HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-01-22 Transcription
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 1
January 22, 2007
City Council Work Session
6:30 PM
Council:
Bailey, Champion, Correia, Elliott, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilburn
U1SG:
Baeth
Staff:
Atkins, Davidson, Dilkes, Franklin, Helling, Karr, Severson
TAPE: 07-09, Side 2; 07-10, Both Sides
PlaDDiD!! aDd ZODiD!! Items
Wilburn:
Karin, you ready?
Franklin:
Yes.
Wilburn:
Ok. Let's go ahead and get started.
a) CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR
FEBRUARY 6 ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.
06-4245, WHICH AMENDS CERTAIN SPECIFIC PROVISIONS
WITHIN TITLE 14, ZONING CODE, CHAPTER 2, BASE ZONES;
CHAPTER 3, OVERLAY ZONES; CHAPTER 4, USE
REGULATIONS; CHAPTER 5, SITE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS; CHAPTER 7, ADMINISTRATION; CHAPTER 8,
REVIEW AND APPROVALPROCEDURES; CHAPTER 9,
DEFINITIONS.
Franklin: Ok. First item is a motion to set a public hearing for February 6th on a housekeeping
amendment for the zoning ordinance. When we did it, those 33 amendments you know,
when we had that big long list? The way the ordinance was drafted it deleted some
sections toward the end, sections we didn't want to delete, so we have to put those back
in and we have to go through all of this. I'm sorry, but there we are.
Vanderhoef: Mistakes happen.
b) CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR
FEBRUARY 6, 2007, ON AN ORDINANCE REZONING 0.91-ACRES OF
LAND LOCATED AT 1902 & 1906 BROADWAY STREET FROM
COMMERCIAL OFFICE (CO-1) TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC-2)
(REZ06-00028)
Franklin:
They do. They do. Item b is setting a public hearing for February 6th on an ordinance to
rezone .91 acres. This is the Broadway Street, Broadway and Highway 6 property from
CO-I to CC-2. That is in the Planning and Zoning Commission now. We may have to
defer this, pull it. We'll have to see what happens, but at any rate, if we could just go
ahead and set the public hearing and then we'll see what plays out.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22, 2007
City Council Work Session
Page 2
Correia: So do you think it'll be, will Planning and Zoning defer on Thursday?
Franklin: They deferred on the 18th to February I ". So conceivably, they could have it done on the
first. The conditional zoning agreement, however, I don't know how it's going to shake
out.
Correia: Right. Ijust wonder if that, waiting, having it so close to when the Planning and Zoning
Commission have the recommendation, give people enough time to know what Planning
and Zoning recommends, and getting to a public hearing? That would just be my -
Franklin: Yeah.
Vanderhoef: But the notice is out there now. You know, as of-
Correia: We don't know what the - people won't know what the recommendation. You know,)
just wonder if-
Elliott: I agree.
Franklin: The staff recommendation on this is a conditional zoning which provides for a buffer
between, whatever, the commercial, the CC-2 and the residential, but this issue of the
apartments and their demolition which is getting tied into this rezoning question whereas
our understanding was that the demolition was going to occur regardless, but, you know,
there's a lot of speculation out there right now.
Correia: Is it, I was thinking about this in relation to the decision we made on the request for
rezoning on that property next to Lensing Funeral Horne, in terms of the issue we had
talked about there was related to the creep of
Bailey: Approaching commercial?
Correia: Yeah. Approaching commercial into more residential, and I mean, there's a lot of, is it
Boyrum? Where we have that Pizza Hut that's now vacant. Isn't that Boyrum?
Bailey: Keokuk.
Franklin: Keokuk.
Correia: Keokuk. It seems like, and even where the Stuff, Etc. old building is.
Franklin: And those are all things we can talk about when it gets to you. It's been, it's been in
discussion.
Correia: I'd like to defer setting a public hearing.
Elliott: I'd like to, next time there's something like this. I heard for a couple days after this
"what is this?" And it seems to me we went out of our way to keep from identifying that
these are, what is it, the Coronet Apartments, and ljust thought why don't we just say
what it is? And I don't know whether that's, who does that, but.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22, 2007
City Council Work Session
Page 3
Champion: Well they (can't hear)
Franklin: Well this goes beyond the Coronet Apartments. The Coronet Apartments are part of the
property that's in the existing CO-I. It's zoned commercial office right now. I suppose
it's a holdover from the old zoning code years ago.
Elliott: I guess, most people, that was what the area of concern was and I just would like to think
that in this information, we would provide information that is of most concern to most
people. Just an observation.
Bailey: You mentioned deferring. Should we consider putting the public hearing on February
20th? Anyone interested in doing that? Is that a problem?
Franklin: I think there's - there's some - well, maybe we just would do the notice later. There's, in
state law there's a notice thing.
Vanderhoef: Timing.
Franklin: Yeah. I think that, you know, if you don't wantto set it for the 6'\ we'll just do it on the
6th, because there's no way that there's going to be a recommendation to you sooner.
What this would allow you to do is have the public hearing and first consideration on the
6'h But it sounds like there's some discomfort with how tight it is, so.
Bailey: There seems to be a lot of community interest and I think Amy's point about adequate
notice is appropriate.
Elliott: I agree.
Franklin: Ok.
Wilburn: All right.
Bailey: So what are we doing?
Correia: We're deferring setting the public hearing.
(all talk - can't hear)
Oilkes:
Why don't we just set it for the 20'h?
Correia:
We can set it for the 20'h.
Oilkes:
Because it's just a publication timing issue.
Franklin:
Ok. And then we'll just have to remind - ok.
Correia:
Ok.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
_ __._ _.. ..______~___~__.._____.___ ... __~_."__..."__._..._.....______ 0.. _ __ __. .....__wn'__.._...__.._.___.__~_'_.~_..._"_
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 4
Bailey: Ok. Great.
c) VACATING A PORTION OF MCLEAN STREET BETWEEN HUTCHINSON
AVENUE AND LEXINGTON AVENUE. (VAC06-00006)
Franklin: All righty. Ok. Item c is a public hearing on vacation of a portion of McLean Street
between Hutchinson Avenue and Lexington Avenue. Let me see what else I've got on-
yeah. This shows you what is actually there. This is the, you know, lines on paper, but
this is the area that we're talking about with the aerial photo. And the location is this
piece right in here. What you can see is there is already driveways in this. And the
proposal would be to convey it by conveying it to the abutting property owners. That
conveyance would be, there would be a resolution of intent to convey at your next
meeting on February 6th, and then that will track this ordinance to vacate. There are
easements through here so we would be retaining utility easements over the entire thing.
And that's it. The recommendation is for approval.
Elliott: Unless I went to the wrong place, it looks like we are simply acknowledging the reality,
because it didn't appear that there was a street there.
Franklin: Exactly. That's correct.
Elliott: What are they, what are they having to pay for that?
O'Donnell: There's right of way (can't hear)
Franklin: Urn, I don't know yet. Whatever fair market value is for that.
Vanderhoef: That's (can't hear) square feet.
Elliott: I just-
Bailey: We, there's-
Dilkes: We have to charge fair market value.
Vanderhoef: We have to.
Elliott: We have to charge for that?
Franklin: Oh yeah, we do.
Elliott: It just seems a pity that somebody has to charge for something that isn't there.
Bailey: What? It's our land.
O'Donnell: The ground is there.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 5
Franklin:
Well, right now it is property that is owned by the City ofIowa City, by the people of
Iowa City and so it is a conveyance of property, even though it is being used by others
who probably shouldn't have been, but what the heck.
Elliott:
Yeah.
Dilkes:
They're gonna add to the square footage of their property. Look at it that way. And their
attorney has already been in contact with us and they have made an offer to pay for it so.
Elliott:
That's probably the only reasonable thing. !tjust seems odd to me.
d) REZONING 17.75-ACRES OF LAND LOCATED EAST OF MORMON
TREK BOULEVARD AT EAGLE VIEW DRIVE AND GRACE DRIVE
FROM INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL ( CI-1) TO OFFICE COMMERCIAL
(CO-1) (REZ06-00021)
Franklin: Sometimes we try to find a quid pro quo that's not financial, but in this case there's
nothing else we can get. Ok. Item d is the rezoning of a 17.75 acre piece of ground off of
the new Mormon Trek extended. This is the area where PIP printing is, well, just opened.
Wilburn: Already there.
Franklin: Where they are. The original request was to rezone from CI-I to CC-2. As this went
through the Planning and Zoning Commission there was quite a bit of discussion about
that and the compromise, which everybody seems to be happy with is the CI-I to CO-I.
Elliott: Everybody's happy with it now?
Franklin: Well, for today.
Elliott: That's great.
Franklin: For today.
Bailey: A snapshot.
Franklin: Yeah, yeah, it's a moment in time.
Vanderhoef: As long as PIP is there by right, not by exception.
Franklin: Yeah. Exactly. What we're doing to make sure this is all clear for the future is, there used
to be within the code a category called business service retail, which quick printers are
more in that category than what is now called personal service. And so we're going to
reestablish that business service retail, and have it be allowable in CI-I and CO-I,
because they are retail uses that service businesses. Anyway, it'll all be fine. Trust me.
