work on it and maybe I don't like the way Bob Bums combs his hair, I don't know, but I think for what the citizens need this is what you need to do. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #10 Page #52 Lehman: Okay. Other discussion? All in favor of the deferral say aye. Opposed? Motion carries 5-1, Kanner voting in the negative...or Pfab I'm sorry. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #12 Page #53 ITEM 12 CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 7, CHAPTER 1, FIRE PREVENTION AND PROTECTION, ADOPTING THE 2000 EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE, REGULATING AND GOVERNING THE SAFEGUARDING OF LIFE AND PROPERTY FROM FIRE AND EXPOS/ON HAZARDS ARISING FROM THE STORAGE, HANDLING AND USE OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES, MATERIALS AND DEVICES, AND FROM CONDITIONS HAZARDOUS TO LIFE OR PROPERTY IN THE OCCUPANCY OF BUILDING AND PREMISES IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY; PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS FOR HAZARDOUS USES OR OPERATIONS; REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 99-3869 OF THE IOWA CITY CODE AND ALL OTHER ORDINANCES AND PARTS OF THE ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT THEREWITH. (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Lehman: (Reads item). Vanderhoef: Move first consideration. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef. Champion: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Champion. Discussion? O'Donnell: This does not include the chimineas -right? Lehman: This proposal does not...this proposal allows the... O'Donnell: chiminea Lehman: ...chiminea over the objection of the Iowa City Fire Department who feels they should not be allowed. Discussion? Wilburn: I think it will be something that we have to continue to hear reports from the Fire Department if they are having problems with this - with the chimineas. O'Donnell: You know I don't disagree with that but I think this is a case of overregulation and you can also look at outdoor barbeque grills and tiki torches. Many people have fireplaces on their decks and I just think people have purchased these, they'll use them. They brought up possibly burning yard waste in them - those who've brought them up have truly never seen one of these. And I will support this, but I would not have supported it with the chiminea. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #12 Page #54 Lehman: I think it's an enforcement nightmare. O'Donnell: Yeah. -- Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries, 6-1, Pfab voting in the negative. Karr: Motion to accept correspondence. Pfab: So moved. Lehman: Moved by Pfab. Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Vanderhoefto accept correspondence. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #14 Page #55 ITEM 14. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 14, CHAPTER 5, ARTICLE D, MECHANICAL CODE, BY ADOPTING THE 2000 EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL, AND PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN AMENDMENTS THEREOF; TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE HEALTH, WELFARE AND SAFETY OF THE CITIZENS OF IOWA CITY, IOWA. (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Lehman: (Reads item). Champion: Move first consideration. Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? Roll call. Motion carries. Vanderhoef: Before you go on... Lehman: I'm sorry. Vanderhoef: I would be in favor to collapse the votes on those four ordinances at the next meeting il' everyone else... Champion: I was going to suggest the very same thing. It's a very non- controversial and (can't hear). Vanderhoef: And we have not had input on that so. Lehman: I would appreciate that so I don't have to read them two more times. Vanderhoef: And along with it why we have not had comment I would like to offer my thanks to the Board of Appeals and all the builders, plumbers, electricians and so forth. Those folks have spent a lot of time in meetings helping work through this ordinance to bring it to us and I promise you I don't understand all those ordinances and it's not my job to understand them, but the people who were concerned have gone and put their input in and have recommended these to us and I thank them for their time. Lehman: Is that comment relative to the next two as well? Vanderhoefi Uh-huh. Karr: Mr. Mayor just two points of order. You're going to have some This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #14 Page #56 special meeting on the 19th for planning and zoning ordinance anyway and it does take an extra ordinary majority to collapse so is there not just four of you, but are there... If you're not going to have six to collapse we still would need the 19th and 20th. Vanderhoef: If we're going to be doing a formal meeting on the 19th we can do a 19th and 20th we just have to read them again. Lehman: I think that we've decided that was going to be our procedure so I think perhaps we can that put it on as a special meeting at the work session or pr/or to the work session. Vanderhoef: Let's do that. O'Dormell: That's fine. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #15 Page #57 ITEM 15. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, ENTITLED "UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE," CHAPTER 5, ENTITLED "BUILDING AND HOUSING," BY ADDIING A NEW ARTICLE L ENTITLED "LICENSING" TO ESTABLISH A CENTRALIZED PROCEDURE FOR EXISTING LICENSING REQUIREMENTS AND TO ESTABLISH LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DESIGN, INSTALLATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF FIRE SPRINKLERS AND FOR THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF FIRE ALARMS. (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Lehman: (Reads item). Pfab: Move the resolution. Lehman: Moved by Pfab. Champion: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Champion. Discussion? Kanner: Tim I don't know if this would you who would answer this. Could you tell us briefly how much more difficult it will be for people to get the license and install these and what will you get in return - the citizens of Iowa City for that. Tim Hennes: The licensing procedure will be very similar to what we do with the plumbers and electricians now. It's a pretty simple process. There's qualifications that you need to get that. What the citizens of Iowa City get is insurance that fire alarms and fire sprinklers and the maintenance of those systems is done to a minimum standard for life safety. Champion: And the price that they are to install I think is really good to know when you hire someone to do that it's going to be done properly. They're not cheap. Hennes: We've kept the electricians, the sprinkler contractors and the maintenance people and the fire alarm contractors they've worked all the way up the ranks with this. So I think we'll see this in more jurisdiction as time goes on. Kanner: Are we the first one to do that...to do this in Iowa? Hennes: I couldn't answer that for sure. I think there's other jurisdictions that do it, but I think we're being very proactive in taking this step. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #15 Page #58 Kanner: Thank you. Lehman: Thank you Tim. Any other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #17 Page #59 ITEM 17. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST AN AGREEMENT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT AND SALE OF LAND FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, AND THE PLAZA TOWERES, L.L.C. AND MARC MOEN, MONICA MOEN, AND MICHAEL MOEN. Lehman: (Reads item). O'Donnell: So moved. Champion: Second. Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Champion. Byron Ross: Can we have a public discussion, sir? (Can't hear) up-to-date is very critical. Lehman: I've never refused to listen to the public Mr. Ross. Ross: Happy 61st birthday Mr. Chairman. Lehman: Thank you. Ross: Dick Larew and I wrote a letter to (can't hear) column. It was not for this project for the reason that it's going to cost the tax payers $7,100,000 gift I think that's what grant - if you looked in the dictionary it says grant - gift. It's going to take we move 11 million property tax dollars in the future out of the taxpayers pocket. But another more critical thing is parking for the library. And something came up that we can't give Saturday, we can't do this, we can't do that. So I've punched the numbers for the library. One of the partners - not a partner, but indirectly the hotel - kind of a key to this project is it not? It seems to be. They have a contract with the City for parking. They pay $4500 a month and then the rest of it at the end of the year. It just happens - slip up on the City for the year's ended 6/30/00, 6/30/01 they forgot to bill excess. Probably $35,000 a year. If this they had to know it if they didn't I'm disappointed in their management. If they did know it it's a gotcha. Do you want to approve something till you find out more? You don't have to do it tonight. Find out more about this. Was it a gotcha or was it intentional? They owe you for those two years and I stumbled into it. Any questions? Champion: Are you talking about the Sheraton? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. # 17 Page #60 Ross: The Sheraton yes madam. Pfab: Could you...I don't know if I understand. Ross: The Sheraton has a contract with the City on that and they pay $4500 a month and then get billed for the excess at year end, but I made my comparison to what all this property tax is going or parking was going to do to make sure because in the City audit year ended last year it said that the debt service coverage on parking was supposed to be 125 your actual was 121. You were illegal. You've raised the rates and stuff, but it hasn't increased the occupancy. I run all those numbers. I add the percentages. The revenues did not go up as fast as the rates went up. When I was doing this there was the Dubuque parking ramp deal with the Sheraton. There was two years - year ended 6/30/00 and 6/30/01 in which it said $54,000. The year before it was $96,000. Last year was $86,000. Maybe their volume went down. I don't know what's going on. But you're going into an agreement in which they are a key part and if it was a gotcha I would want to know. If it was a so-called honest mistake I'd want to know that. And hopefully you can wait 5 or 10 minutes. Any questions? Lehman: Thank you Sir. Kevin Perez: Hi. My name is Kevin Perez, 161 Columbia Drive. And I spoke on this about a year ago and first of all I want to say that I mean no disrespect to the Moen Group or any other people who have offered on this project. I just...it just seems to stink from the get-go. You know let's just start with the property tax assessment. It's a 1.7 million dollars and they're only paying $250,000. I know some people think the assessor is wrong across the board but that's quite a 1.5 million dollar mistake. We all know that money goes to a low and moderate income people which is...to benefit them which could be a park, it could be a pool, it could be whatever. And that's money that's easy to take away because it was never there, but it would be nice to have. You know it would be nice to have them pay that 1.75 million. I know I talked with Ross outside. He was saying the finance person said it was fine and everything was, you know, it was fine to give them the 6 million dollars and let them pay $250,000 because we have the money for that and it all looks good. But...I'm sorry I'm going to backtrack a little bit the T1F money most of it - so people understand how it works - I think it is...you take a piece of property worth a million dollars, you make it worth 20 million dollars and you don't tax the 20 million dollars right away. You sort of build up to it by giving big discounts. Well, this particular TIF seems to be writing a check to the Group for 6 million dollars up front. And correct me if I'm wrong we're paying 6 million dollars up front and then repaying it through property taxes starting in the year 2007, I believe. So essentially...I mean I'm just This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #17 Page #61 going to run some numbers at you real fast. The 1.5 million and the 6 million if you add those together and you charge maybe a 6% interest on that money, the City of Iowa City is going to see a dime of that money in March of 2031. It's going to take that long to pay that money back. This big huge project is not going to generate any money for the City except for the people that work on it. When you're in the negotiation project, you know, while you were negotiating, did anything negotiate positively for the City? I mean did we get...we underpaid on the project, we gave them 6 million dollars and we're not going to see a gain until 2031. Is there, you know, what did the City get? Anybody? From this project? Lehman: We're not here to debate you. We're... Perez: I understand, but you guys...I figured out I paid $36,000 a year in property taxes that my landlords basically gave to me to pay and to fund this project I have to keep paying those property taxes. I haven't gotten anything for my businesses and it's just going to get more difficult and more difficult because we all know that...from that guy that was just talking about parking - we know less people are coming downtown. We know that. It's obvious. But the property taxes keep going up and the revenue keeps going down. Therefore, it makes it harder for me to succeed in my businesses while other people keep getting their money. I mean in this thing - this project proposal page 33 it says market value of property is 22 million dollars - a little bit over - liens and mortgages are 12 million. That means the group has about 10 million dollars in pocket money. Why are we giving them the breaks? It just seems like the rich keep getting richer. You know, if you look at page 33 that is what it says. Why are we giving them those breaks? Why are we writing a 6 million dollar check? You know that's a lot of money and you know we can't even open Sundays at the Rec Center because we don't have enough money for the pool. But we have 6 million dollars to write a check. And again, you know, I looked through the other projects, but I'm not going to get into that, but there's a lot referrals to you liked the buildings that they had. Well (can't hear) the Etc. building. Had any problems with that bar? You know next door we had the Burger King building that's been empty for what a year and a half. I mean everything is not as perfect as it seems and so I just think that you really should reconsider how much money we're spending and whether you negotiated properly in, you know, with the money. It coming down to the taxpayers that have to come up with that money. You know, we're not going to see a penny until 2031. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Let me just... Wilburn: If I may, Emie since my name was brought up I will just say Mr. Perez This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #17 Page #62 is entitled to his opinion and it was his time at the microphone and entitled to whatever spin he wishes on the comments that were made so I won't debate him here because that's not the purpose of the exchange here. But I will say that I appreciate the less combative tone and nature of the comments made here in the Chambers. Lehman: Before we go any further we have discussed the merits of the contract with Mr. Moen. We have voted on I don't know how many amendments were presented a month ago. Contract was proved by the Council. There's a 30 day period during which anyone else who wanted to submit a competing proposal could do so. No has submitted that competing proposal. The item on the agenda tonight is whether or not we sign the agreement that we agreed to a month ago. Now that, frankly, is the discussion is whether or not we sign the agreement. Perez: Okay. I just wanted on the basis...and this is one of my problems when I read through this the proposal had to be worth $22 million dollars. Well that cuts out a lot of things. I mean if you consider what's best for the City is a $22 million dollar project, but the $22 million dollar project when we're giving $6 million on the first place we're not seeing any money until 2031. So a $14 million project where we're not giving $6 million...let's just say and I run the number on a $14 million project...in 2031 they've already paid $9.8 million in property taxes. So with how this proposal makes we have to have a competing proposal there are too many restrictions. And I think that was very unfair because if you have somebody come in and say I want to spend $14 million and I don't want a penny from the City, then that's an equitable offer. I mean they're equal in what they do. Lehman: Okay. Perez: That's just my point and wanted to make it. Thanks for your time. Lehman: Thank you. Kathy Cochran: Thank you. I'd like my five minute to discuss this and I understand the difference between an open forum and what you're doing here tonight. My name is Kathy Cochran and I would just like to point out that - and I am a resident of Iowa City. I live at 1815 ½ High Street. And I would just like to say something. We may live in Iowa but just because you build something doesn't mean people will come. Alright. And I urge all of the Council people here tonight to step back from this and not sign because what you are proposing is going to be the most foolish goose egg that you have ever signed and 20 years from now when people look back on this and if you sign this I hope they curse all of your names because what's going to happen is...I just can't even fathom that we're to this point. We have a parking lot that was This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #17 Page #63 proposed at one time to be the expansion of the library. People didn't want that because for various reasons. The parking lot now - actually we'd be getting more revenue now if it keeps being a parking lot for the public library according to the statistics here, you know, talked about tonight that someone could keep it be a parking lot and you're still going to be making revenue on it. And it's not going to be a six million dollar gift to a corporation that's going to be building another hotel when there's a hotel right there. The grocery store has merit, I suppose, except that it's going to do detrimental effects to the grocery stores in other customer services in the area. You have Osco Drug. You have Pioneer Co-op. You have John's Grocery. You put a grocery store right in that area that's going to hurt all of those three businesses in that same area. Also with the housing situation, yeah, I think it would be great to have more affordable housing downtown. Bur the situation with all the housing going on downtown I don't think that's it's going to end up being affordable housing. And there is still no place to park. So I really wish that you all would reconsider this and not sign this. Maybe let someone else come up with a better idea that isn't as costly or in theory more making money in the long term, but more beneficial to the City in the short term. I really urge you this. I mean everybody said that you guys have already made up your mind. Please, please think about this and reconsider this. It's crazy. I can't even believe that I have City Council people who are actually considering this. It makes me absolutely just...boggles my mind. Please prove that you're smarter than this. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Colin Gordon: My name is Colin Gordon. I live at 1122 Rochester. I spoke against this proposal when it...at the formal open hearing and I just want to make a couple quick follow up points now and not repeat myself. And I guess what I'm really asking for is a clarification from the Council or perhaps from Staff. My understanding of the urban renewal statute which is Iowa Code 403 is that there are two criteria by which an urban renewal parcel qualifies for tax increment financing. One of these is that it is designated as a blighted area and the blighted area is defined in the Code in a fairly straightforward manner - it has to do with dilapidated building and threats to health, safety, welfare and morals. It's a very old definition resting on the police (can't hear). The other...the alternative requirements to qualify is an economic development area. My understanding of the letter and the spirit of the Code is that trader either designation the purpose of urban renewal is to provide housing for low-income and moderate-income peoples. In fact the economic development section of the Code requires that. In the letter of the Code if the area is, as I understand it, is designated a blighted area then it's written to the very assumption of the urban This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. # 17 Page #64 renewal statute that in eradicating blight you're creating housing for people of low and moderate incomes. And I guess my question perhaps to City Staff