Vanderhoef: When that's done, that's when PIP will be totally in -
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22, 2007.
January 22, 2007
City Council Work Session
Page 6
Franklin: They're fine right now. They are fine right now. There are no issues that will come up
that will be a problem for them.
Vanderhoef: So changing those two designations won't, isn't necessary, I gness, to make them.
Franklin: It will make crystal clear any interpretation of the code in the future.
Champion: I don't believe it.
Franklin: Well, yeah. For that part.
Champion: Ok.
Vanderhoef: The only other question, not specifically for this, but do we have a list of our CI-I
property in the City and where it's located and how many acres are undeveloped? I'm
just interested in the undeveloped.
Franklin: Urn, I can make a list. Don't have a list.
Vanderhoef: Well, that was part of our discussion and was certainly in the discussion with folks when
they were doing the comprehensive plan, that district comprehensive plan, but that was
certainly part of my intent, as we were annexing and zoning there south of the airport, is
to make sure that we had available land, and as I recall, we didn't have much, if any, at
the time this was created.
Franklin: Right. Yes, and we have changed some over on Gilbert Street too, in the Southgate area
from CI-I to CC-2.
Bailey: Right. So what, what is our plan to protect our CI-I zoned areas? I mean, not only to get
an inventory of what they are. I understand that they move more slowly towards
development and that can be frustrating if you're the property owner, but what are we,
philosophically, what are we gonna do?
Franklin: Well, when this first came in that was one of the arguments that we made against the CC-
2 was that to rezone it to CC-2 will change the flavor of this area, and this was the area
where we did the Mormon Trek extension in order to get the commercial intensive as
well as industrial opportunities.
Bailey: It's hard-
Franklin: CI-I kind of works better with a commercial intensive or with the industrial if that is to
happen to the east of here, but yeah, it's, when the zoning decisions are made.
Bailey: It's hard to work a plan when rezoning applications come in and we continue to you
know, change our CI-I zones.
Franklin: Well that's, yeah, when you make the decision, yea or nay.
Vanderhoef: Is there any interest in delaying this until we get an inventory?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22, 2007.
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 7
Champion:
O'Donnell:
Bailey:
Franklin:
Elliott:
Franklin:
Eastham:
Bailey:
Franklin:
No. I'm not interested in delaying it.
I'm not either.
What's Planning and Zoning's thinking about these? Do they have any concerns about
loss ofCI-1 areas? I mean, yeah, we can make the decision yea or nay, but it comes to us
with a recommendation from Planning and Zoning, and if they're going to continue to do
this, the likelihood is that we will continue to rezone at this level.
I guess I would defer to Charlie if he'd like to speak on behalf of the Commission as to
what the discussion was here and how deep was the concern about CI-l. You'll need to
come up.
I'd also like to know why we need to make the distinction. What, what benefit is it to the
City or to the businesses to make the distinction. Let them decide.
It is whether you have - CI-I which allows some manufacturing, a small amount, small
size manufacturing. Industrial are two categories of zoning which often are the hardest to
retain, because they take typically longer to develop. It means that the property owner has
to hold onto it for a little bit longer to get the return. Whereas CC-2 and probably CO-I
also in our community are, they are a higher value in terms of the per square foot price of
the land, and they are uses that will turn over more quickly and thus be more profitable to
the individual property owner. But it doesn't necessarily then leave for the community as
a whole for that basic sector of development. Which is one of the reasons we've talked
about a City-owned industrial park at one point. But that's why we make a distinction.
Charlie Eastham. I'm designated by the P & Z Commission to be the representative this
evening at this meeting. I can just tell you that the Commission's discussion about this
request involved a consideration of whether or not changing the zoning from CI-I to Co-
I or CC-2 would have an impact on the future development of the industrial area or
planned industrial area onto the east, as Karin indicated. We, as I understand it, we
reached an agreement that, making it just CO-I at this time would not necessarily
decrease the likelihood that that land to the east would be available for industrial
development. There was considerable interest on the part of the owner of this, involved in
this application, about getting more, having more commercial uses available for this
parcel than was allowed by the CI-I designation. I do not believe, I hope I'm being
accurate in saying this, I do not believe the commission in the context of this application,
considered the, as Regenia asked, whether or not there was an overall inventory. Maybe
Dee asked. If there's an overall inventory ofCI-lland and whether or not changing from
CI-I here in the context of an overall inventory would be sensible or not. I don't think we
asked ourselves that question.
Thank you.
I definitely can put that inventory together for you. We will be bringing you a rezoning
from CC-2 to CI-l soon, in Aviation Commerce Park North. Which has just been kind of
a back and forth thing.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
- - --~-- --- ------- --------- - ----- -- -- -~ ---- --
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 8
Wilburn: Why don't you just go ahead and put that inventory together.1t looks like we'll continue
on with this, but just so it's there for future knowledge.
Franklin: Ok.
Vanderhoef: Yeah. Put it with P and Z too so they have that inventory in front of them as they look at
new Issues.
Franklin: Yes. Yeah, yeah. Well, what I - I'll put together a memorandum with the inventory, and
copy the Planning and Zoning Commission on that so they're all aware of the concern at
this level.
Bailey: Well, and at some point we may want to have a combined meeting with them if after
looking at that inventory we have a lot of concern. I mean, that might be something we
should think about.
e) AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 5, ARTICLE J, FLOOD PLAIN
MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE TO ADOPT THE RE-FORMATTED
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP.
Franklin: Ok. Anything more on this one? All right. The next one - there's nothing for the slide.
The next one is a public hearing on amending Title 14, Chapter 5, the Flood Plane
Management Ordinance. And that one is, it's really a technicality, in that we have
received these new maps and so as a consequence of that have to change the code, even
though our code references subsequent amendments. And I can't tell you exactly why,
but we gotta do it. And you know, sometimes it's easier to just do it than figure out why.
Dilkes: I think the DNR is insisting.
Franklin: Yeah, I know. It's the DNR is insisting, but I don't know why they are insisting. It's not
making any sense to me.
Wilburn: Let's just take our medicine and move on is what you're saying.
Franklin: Could we? Yeah.
Vanderhoef: Is that - it's reformatted, but as I read it, there's no changes so it's not going to-
Franklin: Right - it's not gonna change any amount.
Vanderhoef: Assist anybody's insurance rates or anything else, which is what some people might get
out of this ordinance that they may get a better rate.
Franklin: Right. It really is going to change nothing as it applies to any properties.
Wilburn: The difference that makes no difference is no difference.
Franklin: Yeah man.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
-,_._----~._._..._._-_.~--_.._--_.__.-._--_.__._...,--,--_._-,._,,_...._.._.~-
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 9
Elliott:
How astute.
Bailey:
So it will take up our time.
f) CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY PLAN FOR THE PENINSULA
NEIGHBORHOOD. (REZOS-0002S/SUB06-00020) (SECOND
CONSIDERATION)
Franklin: Item f. Second consideration on the amendment to the planned development overlay for
the Peninsula neighborhood. Expedited action has been requested. Item g is-
Vanderhoef: A minute - excuse me.
Franklin: Yes?
Vanderhoef: Urn, because we're taking that piece from Part 3 and moving it into Part 2, does that
require now that they buy that land that hasn't been purchased from the City?
Franklin: It doesn't require it, but it enables it if you want to.
Vanderhoef: That, so -
Franklin: There's the land that will be the estate houses that would become part of Phase 2.
V anderhoef: Yes.
Franklin: It does not require that they purchase it, but they want to purchase it, so.
Vanderhoef: So the purchase -
Correia: They're not prohibited from purchasing it. They can purchase it.
O'Donnell: It isn't available.
Bailey: Enabling action.
Vanderhoef: Yes. And they will purchase it. That is coming down the pike for the purchase?
Franklin: Yes. Yes. Absolutely.
Vanderhoef: Ok. Thanks.
Champion: I don't think anybody's going to build a house on land they don't own.
Correia: And that is, we will sell that for the fair market value. Is that?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 10.
Franklin: Well, we have a purchase agreement with them that's at a certain price with a 6% per
annum interest on the remaining balance, and that's how the whole thing works as they
buy each section.
Correia: So because that wasn't staged this early, right, this Part 3 -
Franklin: Say that again.
Correia: It wasn't staged to happen in '07 or '08.
Franklin: Correct. Well, it wasn't staged to happen until Phase 3, and they're in Phase 2 right now.
Vanderhoef: Which they purchased I and 2.
Correia: Right, right, so they'll be purchasing 3. So where does that revenue go in our budget?
Franklin: General fund. It's to reimburse the general fund for the purchase of the ground in 1995.
Wilburn: Answer end.
Franklin: Pardon me?
Wilburn: Answer end.
Franklin: Yeah.
Correia: So it, but when you say paying back the general fund, it was not achieved with a debt.
Atkins: We used our cash reserves and then the negotiated agreement was, and I think it was four
installments of about three to four hundred thousand dollars each. It's paying back the
general fund reserve.
Correia: But we, right now it's not in our budget, because we weren't
Bailey: Right.
Atkins: No, it wasn't shown. Right.
Correia: Ok.
Bailey: Gravy.
Franklin: No.
Atkins: No.
Franklin: They don't like me to say that.
Vanderhoef: We've been getting, we've gotten payments. We got a payment last year.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
____.______,______~___,__..___.._______.___..__.__..._._._____u__._.,.._>_.'.____...._.__
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 11
Franklin: When they bought Phase 2, yeah. It's by -
Vanderhoef: Last fiscal year when they bought Phase 2, so that may well have been the spike that we
had in the budget up to the 44, because it came in that year, and then we took it back
down to 33.
Correia: Right. But in essence, we don't need to pay back our general fund reserve if we're at our
policy, over our 30%.
Atkins: I'm not sure I understand you don't have to pay it back.
Correia: I'm just saying-
O'Donnell: You can put it someplace else.
Bailey: We don't hold it in reserve, right, we don't have to hold it in reserve.
Atkins: Yes, yes.
Correia: There we go.
Vanderhoef: Ok, and-
Bailey: Eight hundred thousand dollars?
Franklin: No, it's by unit, and so this is, fewer number of units so I don't know exactly what the
number is going to be.
Correia: Ok. So we'lI-
Bailey: We'll have a little book.
Correia: We'll get more information as it gets closer to the purchase.
Vanderhoef: It's a one time.
Franklin: I will also give you a little report on that that will include this sale.
Correia: Ok.
g) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF
KENNEDY'S WATERFRONT ADDITION-PART 4, IOWA CITY, IOWA.
(SUB06-00009)
Franklin:
Ok. G is consider a resolution approving the final plat of Kennedy's waterfront addition-
Part 4. This is down the four-lot commercial subdivision on Southgate Avenue just off of
Gilbert Street, and obviously it's something that's been around for a little bit. The
Planning and Zoning Commission approved it in October. We've just been waiting for
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
'---"-~'---'-~---""----'-"..'-'--~'----------'-'-----,--",,~--'----'-'--'~'---~-'-
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 12
the construction drawings and legal papers to be approved. They are now, and so it's
ready to go.
Elliott: Do we know what's going in?
Franklin: Not specifically, no. No. It's commercial. So I don't know what they have in mind, if
they have anything specific in mind at this point in time.
Elliott: Ok.
Vanderhoef: But this is where it was mentioned that they were looking at potentially asking for
rezoning to CC-2 on that outlot section up there.
Franklin: Right. Right.
Vanderhoef: And there were, on the drawings, it showed a couple of things that might have been
streets but they might have been utility, sewer water - they were just dotted lines.
Franklin: In the packet I'm assuming is what you're referring to?
Vanderhoef: Yes, ma'am.
Franklin: Upside down. Well Dee, I can't tell you right - oh! It's a drainage easement. That's what
it's labeled as.
Vanderhoef: Your eyes are better than mine. I could see all of that, but-
Franklin: Ok? I'm done.
Vanderhoef: Ok. So street access then will?
Franklin: It's off of Southgate. Even Lot I has a restriction on it that wilI come off of Southgate
Avenue, not off of Gilbert Street.
Vanderhoef: Yeah, but the outlot b will be serviced -
Franklin: It's a kind of, sort ofa flag lot, in that there's a 50 foot frontage on Southgate Avenue.
It's that little tail that comes down. So that will have access all the way to Southgate
Avenue.
Vanderhoef: Ok.
Franklin: I mean, with commercial lots, it's not like residential. Because what may happen here is
that you have an overall development in which there's one drive and then you go to all
three businesses. I mean, we just don't know yet how that will shake out.
Vanderhoef: So this will all work into the circulation plan for the South Gilbert as we have presently
seen it?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 13
Franklin: Yeah. This is not going to put any direct access points onto Gilbert Street.
Vanderhoef: But it isn't going to put any street access through it to go to further north.
Franklin: No. No. There's other lots further north. North is where the Weinbrenner Building is.
Vanderhoef: Weinbrenner Building?
Franklin: The, yeah, Stevens Drive - I think it's Stevens, yeah.
Correia: (can't hear) Mott and Company.
Franklin: Pardon me?
Correia: (Can't hear) and Company?
Franklin: I don't know what's there now. So north of outlot b is not, that's not a road. That's other
lot lines of property to the north of outlot b, which would front on Stevens Drive. Ok - if
you look at the location map?
Vanderhoef: Yeah.
Franklin: Anything else?
Council Appointments
Wilburn: Next two items - Council appointments and 2006 Aid to Agency proposal. I have a
conflict of interest with the Council appointment, and it involves one appointment to the
Housing Community Development Commission. One of their major duties is to allocate,
provide allocations to the Community Development block grant on HOME fund
applicants. I have been and am a current applicant for an agency that receives such
funding, and cannot participate in those discussions and I am a current applicant for the
Aid to Agencies proposal. So Regenia, you're up.
Bailey Council appointments, Housing and Community Development Commission, we have two
applicants.
Vanderhoef: I would recommend Charles Drum.
O'Donnell: I like Charlotte Walker.
Elliott: I like Charlotte Walker.
Champion: I do too.
Elliott: I, Charlotte Walker to me is someone with whom in the past I have disagreed, will in the
future probably disagree, but she is a very bright, very well-informed person, and I would
like to see her on that.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 14
O'Donnell: She is also a very active member. She's involved in a lot of things there.
Elliott: Yes. Has had a lot oflife experiences, and she's just a nifty person for that.
Champion: I think that, I agree with you. I think the three reasons that I really like her - number one,
she's a female, and there's not that many females on the commission.
Vanderhoef: Oh.
Champion: And she receives rental assistance and she's ofthe poverty level, and so she's the person
using those services or knows about people who need to use those services.
Bailey: So we have three for Charlotte. Amy, did you?
Correia: I liked Charlie.
Bailey: Oh.
Champion: Oh, Charlotte.
Elliott: Charlotte.
Correia: I was for Charles Drum.
Elliott: Oh.
Bailey: I was supporting Charlie too, but I could support Charlotte too. I think that would be fine.
So, Charlotte it is.
Aid to Al!encies
Bailey:
Elliott:
Champion:
All right. Aid to Agencies. There's a memo in your info. packet. Abbie, would you like to
join us? Abbie sat in on this part of the subcommitte for determining these, and Linda is
also here tonight to help. You have a memo in your packet from the subcommittee. Just a
couple of highlights. The Y outhworks Pre-employment grant. This has been a, it was a
competitive grant when it was first offered, I believe that was before I got on Council,
and we have an opportunity to do something similar with a consortium that's more
broadly funded, which we felt would work more towards the goals of that Y outhworks
grant. VA Y had struggled with that - sixteen thousand dollars isn't much to use for a
program. So that was our recommendation, is to use that sixteen thousand dollars for this
new project Consortium for Youth Employment. You have the recommendations in a
table.
I have a question about the Trust Fund. Is that $53,000.00 set aside, or is that just gone
elsewhere this year and you'll address it next year? That wasn't quite clear to me.
We didn't, we didn't set that much aside, no, but we do have a little bit left - about
$6000.00.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
---~'-"-------------"'---"-'--'-""-"-'---'-~---~-,.----.--.----.---
._~__..__,__________..__..___'_.__.._.___'~~~._,.u___.___.~
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 15
Elliott: How much - if it is decided, how much is left for them?
Bailey: We only have $6,586.00 of contingency.
Champion: We only have $6,0000.
Bailey: It would perhaps be something we would want to explore from our reserves for a one
time-
Correia: I did wonder about, I mean I know that the request from the Housing Trust Fund came
into the City, not necessarily into Aid to Agencies, so I kind of wonder if that's the right
place to take, or to use money for the Housing Trust Fund, or if it might be?
Atkins: And I can appreciate that point. We as a staff had to ask where do we assign this? And
that's why it ended up in Aid to Agencies.
Correia: Right, right. I mean, I think, in some communities that are funding housing trust funds
with public funds, there can be a funding mechanism like, for example, the sale of city-
owned property to go, or higher cost housing like The Peninsula, a certain percentage of
that could be earmarked for Housing Trust Fund-like activities.
Bailey: And we thought that that discussion would probably, I mean, we could have a more
thorough discussion about how we would want to partner, if we would want to partner
with the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County after we got the information and had a
more thorough housing discussion. So, that was the recommendation from the committee.
Vanderhoef: I appreciate that waiting until we know exactly where the biggest gaps are in our housing
programs and then also have a chance to look at the budget, so I think that's a good idea.
Bailey: I also spoke with Andy of the Housing Trust Fund and indicated that as we continue to
have these housing discussions, it would be good to know how the Housing Trust Fund
would see the City as a partner, what that, what those funds would be used for. As you
can see, we're really trying to get at the purpose of the grant from Iowa City, and that
really gets to the fact that we really don't have Council criteria for these decisions. And
that's something that we should think about, because otherwise these decisions by the
subcommittee are made with our own individual philanthropic priorities. Which is
inappropriate, I think. I think there need to be Council objectives for the Aid to Agency
funding and so I think I would encourage this group to also take that on this year and set
some criteria for these grants. Because we used some of the outcome - well, we used the
reports, fundamentally, to make these funding decisions this year. But if we are, as a
Council, trying to achieve certain things in our community, there are particular agencies
probably better positioned to meet those objectives rather than others.
Champion: Regenia and I do disagree on that.
Bailey: Everything.