is that I see a legal problem here in having this agreement conform to Iowa Code 403. Dilkes: Ernie, John Hintze who's with our bond counsel the Ahlers Law Firm in Des Moines is here and if you would like him to respond to that I'm" sure he can. Lehman: John. John Hintze: Yes. John Hintze with the Ahlers Law Firm in Des Moines. The gentleman's correct that there are two bases for urban renewal plans. One is the blighted area. The other is economic development. The particular parcel we're talking about here was originally set up in 1969 as a blighted area and then when you designated your expansion of the urban renewal area you added on another parcel in December of 2001. That area was designated as an economic development area. And so the piece that we're talking about here was since 1969, was reaffirmed in 2001 as a blighted area. As a blighted area you can do both residential. You can commercial development. You can do anything within those confines as long as what you're doing is making improvements to the blighted areas. It's not restricted to residential. I think where the gentleman is a little confused - if you're dealing with an economic development area then there is a requirement that a certain portion of proceeds be used for housing in that area. But that particular provision has no applicability to this particular case because was, still is in a blighted area. Was designated as such since 1969 and reaffirmed as a blighted area in December 2001. Your resolution which was signed on November 13, 2001 specifically makes reference to the fact that this is a blighted area and so we have no problem from a legal standpoint. Lehman: John, would this fall under the category as the other urban renewal projects that were undertaken in Iowa City back in the late '70's and '80's. For example The Old Capital Center was built. I do not know of any housing component. Hintze: The whole notion of economic development is a legitimate basis for urban renewal didn't even come into the Code until 1996, 1997 timeframe. Up until then everything had to be based on the fact that it was a blighted area. What really happened in regard to the question about the portion going towards housing. What happened is that a number of developers had convinced some cities to annex ground on and basically for the purpose of building housing developments and then what the legislature said is all right if you want to use TIF ~ financing to subsidize new housing developments on the basis of This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #17 Page #65 economic development then we're going to extract a quid pro quo for the fact that you want to use TIF financing for that we're going to say that a portion of T1F financing needs to be directed toward low-income housing. And so that was the basis for tradeoff for having economic development as being a basis for moving forward versus the blighted area. And so within your area that you have both the last amendment specifically designated as an economic development area so when you get into that if you have a project that comes up in that area then you have to take a look (can't hear) there's other requirements in addition to the one that's mentioned here. This is multi-step process that you go through. But where this particular property is this is the old City property - the old urban renewal since 1969 and so the whole notion of economic development didn't even come into existence, I said, until the 1996/1997 timeframe so we believe that you're fine from a legal standpoint where you are right now. Lehman: Okay. O'Donnell: Thank you. Gordon: I understand the distinction between blighted and economic development. In fact I was surprised to learn earlier this week that the designation here was blight and not economic development. The other legal question it seems to me that the City is opening itself up to is I'm not familiar with the Iowa case law, but I know the case law in other states has found that in urban redevelopment areas they can't be held to be blighted in perpetuity. That when the area is substantially redeveloped the blighting designation it doesn't outlast the redevelopment. So in this case just really from the question of the spirit of the law and a common sense assumption is you look at the area it doesn't meet any of the definition requirements of blight in terms of threats to health and safety and dilapidated housing. And so my question is when does the redevelopment area designated blighted substantially redeveloped all except one parking lot cease to be blighted? Hintze: The answer to that is basically when you determine that is no longer blighted and again as I said that your resolution as recent as December of last year indicated that the area was still considered from the Council's standpoint to be a blighted area. So it's good until it's determined not to be good under Iowa law. Lehman: Okay. O'Donnell: Thank you. Lehman: Other discussion? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #17 Page #66 Kanner: John is there any case law on this kind of issue? Because I have concerns that we call something a duck does it make it a duck. Just because we call it I have doubts that it's going to quack. So I was wondering is there any case law in regards to this in the last five years since... Hintze: It's very limited. Matter of fact there's only one case that I'm even aware on the whole economic development and it had nothing to do with this that went to the Iowa Supreme Court. So you don't see much litigation in this area and so it's very deferential to the municipalities and their designation and their elected officials as far as what they decide. Lehman: Other discussion? Dick Larew: Good evening. My name is Dick Larew. I grew up 50 years ago on the property - much of the property that you're talking about. (Can't hear) an annex I used to unload the soil pipe down there. I feel close to you because I also built the first part of City Hall here when we moved down to this location. There were two things that I was concerned about so I ended up co-authoring with Brandon Ross an article expressing my concerns to you. One is that I have been convinced by people that I know in this community that we were going to maintain positive parking for the new library as we expanded it and it seems to me we've lost that in this development and I'd like to see you rethink it. The second thing is that I had at least in my mind an understanding that we would be moving toward some improvement in affordable housing as a result of this parcel of land and the improvements and I see just the opposite occurring. I've heard that there was something very favorable about this grocery store which I have to admit I visualize as another liquor store with groceries by the time we get down 10 years from now. This is what I visualize at least because I don't see the demand for a grocery store there. And we have lots and lots of space available now. If someone really saw a demand we'd have another grocery store downtown. You've got the time. There's no real rush. Could we take these next two months and think about it some more? Make sure that the library board is comfortable with no parking. Is it reasonable for us to have to proceed on this issue at this time? I don't think so. One alternative is always to not take action and I urge you to not take action tonight. And it's good to meet you again. I was away for 20 years in Ohio teaching and I've come back and I always enjoy meeting people again and I thank you for your service to the community while I was away and now that I'm back. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. //17 Page #67 Brandon Ross: My name is Brandon Ross and I would like to echo the sentiments of the people who came up before. I think that the people are not convinced that this is good for us. I think this is a bad idea. I think that you're giving away things and taxes that we should be able to have in this town. I think that the need for a second hotel in that same area, I think, is very questionable. I think aesthetically it can be a bad decision. Right now the Moen people are constructing something on Lirm Street which I think is an atrocity which is across from what used to be a cottage. The building doesn't fit. It was poorly planned. I think this is poorly planned. I think that the numbers are questionable. I think the library argument is a very good one. I think I cannot see any reason why you should be rushing into this. I think aesthetically it's a very questionable idea. A lot of people who love the pedestrian mall are terrified about this. I have spoken with many, many people - many people who are in great disagreement with this and quite a few who are still in question as to how this thing had gone so quickly like this. Many people believe that what we're dealing with here is big money and bad development. I just wanted to express that voice. I think that it's a mistake and that you should rethink it and if you could put it off. There's no rush. What are we rushing into. We're giving somebody a large amount of money. He has buildings in Iowa City. There's already been problems with those types of things regarding Etc., Burger King as was previously stated by the Owner of One- Twenty-Six. His name is Kevin Perez. And I think these things all need to be looked at. It just smells bad to a lot of people. I don't think it looks good for this City. I think you can do better and I ask you to do so. Thank you for your time. Lehman: Thank you. Okay. We've taken all the public comment that we're going to take. Is there comment to Council prior to our vote? Pfab: I would like to make a comment now. I believe that something that came to the microphone and spoke earlier I believe her name was Amy. She made a comment and it's bothered me for a long time and that is the money that this project is going to eat up - and I think that's the right term - is money that really doesn't belong to us to give away. I think it's Federal money that was given to the City of Iowa City in a fiduciary as us as fiduciaries to see that it went to low and moderate income people for housing and this is not where it's going. (End of Tape #02-62, beginning of Tape #02-63) Kanner: I'll second. Lehman: We have a motion and a second to defer. All in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. The motion is defeated. We better raise our hands on this one because I can't tell - who voted to defer? The This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #17 Page #68 motion is defeated 5-2, Kanner and Pfab voting in the affirmative. Further discussion? Connie, do you have any comments. I think we'll just go down and let each Council person make their comments. Champion: You know this does not come up suddenly. This has been going on for a long time. One of the reasons we didn't want the library built on this parcel was because we wanted development there. This, you know, it's a major project and the Moen's are getting some good TIF financing, but they're building what we asked them to build and we, I think, those who support this project think in the long run it's going to be a very positive thing for Iowa City and not negative. I would hope that I wouldn't make a decision that I think in the long run would bad for Iowa City. I mean that would be terrible. But I do think it's a good project. I think it's going to provide some avenues for small conferencing downtown. I think the hotel will be successful. Yeah, the City is putting money into it with TIF. But you know what the Moens are the ones who are really at risk here and I don't see them backing away. You're not backing away are you? So I'm going to definitely support this project. Lehman: Mike? O'Donnell: Well, I too support the project. And this has not been something that came up overnight. There's been a great deal of thought put into this. Mr. Larew, you've been around town apparently as long as I have. I remember the Whiteway being very successful downtown for a long, long time. We now have more apartments downtown which I do believe will support and there will be enough to support the surrounding businesses. It's a difference. We could have accepted a different project. It's your philosophy whether you want more student housing downtown or you'd like to have business or the opportunity to have business. And I disagree with the building on Linn Street being atrocious. I think it's absolutely gorgeous. It's a matter of opinion. I support the project. I certainly support the Moens and I look forward to this. And I am going to support it. Lehman: Dee? Vanderhoef: I think I made most of my comments the last time when we voted on this. I'm terribly frustrated with this whole proposal in the manner that it has moved forward and then not moved forward. The speed with which the contract was presented to us and we were asked to vote on it. I think the understanding of the financing has been difficult. I think it takes a long time to understand it. And I don't see the protections in the contract for the City. I heard comments tonight about the 6 million. Well that's true and something that doesn't happen with financing is the 1.1 million that the City must can'y to just This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #17 Page #69 finance the 6 million and then if we talk about a conservative figure of 1.5 million for the property that's being written down to $250,000 if my addition is correct what is coming in this contract is 8.35 million dollars to the developer and at the same time we are giving up $85,000 per year off of the Vogel House which is in my mind we've been trying to build our tax base and to pledge a second building taxes to pay offthis building and even then the payments don't pay the 1.1 million of carrying charges. It's confusing for a lot of people. I just don't think we're getting the best project or the best use of our money and I cannot support it. Champion: Can I just comment on Dee before Ross goes? Wilbum: Go ahead. Champion: I understand your concerns, Dee, but