(laughter)
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 16
Bailey: Because Connie uses her individual philanthropic lens, and she likes that.
Champion: No I don't -I don't-
Elliott: Well, oh - excuse me.
Champion: The reason I object to it is because a lot of these agencies were developed long before
like City STEPS was, and I also think that this is a segment of our community that are
part of our citizens, and I think we have a responsibility to help if we possibly can. And
everything that we do to help doesn't have to have a clear objective as far as I'm
concerned. I think it's great that we have some money to give to people in need, and they
may not meet our criteria for City STEPS.
Bailey: But we didn't use City STEPS this year - please note-
Champion: Oh, I know, but that was an example that you used before.
Bailey: And, you know, we could have greater outcome rather than spreading a little money
around to a lot of different organizations. We could pick a certain number of
organizations that, for example, are working on housing or other issues and give them
larger grants.
Elliott: I would like to see the guidelines, and I would like to have your group. Regenia, come to
us to at least start, give us a bit of maybe, if not a foundation, at least a little guidance on
what you have found. Where those guidelines would be beneficial and helpful. And
further, I would like for them to be guidelines and not something - we tend to set things
in concrete and I would like for them to be just guidelines.
Bailey: Well then I think Linda could better speak to that, actually, Linda Severson could better
speak to -
Elliott: I think it really would be helpful.
Bailey: I think we need to decide what we're achieving with our, you know, $456,000.00.
Elliott: You bet.
Vanderhoef: I think there had been previous years that we have done basically that, in that we had
looked at the agencies and looked at certain areas of our community. And I know a
couple years we were trying to get funding real specifically into programs for youth.
Champion: Mmm hmm.
Vanderhoef: We were not balanced, shall we say, with that. So youth was very important. If an idea is
out there for a push for a certain kind of activity for youth that we don't have, then that
would be one of those things that would pop up and like you say, Bob, guidelines or
objectives, no matter how many we write, there will be these cases where these things
come up and so I am with you that this is not set in stone. It's look at City STEPS, look at
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22, 2007
City Council Work Session
Page 17
Baeth:
Bailey:
Baeth:
Bailey:
Correia:
Bailey:
Correia:
Bailey:
Correia:
Champion:
Bailey:
Correia:
Champion:
Correia:
what are the hot topics. Right now are they appropriate for City Council to address, and
then how do we address them.
Regenia, Ijust wanted to clarify or for my own clarification - you're proposing that we
set these guidelines for next year's allocations, and then have these stand for this year?
These are our suggestions for this year. And my recommendation is not a subcommittee
recommendation. As you heard, Connie didn't necessarily agree that we should set
criteria. But I've always believed you can have greater impact when you focus what
you're trying to do.
So this would be for next year?
For next year. And I probably would suggest that we have it for a period of time if we do
that, but that's my suggestion. Are there any questions or comments about our
recommendations, specifically?
I had a question about the Shelter House recommendation recommending that all of the
funds be directed to the STAR program?
There was some concern that they wouldn't, that they would have a challenge meeting
their federal match requirements. And we talked about this and this would help this
federal money stay in our community. And we understand that they would have to make
up whatever we didn't support for Shelter House, but we hope that they could leverage
the City's funding for the STAR program to raise those additional funds.
Right. And I understand that. I guess I'm just wondering if, it's, because it's kind of tying
their hands. Because what if, if they had the ability, let's say they were able to get a large
percentage of match dollars, and then -
I think we could re-negotiate that, but this was indicated in their application that that was
a huge concern, and we were trying to be responsive to what seemed to be the larger
concern.
I guess I'm just wondering if it was, the Shelter House recommendation, I think many of
the agencies direct funds to grant matching when they need those funds from local
dollars. If we didn't tie their hands, like we're not tying the hands of other-
Well, in some ways I agree with you. On the other hand, all I would do is they would
just have to come to a meeting and ask if they could change that funding.
Yeah. I mean-
For some, if for some reason they
They get, somebody gives them fifty thousand dollars for the STAR program?
Well that's one scenario.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 18
Champion: They would, they could talk to us.
Correia: If the STAR grant gets lost, they don't win the STAR grant. Not because they didn't-
let's just say federal funding is redirected and there's no more HUD funds for this
program. Does that mean we will not support Shelter House at that amount? It's only for
the STAR grant.
Champion: Well that's not how I would feel about it.
Correia: Well right, and that's how, I'mjust trying to-
Bailey: And I'm not sure how I would -
Champion: It would depend on (can't hear)
Vanderhoef: It would be a conversation at the time that that happened.
Bailey: Yes. It would be a conversation should that hypothetical situation occur.
Elliott: How did the Shelter House feel about this decision? This recommendation?
Bailey: I don't know.
Champion: Chrissy's here.
Elliott: I'd kind oflike to-
Bailey: I'm assuming Linda - Linda, have you checked with most of the agencies yet?
Severson: I (can't hear)
Champion: You nee to come.
Correia: Well, I talked to Chrissy - I can share with you what she shared with me.
Bailey: Well-
Vanderhoef: What does Linda have for us?
Bailey: And, and I'm reluctant to allow - I mean, we agreed that we weren't going to have
presentations by agencies, and I wouldn't want to - I mean, I'm glad Chrissy is here, but
I think that we have to be careful about what we said. Linda, did you have any comments
about Shelter House?
Vanderhoef: Got to come up.
Elliott: While she's doing that Regenia, can you tell me - the percentage of change. The budget
last year was six thousand. The recommendation is thirty five thousand, and yet it says
52%.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 19
Vanderhoef: Well it's the combination.
Correia: The combination.
Elliott: Oh, you took the combination of everything there?
Bailey: Mmm hmm. Yeah.
Elliott: Oh, ok.
Severson: Ah, Chrissy and I did have a conversation about allocations to Shelter House. And they
are appreciative of everything that the City supports. In terms of committing it to STAR,
that does help them meet their cash match, which is about $105,000.00 each year that has
to literally be cash. In terms of us allocating it, it does help them meet that cash match,
but also then it does take away from their general operational fund, so they would have to
seek those dollar replacements. So in terms of agency flexibility, most agencies would be
great if the funds they received were not, not designated, but in terms of operations, they
said they could work with it. But it would be most helpful if perhaps it was not
designated for a specific thing and then they could work within their budget. But they
certainly appreciate any amount and this would certainly help towards the STAR cash
match, which is a struggle every year.
Vanderhoef: Well, the one thing that strikes me then is, are they saying if we give it to Shelter House
for operations and they need more for STAR grant, they just shift operations dollars over
there for their match, and then keep working towards getting more for their operations
funds?
Severson: I don't know if! should - I don't feel I'm qualified to answer that.
Vanderhoef: Well, ok, it's, it's ongoing with operations, with fundraising.
O'Donnell: I would like to have an answer to that.
Severson: Correct.
Vanderhoef: STAR program is a very specific program that gets people, it's sort oflike the job
training -
Severson: Establishing stability.
Vanderhoef: Moving up and out.
Severson: Mmm hmm. Moving on.
Vanderhoef: So my, personally, I would say the STAR program is the very most important part of this,
to get them on the continuum and change, and I would think they would like to have in
hand their STAR monies.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 20
Severson:
Bailey:
Elliott:
Bailey:
Elliott:
Champion:
Bailey:
Elliott:
Bailey:
Elliott:
Champion:
Elliott:
Bailey:
Certainly, because that's a big part of the Shelter House program and we originally
applied for the grant recognizing that 90 days wasn't long enough for a lot of folks to get
reestablished, and so that was the purpose of applying for that program and the focus
being on employment. The first three years that Shelter House had the grant there was not
a cash match. After that it wasn't anything we did or didn't do, but it was the way policy
proceeded that we had to have the cash match. The first three years we had in-kind which
we had no problem matching. But when it comes to the cash part that's definitely a big
challenge for any agency.
And [ think that's why we - we have cash, and we could do the cash match in a large
lump which [think, just in my experience with fund raising that's a little bit harder, I
mean, to raise a large lump sum for a cash match year after year. So that's why we
designated. We thought it was - and believing that, the work of the Shelter House has
been very visible, leveraging this money, indicating to the public that we are helping
them meet their cash match for STAR. But this means we are not providing operations
for Shelter House and that's where they need to raise money.
So in other words we're attempting to make a point with our earmarking of this
allocation. Is that what you're saying?
I think in our discussions it was a greatest needs situation. We have cash, we can do
catch, this is a cash match requirement.
But I thought the answer to the question a couple of minutes ago was could we give them
the money and they can use it as they see fit for the STAR program or not, all or a portion
thereof. And if the answer to that would be yes, I would be in favor of giving them in the
context of providing them with the greatest flexibility. Unless there's something about
which we feel it's important to make a point. I know there was an agency, I think dealing
with youth employment some time ago, where we wanted them to do something and not
something else. So that, that would be my question, Regenia.
Well, they can still split this up.
Well I mean I think that's an ongoing conversation. We have gone to sort of an outcomes
based approach with reports and these sorts of things. STAR program is also a grant
program. It requires some outcome documentation. I think of the two programs it's the
easier one to provide that information.
But this could not be used for operational support.
That's what we are suggesting at this time.
But if we gave it to them in their general budget, it could be used for either or.
Either.
I guess I would prefer the latter.
Which is the latter?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22, 2007
City Council Work Session
Page 21
Elliott:
Bailey:
Correia:
Bailey:
Correia:
Bailey:
Correia:
Bailey:
Correia:
Bailey:
Correia:
Bailey:
Severson:
Severson:
Correia:
Yeah. To enable them to make a decision on which they feel is the most important to
their operation and thus to the people with whom they work.
And then what outcomes would you like to see as a result of those funds?
I think we could have the same outcomes. I mean, the, we're-
It's hard to ask for case management outcomes if you're, I mean, that seems untied to me.
But that's what they do.
In the STAR program.
Well, they have an in-home, I think they provide service -
That's what the STAR program is as distinct from Shelter House.
Well, but they provide-
Shelter House is emergency housing.
Yes, but when folks are there longer than two nights or one night or whatever, folks are
required to participate in the in-home counseling program, so they're essentially, and they
have -
The difference between - in my mind - it's the difference between emergency housing
and case management work. That's, that's all I'm saying. And it is distinct and different.
Just as a point of information, as Amy mentioned, that Shelter House, if people do come
and stay longer than just medical appointments at V A or passing through town, there is
the expectation that people have to agree to developing a plan for moving on. If they have
employment they agree, I don't know the percentage, but they put, they give a certain
percentage to staff for safekeeping so it helps them develop money to put down a security
deposit, get clothes for work, those types of things. So if someone is staying at the Shelter
House longer than just an emergency stay there is a plan and there are expectations that
they meet the goals that they set up working with staff. So it's like what does it take to
get you into stable housing. And for some people that works and it gets them off to a
good start and it may be what they needed. For a lot of other folks with the STAR grant,
the purpose of applying for that was to give them longer term support and it is a time-
limited program, 24 months, but most of the folks may have multiple challenges and
didn't - (cut off - end of tape)
The STAR program allows people to be involved and receive support for up to 24 months
and we feel it just gives them a little bit stronger basis to move on.
And I do think that there is a population that needs that short term and that short term
help with that in-home counseling is going to get them to where they need to be at the
next level to be self-sufficient and in stable housing. And then there's other groups of
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 22
folks that need that need that 2-year more intensive. So I think there's definite value to
supporting both ofthose endeavors.
Bailey: Right. With every other program we are designating or being very specific about what the
funding will be used for. And I don't want to just say Shelter House can use this in any
way they see fit. It was pretty clear in their application, and I think maybe that's
something that we need to develop too is when you indicate in your application that you
have a great need for cash match, we responded to that.
Vanderhoef: And that's where my phone calls have been coming also.
Bailey: Mine too.
Vanderhoef: That we can not give up the potential of the match.
Bailey: Right.
Correia: Right. And I guess ljust don't want to constrain them. Tie their hands.
Bailey: So -
Correia: Ok. So I guess for the outcomes expected for the neighborhood centers you have the first
part as increased revenue to eighteen thousand dollars.
Bailey: Fund raising revenue.
Correia: Fund raising revenue, sorry. So that's where, that's how our sixty thousand dollars is?
Bailey: They're using it also for matches and we also have the expectation that - I mean, we use
the information that we got in applications. If you want to split Shelter House's money
and undesignate it, I heard that. And if there are four other people, or three other people
who want to do that, we can certainly do that. My interest is supporting the STAR
program to get that federal cash match. That's what they indicated in their application,
that's whey we recommended, Connie and I went back and forth about this. Quite a bit.
(laughter)
Severson: The STAR grant -
Champion: Level 3 is putting that money -
Bailey: So would you make a recommendation of how you would split this, or are you just all
designating this to Shelter House and then I would suggest that that's a huge increase just
for Shelter House -
Correia: No, I guess, I'm not-
Vanderhoef: I agree. I was gonna bring that up, if we're done with that other subject of whether it
goes?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 23
Bailey: No, we're not quite done.
Elliott: No.
Vanderhoef: Then I'll wait until we're done with that.
Correia: I would have the expectation that they would use, because they've identified needing a
match, needing cash as a match and that's part of, just as the neighborhood uses part of
our match and I'm sure VA Y.
Bailey: So make a suggestion of the split is what I'm asking.
Correia: I don't - no, we don't designate a split to anybody else.
Bailey: Ok. So you're just saying thirty five thousand dollars to Shelter House. Is that what
you're suggesting?
Correia: To support Shelter House and the STAR program, and then they designate it as they need
to.
O'Donnell: So they have more flexibility, is what you want.
Correia: They have the flexibility.
Vanderhoef: We have always had a split since the STAR program.
Correia: I know we have, but I don't know necessarily why we have that when we, when we know
that other funded programs use our money for cash match.
Bailey: And we're trying to get more specific. I mean, the application process is not very
specific. I mean this is, once again, it goes back to our criteria. We have none. Therefore,
who knows what to write? It's a narrative of what we do with the money.
Champion: Well, I mean, I don't, you know, Ijust have to correct you, Regenia. We are not
necessarily looking for outcomes like you are. Do we have a consensus here? I mean,
don't say we. I think that I am a little bit more lenient about outcomes.
Bailey: But that's something, ever since I've been on this subcommittee we've talked about
outcomes. I mean ~
Correia: I definitely support outcomes. I mean, I think to be, government funding is going in the
way to non-profits of outcomes, of, you know, is the money, are we, are the people that-
Are the people being served better off because we're giving money to this?
Bailey: And our question should be is our community better off and what are our goals for our
community? Right.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22, 2007.
January 22,2007
Correia:
Champion:
Bailey:
Elliott:
Bailey:
Champion:
Bailey:
Champion:
Bailey:
Champion:
Correia:
Champion:
Correia:
Champion:
Correia:
City Council Work Session
Page 24
Yes. And I think that we can measure with both supporting the operations of Shelter
House, the in-house counseling program and supporting STAR we can get measures of
are people better off because they had access to the in-house counseling program. Are
people better off because they had access to the STAR program? I think we got that data.
Well certainly those citizens are better off.
Ok. So undesignated to Shelter House. It sounds like there are four. Fine. We can shift
this.
Let me just say after listening to this discussion that first of all Regenia, I would vote
what your group has indicated because you folks have looked into the internal
mechanisms, what goes on, how it happens, how it's used. But what I read from this is
you people who know more about it than I do are indicating to us that you are concerned
that some of this fifty, ah, thirty-five thousand dollars might go to something that you
don't approve of or you feel has a lesser priority. Because you're tying their hands. And
so this tells me that you want to designate because you don't have confidence that they
will use it for what you feel is most appropriate. If you did, then you would provide it in a
way that provides them with the greatest flexibility to manage their facility.
I don't consider that an accurate statement.
No.
What we were trying to do is respond to what -
To respond to a priority, a need.
In their application was their highest priority.
In the original letter that we talked about or note that we had, is that, there wasn't any real
objection to us doing this because they would just have to raise more money for general
funds. I'm, I'm totally willing to split this part up. We could give them the operation
funds with a 3% increase and keep the rest of it in the STAR program. That would be a
compromise.
I guess, why can't we just give Shelter House thirty five thousand dollars?
Well you know, we could, I would love to just do that-
Why can't we just do that?
But I do think you have to look at the amount of increase you'd be giving. Is that really
fair to any agencies? When people call me about increasing stuff to agencies, my
question is, who do I take it away from to give you that?
But we haven't-
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22,2007
Champion:
Correia:
Bailey:
Severson:
Champion:
Correia:
Champion:
Bailey:
Champion:
Correia:
Champion:
(laughter)
City Council Work Session
Page 25
So that's maybe - and we have taken stuff away from people over the past 5 years
because they're not doing what we set out to finance them to do in the first place.
Ok. But that's different from saying - I mean, it seems like we have, essentially - I think
we're thinking about the STAR grant program in a way different from other agencies
when they have different programs. Shelter House, the STAR grant is -
Nobody else in their application wrote about a specific grant and the potential oflosing
specific dollars. And, I mean, many, one, two, we have a couple of these that didn't get
any increase. And so when Connie says taking away, we're holding stable. We were
trying to respond to what people were saying in their applications and particularly,
because of the calls and the awareness we have about this particular organization, we
were trying to respond to what we saw as the greatest need. We can write a thirty-five
thousand-dollar check. There are other people in this community who could do that as
well, but we can certainly do it and leverage this, these dollars, and they'll have to raise
money for other things, just as any other agency would. That's why we put it there.
Just a couple of points of information. One is, this grant may be a little unusual compared
to some ofthe other grants that other agencies get because it's renewable on a yearly
basis. A lot of times you get a grant, you may get it for a couple years, but it's seed
money and it's not renewable. This grant, as long as a grantee meets the goals that they
have developed with HUD and are in good standing and have spent the money
appropriately, it's a very good candidate for renewal. So that's just something that's a
little bit different from a lot of other grant applications. The other thing is it brings in
about almost four hundred and fifty thousand dollars to the community from federal
dollars that we have to match at about a hundred and five. So that just gives you a little
perspective on what it's also bringing into the community.