you've never supported the project so it isn't the contract that you're not supporting. You've never supported the Moen project. Am I right? Vanderhoef: I have supported one o£two projects the hotel with 144 rooms was my first choice, but even giving that - once that decision was made then I have looked at this project straight out from the contract portion. After having read the negative appraisal by the Carlson Group that did the appraisal on the project it, in my mind, confirmed for me why I didn't support the project to begin with because I didn't feel that it was going to be a supportive project and I still feel that we don't have guarantees to keep the project as it was advertised, as it was proposed to us and that to me a big reason why I didn't support the mixed juice in the first place. And now with the contract that I have and the appraisal that says we have negative value for the land. I just cannot go forward with this. The contract now that I'm against. O'Donnell: That's clear. You've explained it well. Lehman: Okay. Ross? Wilburn: We've all made excessive comments about this in the past. I would agree that it has been quite some time since the whole process started. Just highlight again that Mr. Sanders brought up the idea of a fountain and park there. I was willing to leave it as a parking lot. That happened it seems like a year and a half ago I think it was. But anyway in my opinion Connie's right the Moen's were one of four groups that responded to series of requirements that we would like to see on the project. In my opinion I don't believe that the agreement for the group would be substantially different from the others. All of them were requesting some form of T1F financing from the City. This is a negotiation. When you sit down at the table it's real easy when This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #17 Page #70 you're not the one sitting at the table to say what you would do. It's a difference when you're sitting down at the table. I think that the Staff did what they could to try to protect the interests of the City, to make sure that the financial arrangements, the risk involved in terms of the structure of the finances is, you know, it's similar to other TIF projects in terms of some of the assumptions that you may or may not make. I hope you go forward with this project well. Put forth that good forth effort. I know that you agreed to things like the minimal assessment on some of the properties. I don't know the others would have been willing to do that so I appreciate your willingness to do that. Good luck with the project and I look forward to seeing it built. Lehman: Steven. Kanner: I think this project does not meet our financial assistance guideline. Connie, you talked about great investment - there's very little personal investment - $300,000 is my understanding out of close to $22 million dollar project the personal group money put into this. When we look at CDBG funding we look to see what percentage the private money will be going...what percentage of the project will have private money and this doesn't even come close to significant investment of private money to what we're putting in for public assistance. It's way out of whack. And talk about inflexible. A number of amendments were offered at a previous vote on this and I think if some of those were passed it would have brought us closer to full support from the Council. And there were amendments for selling the property to its closer originally appraised price, making sure the grocery store stayed a grocery store with severe penalties. And the one that's most befuddling is the refusal to peg the payments based on possible future increase in interest rate. I find that very inflexible and saddening that that wouldn't even be considered by the majority that's voting for this. And finally we've heard a number of points about the legality of this. I think perhaps it might meet the exact letter of the law, although that in mind is somewhat doubtful, certainly in the spirit it is questionable. The appraisal we had a letter from HUD that perhaps we ought to get another appraisal after the second one came out to a negative value on the land. And also we just heard tonight that there's some questionable designation that this whole...I assumed that we were designating this...this was economic development since we've added land to that urban renewal area and now to find out that it's blighted area. Well, it's not blighted area at all. We all know that. It's a very healthy economy downtown. And so for all those reasons I'll continue to vote no unless some amendments are offered and I would consider those if people at this late minute wanted to offer some amendments similar to what was offered last week or some of them. I would consider that if you wanted to show some flexibility. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #17 Page #71 Lehman: I think this process has taken a long, long time. We asked for RFPs. We four proposals. This Council along with the public at public meetings at the public library were presented the four proposals that were given to us by Mr. Moen and three other projects. The consensus on the part of the public, I believe, and also on the part of the Council was that the Moen proposal was the one that we felt was the best one for this community. And I think that was a comanunity consensus as well as the majority of Council. We instructed our staff to work with Mr. Moen and put together a contract and he did that with the consultation of a firm - a legal firm out of Des Moines. I have some people for whom I have the greatest respect who do not support this project. They think it's a bad idea. I've got a number of friends who I also have the greatest respect for who are friends of those that don't like the project who think this is a wonderful project. In most communities this would be visionary. And I think we have to look at what we believe, and we may be wrong, what is in the best interest for this community not tomorrow or the next day, but what's going to be here 10 years or 20 years or 30 years or 50 years from now. What that really does for this community. I believe this project isn't like in fact visionary. I believe the ancillary value of this project for this community is enormous. IfI didn't believe that I would not support it. But I do support the project and I compliment the Staff on the effort that's gone into this. I certainly respect those folks who disagree with this. I also respect those folks who think we're crazy if we don't move forward with it. And I am to no small degree concerned about the impression that this community is going to give the rest of the folks who wish to invest in this community by turning down the opportunity to see an investment of this type take place in downtown Iowa City. I think it's a statement of how we feel about economic development. Roll call. The motion carries, 4-3, Champion, Wilbum, Lehman and O'Donnell in the affirmative. Kart: Motion to accept correspondence. O'Donnell: So moved. Wilburn: Second. Lehman: We have a motion and a second to accept correspondence. All in favor. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #18 Page #72 ITEM 18 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO CONVEY 32,710 SQUARE FEET OF VACATED FRONTAGE ROAD RIGHT- OF-WAY ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF 801 HIGHWAY 1 WEST, AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON SAID CONVEYANCE FOR AUGUST 20. Lehman: (Reads item). Champion: Move the resolution. O'Donnell: second. Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Steven, I think is the one that you had some comment on. Kanner: Yeah, the question is and comment is in regards to the exchange of other work on this property instead of receiving a square foot payment. And we're told that them some convoluted goings one when this property came into our possession, but I think that over the last 10 years we've been told that they did receive use of this. And I think it's the best way to do accounting is to get a marketed appraisal of the property and to get paid for square foot and then work out other deals down the road if we wanted to do that. Champion: I think that's a valid point, Steven, except they've already paid for the road. It was given to the City by them. Lehman: Well I think these are things that are going to have to be discussed at the public hearing. Champion: Oh, right. This is just setting a public hearing. Lehman: It's setting the public hearing but I think the issues that Steven is bringing up will be relative at the public hearing. Atkins: The memo sort of stepping through the history might help (can't hear). Lehman: Prior to the public hearing. Atkins: Because they had to buy it and had to dedicate it, had to improve it and then it was not used for a public thoroughfare and they wish to close it and the impression is they're buying back what they've already... O'Donnell: Correct. Lehman: Can we get a memo? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. # 18 Page #73 Atkins: It's kind of an off-the-books - it has the appearance of that and I think that...let me get a memo out about the history. Lehman: Prior to the .... Pfab: So I mean at this point we're going to cease discussion at this point then? Lehman: Well we're going to set the public hearing, but we'll get a memo. Atkins: We're setting the public hearing. I'll prepare a memo. Pfab: Okay. Alright because if we're going to discuss then I'm going to jump in, but if not. Kanner: Well, this is - people can vote against this if we don't want to convey, if we're saying we don't want to convey. We have some questions about it, you can vote no on the notice of intent to convey the 32,000 square feet. Champion: You're right. Kanner: I think that if we...let's vote no and get some answers back or a memo on the history of it. Atkins: Well, isn't this setting a public hearing? Wilbum: Setting a public heating. Pfab: There's no vote right now. Lehman: This is just saying... Kanner: Well, we're legally obligated to send notice of intent it would be my understanding because we're intending to purchase property. That's the main reason we're voting on this. And so if you don't want to convey the property at this time, don't send notice. Lehman: Okay. Other discussion? Is this a roll call? Dilkes: Yes. Lehman: Let's do the roll call. Pfab: I'm going ask what are we voting on? Lehman: We're voting on the resolution to set the public hearing on intent to convey. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #18 Page #74 Pfab: I just wanted to double check Lehman: The motion carries, 6-1, Kanner voting in the negative. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #19 Page #75 ITEM 19 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST A CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE FIRE STATION 3 ADDITION AND RENOVATION PROJECT. Lehman: (Reads item). Estimated cost was $168,795. We got base bids ranging from $122,700 to $143,610. Public Works and Engineering is recommended rewarding the contract including two alternatives to Moore Construction Company of Iowa City in the amount of $155,290. Pfab: Move the resolution. Champion: Second. Lehman: Moved by Pfab, seconded by Champion. Discussion? Vanderhoefi Was the engineers estimate for just the base bid or for base bid plus the alternative. Atkins: Kumi's here she can help you. Kumi Morris: The engineer's estimate that was submitted was just for the base bid - the $168,795 was just for the base bid. Lehman: So the bid actually came in $46,000 less than the estimate. Morris: That's correct. Lehman: And we added alternates to come up with the $168,000. Morris: That's correct. Vanderhoefi Which still is $13,500... Morris: $155,290. Lehman: $155,000, right. Still under the estimate, but including the alternate. Morris: That is correct. Lehman: Okay. Vanderhoef: And if you add in the alternates, we're still $13,500 less than... Lehman: Right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #19 Page #76 O'Dormell: That's a good bid. Champion: What are...the alternatives was for storage. What was the other alternate? Morris: We had two alternates. Alternate one was to expand the back of the building to include more storage. Champion: Right. Morris: And the second ad alternate was to take the existing sleeping area and convert it into two storage closet spaces as well as a more useful fitness area. Champion: Okay. Lehman: Okay. Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #20 Page #77 ITEM 20. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE OF UNPAID MOWING, CLEAN-UP OF PROPERTY, SNOW REMOVAL, SIDEWALK REPAIR, AND STOP BOX REPAIR CHARGES AND DIRECTING THE CLERK TO CERTIFY THE SAME TO THE JOHNSON COUNTY TREASURER FOR COLLECTION IN THE SAME MANNER AS PROPERTY TAXES. Lehman: (Reads item). Champion: Move the resolution. Vanderhoefi Second. Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? Pfab: I just have one question about the procedure and just for information. It says after being billed at least twice these owners still have not paid the abatement cost. Is it possible that the mail is not being received by these owners? Do we know that that mail is being... Kan:: We have some of some of them that have been returned to us. We've kept them in the file and then we've reissued them to the forwarding addresses as well. Others that have not been returned to us we assumed they have received. Pfab: Okay. Alfight. I just...when I saw that it was just a question you know. It might be good to tell somebody (can't hear), but if they aren't hearing that it doesn't do them any good to tell them. Champion: Do we ever do like a lot of businesses do like when they get a bad check or something or they send a certified letter to prove the person's been notified of it? Is that necessary legally at all in that situation? Lehman: Well, is it necessary? Dilkes: I think we've complied - I can't remember what the exact mailing requirements are - but we've complied with them. I don't think the certified mail is... O'Donnell: Okay, good. Lehman: Okay. Vanderhoef: Did we find out about putting those hours in there? Karr: You have a revised on in front of you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #20 Page #78 Dilkes: We took them out - the hours. Lehman: The hours were taken out. Dilkes: It wasn't required so we thought that was a good suggestion so we... Vanderhoef: Okay, thank you, Lehman: Roll call. (Motion carries). Kart: Motion to accept correspondence? Vanderhoef: So moved. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell to accept correspondence. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #21 Page #79 ITEM 21. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A SECOND REVISED CHAPTER 28E AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND THE CITY OF CORALVILLE REGARDING CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS INVOLVING THE IOWA RIVER POWER DAM RENOVATION PROJECT. Lehman: (Reads item). Champion: Move the resolution. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Pfab: Yes, I would just like in layman's language - I'm not opposing it, but I'm just...if there was a simple way to explain why the change is (can't hear). Lehman: The second revised Chapter 28E agreement will reflect the revised design changes and procedure for property acquisition. Pfab: What does that really mean? What is going out on the ground...going · on at the site? Dilkes: Well the existing 28E agreement which basically allocates the responsibilities for payment and acquisition and design and those kinds of things between the two cities is being revised for two primary reasons. One is that the design has changed and we need to agree to that new design and I can't, as I said last night, I can't address those issues. And secondly the property acquisition - Coralville is taking the lead on the property acquisition which was not the case under the existing 28E agreement. So we're setting up a system for that. Pfab: Is the project as it is...as it is being reconfigured is it going to be much different than it was? Dilkes: I don't think it's any different than the one that was shared with you last time you all looked at it. Pfab: Okay. I was just wondering was there...I know there's some (can't hear). Dilkes: That really wasn't the main impetuous for this agreement. It was the property acquisition issues. Pfab: Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #21 Page #80 Lehman: Okay. Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #25 Page #81 ITEM 25. CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION. Lehman: Starting... Steven, we'll start with you this time. Kanner: Okay. One I'm having office hours here in the Civic Center lobby from 10:00 to 12:00 this Saturday, July 20th. So I welcome folks to come down have a quivit, a little bagel, talk some issues. That's again from 10:00 to 12:00 this Saturday, July 20th. And I had a question about what's happening with the discussion on the age of consent - 12 year age of consent? Weren't we going to have a discussion at a work session on that. Atkins: We have it on the list - it's just a matter of getting to it. Kanner: Okay. So that's coming up. Atkins: Pester the Mayor if you'd like. Lehman: As soon as we can work it in. Atkins: It's just been a matter of the agendas being full. Your next one is going to be jam packed. Lehman: Well, and my suspicion is that the next work session also includes the neighborhood nuisance ordinance and the airport commission. So that's going to be another big one. Atkins: Yeah. It hasn't been forgotten - it's on the list. Kanner: Okay and the final thing is an event that's happening August 2nd which is the anniversary of the 170th anniversary of the massacre of Black Hawks. Black Hawks people in Genowah, Wisconsin. Part of the force - resistance of the force relocation of Black Hawks people to Iowa and then west of Iowa. So people are encouraged to come and call me at 338-8865 and if they're interested in coming to that to also make the connection to the U.S. Imperialism that's going on in supporting the Columbia (can't hear) in South America and the Black Hawk helicopters that are being sent there this year and probably next year also. We're working to stop that. It's August 2na in Genowah, Wisconsin. Thank you. Lehman: Ross? Wilbum: Just put another plug in support of Irvin Weber's Days and that evening you can hear the Iowa City Community Band play at (can't hear) Park. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #25 Page #82 Vanderhoefi I don't believe I have anything just reminder that we do have that Hickory Hills ribbon cutting for the trail. Lehman: 27th- 10:30. Atkins: Yeah. Vanderhoefi Okay. Lehman: That's ADA celebration. Atkins: And 27th - 9:00 Universal House. Vanderhoef: 27th or 26th? Lehman: 27th. Atkins: 27th. Lehman: At 9:00. Atkins: From there and then you go to Hickory Hill at 10:30. Vanderhoefi Okay. Good. That's it. O'Donnell: Steve, the 4th of July fireworks were tremendous. We should get a letter out to the Jaycees. I thought it was really nice. And I understand Ernie has reached another milestone - I think it's 61. Congratulations, Ernie. Many more. We're going to have, I believe, 30 days off. Enjoy it. I know I will. Champion: I just wanted to comment that the Police web site - the new Police web site talking about arrests is up and I think it's going to be one of the best public relationships for the Police because it tells why people were arrested and it's really well worth looking at because there are some really funny reasons why people get in trouble. O'Donnell: It depends if you're the one getting in trouble. Champion: And then, not only does Emie have a birthday, but I think Mike also has a birthday tomorrow and he's going to be 71. O'Donnell: We're only supposed to announce those the night of the meeting. Thank you. Lehman: Happy birthday a little early. O'Donnell: July was a great month. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002. #25 Page #83 Lehman: Listen if we keep this meeting going we'll be here on your birthday. Irvin? Well again I really would like if possible - and Mike I don't want to pick on you publicly but the trail in Hickory Hill is a huge thing for the Americans with Disabilities and that was a project I know you supported very, very strongly and the ribbon cutting celebration is on the 27th and I really would encourage as many Council people as possible to be there just to show our support. I think it's really important. And obviously the Universal House that we did is one-of- a-kind. There's no other home like that. There'll be a ribbon cutting at that home and the folks who are purchasing that home will also be there. So I think it should be something that if you can be there I would certainly encourage Council to be there. It should be a really fun time for everybody. And be sure to come out and listen to Ross. He'll speak for us at the ice cream social for Irvin Weber. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of July 16, 2002.