The other thing Amy is, I, to me, one of the most important things the Shelter House does
besides emergency housing, but it's not a flophouse, people can't just stay there forever,
is, is the STAR grant. I think it's an incredible program that you can talk to the public
about. People do not like homeless shelters. I'm sorry. The average citizen does not want
a lot to do with them. And you can talk about this program, this is a very successful
program. It's measurable. It shows that you're doing something to help people get back
on their feet, get to be independent, become taxpayers.
Absolutely. It's a great program.
So even as the, as a person, I would say I would give Shelter House all of this, Ok.
She tried.
I tried.
All of the total, you mean?
Yes.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 26
Bailey: She did try.
Champion: That and the Crisis Center. Let them get all of it. But, but as a Council member, I just say,
we have to have something we can say to the community. We're giving them money
because this is such a great program, and we want - so I'm not willing to just give them a
blank check on this. Because I have to explain to people why I'm willing to give Shelter
House this much money.
Bailey: And so -
Champion: And I can say "because I love the STAR program, and you should learn about it."
Bailey: And that, I think, to your point Bob, it's not because we don't trust what they would do
with the money but I think to the, more to the point, is that we think the STAR program is
an exemplary program that brings additional dollars into the, does good work.
Elliott: Well, I would, I would put them, from my humble perspective, as the second priority that
they have. One of course providing the shelter for the homeless. And two, to assure that
people stay there are provided with the opportunity and encouragement to advance as
opposed to simply perpetuating their current situation.
Champion: Exactly, exactly.
Elliott: My only concern is, is there a reason for tying their hands on this, or is there not a reason.
And if you folks who know more about it than we do, I'm happy to go along with you,
but unless there's a reason, I say, provide management with the greatest flexibility to
manage it's own situation.
Bailey: We know that they're going to have to raise additional dollars. We had that discussion.
And we, we thought that leveraging our money, that it's already taken care of the match
for general operations for the Shelter House, would be the easier ask. But, it's up to this
group.
Champion: Right, (can't hear)
Vanderhoef: The match has to be done in a timely fashion, whereas, certainly, fundraising is ongoing
for operations. So it isn't as, quote, timely, in that it has to be all done by a certain date. It
can continue to come in to support the activities of the Shelter House. So I still would
choose to put all the money into the STAR program to make sure we maximize the four
hundred fifty thousand federal grant.
O'Donnell: What does putting all the money into the STAR program do to the, to the day-to-day
works of the Shelter House? How does it effect their budget? Obviously it's money out of
it, but how does it effect the operational process?
Bailey: They have to raise two piles of money, right? I mean, one is for the match for STAR
grant and one is for general operations. So what this would do is it raises the pile of
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22,2007
O'Donnell:
Bailey:
O'Donnell:
Volland:
O'Donnell:
Volland:
O'Donnell:
Champion:
Bailey:
Volland:
O'Donnell:
Champion:
O'Donnell:
Correia:
Bailey:
Volland:
Bailey:
Volland:
City Council Work Session
Page 27
money that they have for the match. It's not to say that they don't have to raise, you
know, operations funds.
Ok, that's great, but how does putting all this money in this pocket, how does it effect the
day-to-day operations of Shelter House is what I want to know. They're not, they're not
getting this money, it's going to STAR. Is that a fact?
Which is part of their - I -
Which is part of it, but, but it removes all flexibility-
Mike, are you asking what percentage of the budget that would be for operations?
I didn't hear you.
Are you asking what percentage of their budget that is, basically?
Yes.
We know what that is. It's in our - oh, I don't have my book.
I don't have my book.
I don't have it either.
I kind of agree with Bob. I think you, I think you need to give the staff as much flexibility
as you can. And Connie, the statement about people not liking Shelter House, shelter
houses, I think that's true to a large degree, but I think it's, I think it's those who don't
understand what they do.
Right. That's why I like the STAR program. So, what does everybody want to do? I'm
very flexible on this. But I do want some designation to the STAR program. I mean, I
think Regenia's right about that.
Can we split it?
50-50?
So you want to -
Ijust-
Go ahead, Abbie.
I don't think that you can necessarily split it. Because you're talking about the highest
percentage of increase you've given to any agency on general funds is 7%, so if you're
going to split it down the middle, you're going to have to explain why you gave their
general fund so much.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 28
Vanderhoef: Mmm hmmm.
Correia: Well, I mean, I think, part of, if we look at - if we did an assessment of, of, you know,
where the breakdown of support within Aid to Agencies, services to, you know, the basic
human needs, we have the Crisis Center, we have Free Medical Clinic, we have Shelter
House. And -
Champion: Neighborhood Centers.
Bailey: Well, emergency or basic human? I mean, what are you talking about.
Correia: Yeah I'm talking, I mean, shelter, food, clothing, you know, that sort of thing.
Neighborhood center is community support, youth development, family support-
Vanderhoef: Family development.
Correia: You know, from the time Shelter House has started to, when they first started, it was just
open at night, you know, homeless overflow, you know, no services. Not no services, but
no, none ofthe in-home counseling, all of what they're doing now, to a full-service
agency. And I think that-
Bailey: Well-
Correia: And homelessness has continued to increase.
Bailey: Unquestionably they are doing great work. But so is everyone else on the list.
Champion: Ok what about a compromise? Why don't we take-
Correia: But we're not cutting anyone else.
Bailey: Well-
Vanderhoef: Can Ijust-
Champion: Why don't we take the base amount from last year for the operations of Shelter House,
tack on the 3% increase, and put the rest in the STAR program?
Correia: And still have total thirty five thousand?
Champion: Fine.
Vanderhoef: Well that's what I wanted to speak about.
Bailey: Doesn't give very much to their match.
Vanderhoef: Is the - thirty five thousand is a tremendous increase as compared to other programs and I
had been thinking in terms of what we talked about a little bit earlier in the housing and
what we were gonna have available if and when, well, I shouldn't say if and when. It will
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
-----~---"-------,--_.._---~~--~--_._.._----_.
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 29
come, our housing report. Excuse me. So, I was thinking if we split last year - the Shelter
House STAR program received twenty three forty six. And they requested thirty-six this
year. It looks as though you're funding at thirty five, and I thought splitting the difference
there, which would be roughly giving the STAR program an additional sixty five hundred
and have sixty five hundred as our seed money for housing.
Champion: We have the sixty five hundred.
Correia: I don't know what you're talking about, and 1-
Vanderhoef: Ok. Let me try again, then.
Correia: Leave it all to the STAR program then.
Vanderhoef: Because I think this is really important.
Correia: Ok. I don't -
Bailey: Let - can we just have Dee go through hers?
Vanderhoef: The difference between last year -
Correia: Last year was 16899.
Bailey: For Shelter House.
Correia: Yes.
Vanderhoef: And 6146.
Correia: Ok. Vh huh.
Vanderhoef: So 2346. This year, you're offering thirty five thousand.
Correia: Ok.
Vanderhoef: So the difference between last year and this year is $12,954.00. So say $13,000.00, split
that in two, that's $650, and I think $650, $6,500.00, excuse me, would be an appropriate
- I still would like to put all of it into the STAR program.
Correia: (can't hear)
Bailey: Appropriate.
Vanderhoef: For the total funding. And another $6,500.00 be put into the reserve for housing.
Champion: We have $6,500.00 in the reserve.
Correia: So take $6,500.00 from this total $35,000.00 from what the recommendation is?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 30
Vanderhoef: That's right.
Champion: We already have $6,500.00 in reserve.
Bailey: So -
Champion: We saved $6,500.00.
Vanderhoef: You've got $6,500.00. And another-
Champion: $6,500.
Bailey: She's trying to add-
Correia: She's trying to take $6,500.00 away. From STAR.
Vanderhoef: From the total program and -
Correia: (laughter - can't hear)
Vanderhoef: And I can't justify a 52% increase!
Correia: It's $10,000.00.
Champion: Unless it's in STAR funds.
Vanderhoef: For any of it.
Correia: It's 50 - well, ok. Ifwe look at the total Shelter House received in operations and STAR
last year, it's $23,000.00. So the increase from 23 to 35 is not 52%.
Champion: No.
Correia: It's only - so basically you could say that we've cut Shelter House 100% above it!
Champion: Right.
Correia: I mean, we didn't do that. And then the increase (can't hear) - so we're not increasing
one program's allocation by 52%.
Elliott: If you can't, if you can't justify giving them the whole total in, for their general
management decisions, then how can you justify $35,000.00 for the STAR program?
Whether you give it, earmarked for the STAR program or just to them for their
management to make the determination, it's the same thing. And I've already talked too
much. I just think that, allow the management to manage unless there's a reason not to.
Champion: If you (can't hear)
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 31
Bailey: We don't have to decide this tonight.
Elliott: Good.
Champion: No, we do.
O'Donnell: I'd like to be able to think on this.
Champion: We need to decide it tonight.
Elliott: I'd like to hear from Chrissy when she makes her presentation.
Bailey: Oh, Connie wants to decide this tonight? Is that what you said?
O'Donnell: What do you wanna do?
Champion: I want Shelter House to have $35,000.00. However you want to give it to them, I don't
care. How's that. However you want to distribute it, I'm on board.
Elliott: Regenia, we don't have to decide tonight?
Bailey: No.
Elliott: I'd like to - because they're going to make a presentation to us, are they not?
Bailey: No, they're not. We're not having any Aid to Agencies presentations this year.
Elliott: Oh. I thought we were.
Correia: They can speak in public comment on the, in the budget hearing.
Bailey: Right.
Vanderhoef: They can?
Correia: Yeah. Anybody can speak.
Elliott: I'd like to hear what their preference is, and that's, that's fine.
Bailey: Well, I will say that if you hear what their preference is you're going to hear what
everybody's preference is and so we will have a long discussion on this at some point.
So, I would suggest - I mean, there are copies of the applications if you would like to
read them from these other agencies. Because I think if we are making our decisions in
that way, then other agencies will expect us to make their decisions in that way as well.
Elliott: As I said before, I am going to go along with your recommendation because you folks
looked into it much more deeply, much more comprehensively than did I. I just thought
the discussion was helpful tonight, and I think that in the future we provide management
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22, 2007
City Council Work Session
Page 32
with latitude to management, unless there's a reason to help them micro-manage for
them.
Severson: Just another point of information. The Shelter House reported in 2005 and they go on a
calendar year for their fiscal year. Their total income was $917,000.00. So if we look at
the STAR grant that's half of their budget, in terms of income. So it's just a point of
information.
Bailey: Ok. So we will revisit this and I can turn this group over to you.
Elliott: Hey, thanks for your work. That's tough.
Vanderhoef: I just wanted to give one piece of information. The Consortium for Youth Employment -
you slipped right past that and I didn't get my comments in there.
Bailey: Oh.
Vanderhoef: The only question that I have is mixing populations, and I'm not sure whether it's valid
or not. I spoke to a couple people today and they were not going one way or the other,
and I waited for a phone call from Jim Swain in particular, and I did not get that phone
call back. He was in a meeting this morning when I called and I didn't ever hear from
him, so that's ok. But the figure I thought you'd be interested in when you looked at the
cost breakdown, total cost per youth participant is listed at $1,8 I 5 .00 per participant. I
happen to have the WIA annual report also and youth participation, and this year, this
past year, they spent $2100.00 per participant with the same age groups in training and
continuing schooling, so you're definitely in the right ballpark for comparisons with the
federal WIA program. And in their program they talked about 16% of these youth were
disabled, so if we do go with a combined agency, I would like a few demographics that I
think would be important for us to track over years if there are some changes. So
disability would be one of them. Certainly gender is another one and, oh, ethnic would be
important. They found in the WIA program that we are serving well over 50% women.
There are fewer men showing up in that. And the 17 to 18 year olds, they're showing up
mostly diploma or certification credentials for the young people as they get into the 18 -
21, then there's more diversity in what's happening there.
Bailey: So in addition to your, what you'd like to see tracked in this, did you have any other
concerns about the Consortium, for the?
Vanderhoef: It was the mixing of the populations and I specifically really wanted to talk to VA Y about
this in that I'm aware that some of the participants at VA Y have had previous experience
with juvenile justice and so forth, but the mixing of those two young populations in the
same classes, those that are in versus those that have come through, I wasn't sure whether
that was an appropriate kind of mix for the class. I don't know.
Elliott: Regenia, this is where I liked what you suggested. I'd like to know, for instance, what's
their concept of success, and do they have any longitudinal information on how
successful they have been?
Bailey: Well, there's a brief on what the objectives are.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
._,-_.,--_.~_.----~------,_._--,_...~--_._----,"-----~,-+-~----,--,---,~---~'--+-'--'------'-'-"---'-
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 33
Elliott:
Bailey:
Vanderhoef:
Bailey:
Champion:
Bailey:
Vanderhoef:
Bailey:
O'Donnell:
Vanderhoef:
Bailey:
Elliott:
Wilburn:
Elliott:
(laughter)
Al!enda Items
Wilburn:
ITEM 7.
No, I'mjust saying, that's why I like your idea of objectives.
And the reason we really liked this Consortium is that it pays the youth for participation
all the way through, which is a motivator.
And incentives, which is very typical with WIA programs also.
Right.
I think it's going to be, I think it's a great program. We'll just see how it works. It's
gonna be -
Yeah, this is more of a sort of experimental, see if we can achieve our goals with this
program. Did you have any additional comments?
I think that's it for right now?
Do we want to schedule another Aid to Agency work session, or do we want to just talk
about it with, at our general budget work session on the 30th?
I think that's good.
We don't have to have - all we have to have is the total number in the budget. We don't
have to have Aid to Agency completed.
Right. But I think it's good to decide this as early as possible. It gives the agencies as
much notice as we can and there's no reason not to decide. I mean, there's no reason to
put off a decision. So what I heard is we'll talk about this with our general budget session
on the 30th? Ok. Mr. Mayor. Linda, thank you.
Thanks for the work. That's not easy.
Let's take a ten minute break.
Oh sure, you just - great decision!
Agenda items.
CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4, ENTITLED, "ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES," CHAPTER 5, ENTITLED, "PROHIBITIONS AND
RESTRICTIONS," SECTION 4, ENTITLED, "REGULATION OF PERSONS
UNDER LEGAL AGE" TO PROVIDE THAT SECOND AND SUBSEQUENT
OFFENSE VIOLATIONS MAY BE BASED ON A PRIOR CONVICTION UNDER
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
... _...___,.___..___...._....,..________.~,______._____.___._____,.._._._m_.~_.'..._________~__.._.___.".".____..,_.__.____.____________._
January 22,2007
Correia:
Baeth:
Correia:
Baeth:
Correia:
Champion:
Baeth:
Correia:
Baeth:
Champion:
Correia:
Champion:
Dilkes:
Champion:
Correia:
Baeth:
Dilkes:
Correia:
Champion:
Elliott:
Bailey:
City Council Work Session
Page 34
AN ORDINANCE FROM ANOTHER CITY OR COUNTY IN IOWA. (SECOND
CONSIDERATION)
Austin, for item 7, PAULA,
Yeah.
Is that something, we were gonna schedule a time, a later time to discuss?
For, let's see, ok, for the second offense.
Mmm hmm.
Right.
Yes. And I haven't had time to look too in-depth into that.
Ok.
I have a meeting tomorrow morning actually with the Stepping Up project, and so I'm
going to be talking to them about it and get their ideas.
Ijust wanted to ask a question about that too Austin. Because one of the things you said,
that they would go into, ah, alcohol, not necessarily rehab but -
Evaluation?
Evaluation? But Eleanor, I wanted to ask a question. Aren't they required to do that
anyway on second offense?
Yeah it's a sentencing option.
It's already required.
It's an option. Ok.
Did you say it's optional?
I think it's a, it's an option on the second and between getting your license suspended or
having an evaluation or, in the third I believe it's both. I'mjust gonna look it up right
now.
Ok.
I thought well, if they already have to -
Second it's either or? Third it's and.
And Student Health has a program, right?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 35
O'Donnell:
Davidson:
Bailey:
Baeth:
Bailey:
Baeth:
Bailey:
Champion:
Baeth:
Karr:
Correia:
Karr:
Champion:
Correia:
Baeth:
Correia:
Bailey:
Champion:
Dilkes:
Baeth:
Second you have an option, Bob?
Yes - Health Iowa.
Health Iowa is the program.
Right, you know, you have a different policy in the University. If a student is caught
drinking in the dorms, they go through an alcohol education class.
Is that through Health Iowa?
I'm guessing it is - I think it is.
Ok.
Report to us back on what -
All right. I will.
I just want to clarify. I knew that was your desire, and Austin and I did talk about
scheduling it this time and we both agreed that this wasn't a good time for him to have
done the research.
No, I think that's right. I just wanted -
So we said that as soon as Austin is ready we would schedule.
Ok.
Great.
I'll try to be ready quickly.
That's ok. We have a lot of stuff to do.
No rush.
We don't move too quickly.
And that is distinct from the proposal that student government, as I understand it, is
working on. Because the gentleman who's doing it, Mr. Nikasi, has been in touch with
me on a couple of occasions, and the proposal that he is developing is to provide a
deferred prosecution option for first offenses. Those are two distinct things.
And the Stepping Up project is looking at that as well. They've been doing some
research. Angela Rimes who's in, I guess the director of it, has been doing some research.
The University of Minnesota has this program, this deferred prosecution, so we're trying
to collect some empirical data to see if it really works.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 36
Elliott:
Wilburn:
ITEM 9.
O'Donnell:
Champion:
Correia:
Dilkes:
Correia:
Dilkes:
Correia:
Dilkes:
Bailey:
Franklin:
Bailey:
Franklin:
Correia:
Franklin:
Good.
Other agenda items?
CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF
PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE
HIGHWAY 6 & GILBERT STREET INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT. (DEFERRED FROM 1/9)
Number 9. Acquisition of property interests. I'm still uncomfortable with that.
Me too.
I, I just kind of wondered about the order. Even though I know it's just sort of a
housekeeping thing, but I think it could be confusing to the public who doesn't
understand. Even though we're voting on it, we couldn't acquire property until the final
plat or whatever, the final design is done.
I'm sorry. I was still looking at PAULAs.
Isn't item 9 authorizing the acquisition of property interests?
Right.
I'm just wondering about the order, if it makes sense to just wait and do this after we
have voted on proceeding with the project?
1 don't think it really - this is not an unusual stage at which to do the resolution
authorizing property acquisition. We essentially have the conceptual design and so we do
that resolution, and then as soon as the plats are received, then we start the property
acquisition.
So if this -
I've had a conversation with one of the property owners and Ijust want to inteIject this.
One of the things that they need to know is if you're going to do this or not.
Right.
Because they have to start right now if they're gonna look at some changes to their
businesses that mean they need to relocate potentially. And so I golla start it now. And so
they need to know, just need to know yes or no, whatever your decision is.
And this is the other thing -
If you put it off until fall it will be too late.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 37
Bailey: So this also implies inclusion in our CIP projects, that there is a general support for
moving ahead with this project.
Franklin: That it's real.
Correia: Right. And that's what I'm wondering - if we - right. And I don't know if we have that.
Bailey: That it's a real project. This vote - not another vote, this one.
Vanderhoef: And we have conceptual designs but we don't have engineering designs and all of that.
Which we wouldn't go ahead to do engineering designs on a big project like this unless
we were committed to the project.
Elliott: Mmm hmm.
Correia: Are there four people committed to the project?
Bailey: Yes.
Vanderhoef: Yes.
Wilburn: Yes.
Correia: Oh, ok.
O'Donnell: I didn't see four.
Wilburn: One, Bailey, Correia, Vanderhoef and Wilburn are the four Council members who
indicated an interest in pursuing a project and all the other engineering that would come
later. That's the intent.
Elliott: Is that - this could initiate offers, litigation, that sort of thing?
Dilkes: Authorizes that.
Elliott: Ok. Yeah. 1-
O'Donnell: What we are doing is we're authorizing the acquisition of property by this. Is that right?
Correia: Mmm hmm.
Vanderhoef: Mmm hmm.
O'Donnell: Ok.
Dilkes: The way that normally works is that as soon as we have final plats that show up property
that we need to acquire, we have a whole process that we go through sending out an
offer, having a negotiation period if we are not successful. Then we usually inform you
that we are going to proceed to condemnation. But we have the authority to do all those
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22, 2007.
January 22,2007
Elliott:
Champion:
Elliott:
Champion:
Wilburn:
Bailey:
(laughter)
Correia:
Bailey:
O'Donnell:
Wilburn:
O'Donnell:
Wilburn:
Elliott:
O'Donnell:
Dilkes:
Elliott:
Correia:
Bailey:
City Council Work Session
Page 38
things after you pass this resolution. That's not to say that even after you condemn you
have the right to abandon the condemnation. So there are, and we'll keep you informed
throughout the process, so that you can, if there's decisions that we need from you, major
decisions, then we'll bring them to you and you can make them.
I think if there's four in favor, that's done.
Pardon me?
One of you could be sick and not here to vote.
Now, you're not wishing ill on us are you?
Is she threatening us?
She's sick here trying to get us all sick.
She's coughing in this direction.
The whole idea on this is I still don't believe we've had enough time to hear from those
people that are truly going to be affected by this change.
And I don't believe this action precludes that. They're all aware of it because of ongoing
staff discussions. This authorizes staff to proceed once, there's still action to take on this,
there's still opportunity for those affected or the general public to talk, to email.
But I interpret this tonight as there's four people in favor not only of this but of the
project. And, I don't think you spin your tires going uphill. You know, so what would, if
there are four people that support this, I assume that they're going to support the project.
Looks like a good indication, yes.
Yep.
So I wonder, I wonder what good it will do to carry on discussions further.
Well there was, as you, there was a letter in the packet that was sent out by staff
specifically inviting people to come comment tomorrow if they wanted to do that.
To whom did that letter go?
To all the -
The list that's there.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 39
Dilkes: The list, yeah.
Elliott: Ok. Good. Because I think that's, we talked about, that was discussed the other night at
the downtown fire inspection meeting, and I think it's good that all of these people should
be informed. Good. I appreciate that.
Bailey: And I always reserve the right to support something until I change my mind.
Wilburn: And Council Members have done that.
O'Donnell: Can you say that again?
Elliott: You're smiling.
Wilburn: Can't a guy just be happy?
Dilkes: Now there .are also, let me just say this, too. When we negotiate property acquisition, it's
not that uncommon that we make engineering negotia-, you know, changes as well, that
are necessary for the, or the property owner has requested. That all goes on.
Wilburn: On the back, on the back of the sheet it shows everyone who received this.
Elliott: Good. Thank you. I missed that.
Vanderhoef: Ok.
Wilburn: I did too.
ITEM 10. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING
MAYOR TO EXECUTE AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST AN AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND JOHN COYNE TO
PROVIDE CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR THE LOWER WEST BRANCH
ROAD PLACARD PROJECT.
Vanderhoef: I didn't. Item 10, the placards for the bridge. And there isn't anything that says this is part
of the public art project, and I would presume that it is, but I would like to know for sure
whether it is.
Atkins: It's not, Dee.
Bailey: It's not.
Champion: It's part of the bridge project.
Atkins: It's part ofthe bridge project only.
Bailey: That's what Rick said.
Vanderhoef: And that's DOT moneys for bridge, bridge moneys.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 40
Atkins:
Yeah, I'm assuming it would be.
(can't hear - people away from mic speaking)
Atkins: But is there any DOT money involved in the bridge?
Champion: A culvert?
Atkins: Ok. Jeff is saying there's no DOT money involved in the bridge, therefore it's all ours.
It's our call.
Bailey: Yeah. Rick talked about this at the CIP meeting.
Vanderhoef: This, the additional cost of$32,000.00, almost $500.00, is, it would be nice, but I don't
think it's an important piece to spend that money on unless it's part of our annual
$50,000.00 public art.
Elliott: I'll oppose it, but I assumed I would be in a distinct minority, so.
Atkins: As opposed to a minority?
O'Donnell: I just, all poor me.
Bailey: You should be getting used to that by now.
Elliott: I feel pretty good about hanging out there on a limb.
(laughter)
Wilburn:
I think Rick has mentioned, not only with this, but he has mentioned in past presentations
that more and more the engineering department is looking at ways to incorporate art into
bridge projects and those types of things.
Champion:
Aesthetic appeal.
Atkins:
Summit Street Bridge and Wolf Avenue-
Champion:
Right.
Atkins:
Are two examples of where the design was as much.
Wilburn:
I'm not saying that's, you know, that's a decision that you all can make, but it's not a
new, it's not anything new to us. That's all I was saying.
Elliott:
No, I understand that.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22, 2007
City Council Work Session
Page 41
Correia: I think part of the purpose of this is to create a unique sense of the place and the
neighborhood. I think that's what makes Iowa City unique and what contributes to the
people wanting to live here so (mic drop out - can't hear)
Champion: I like it too.
Vanderhoef: Well, I like the idea, but what I think is that when we get into this kind of price range we
ought to be using our public art moneys for that. So that it's well recognized that this is
what public art does.
Bailey: This isn't public art, this is design.
Champion: We didn't use public art money for the Summit Street Bridge and we didn't use it for the
Wolf Street Bridge.
Bailey: Yeah.
Atkins: We didn't have a public art program then either. Sorry.
Vanderhoef: Thank you very much.
Bailey: Don't try to help -
Atkins: Yes we did, ok.
Wilburn: Any other agenda items?
Atkins: I don't remember.
Vanderhoef: If this were slid over into public art allocation I can support it. But we have a budget line
item of public art moneys and this is where it ought to go.
Bailey: I would call it good design.
Correia: Yeah, I would call it good design too.
Elliott: I'd call it a culvert.
O'Donnell: Call it what?
Champion: A culvert.
Elliott: That's what it is. It's a bridge, guys.
Wilburn: It is an agenda item so we can make individual decisions and/or modifications tomorrow
night. Any other agenda items?
Lel!islative Issues
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 42
Wilburn: Legislative issues. Wondered why you were here Jeff.
Davidson: Apparently at your last work session, which I did attend, but after I left you must have
expressed some interest in the Iowa DOT's initiative that they recently released on the
Road Use Tax Program, and asked for a summary of that. I provided that to you and we
can have as much or as little discussion of that as you wish. You know, the Road Use Tax
Fund is a big deal for the city of Iowa City. I'm sure you've heard Steve and Kevin say
that many times - about 5.3 million dollars which we can use for a wide range - I mean,
it is, it is narrowed to the things you can and can't use it for, but it's a pretty wide range
and we make good use of it every year. It is a fund that is stagnant to declining, based
primarily on more fuel-efficient vehicles and the price of fuel going up. People are
driving a little bit less. It is principally fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees, drivers'
license fees and the use tax on motor vehicles. That's the tax you pay when you purchase
a new or used vehicle. So DOT has come up with some initiative, they did an
investigation, saw that there's going to be 200 million dollars of need throughout the state
of Iowa, so they made some suggestions for increasing some things that the legislature
would need to enact to increase that fund. They proposes a new, a new fund called
Transportation Investment Moves the Economy in the 21 ,t Century. They have somebody
who thinks up these acronyms at the state level of government which would have a
different funding formula. I guess that's one thing I didn't mention. You know, the
funding formula for road use tax is a really hot political thing and it occasionally gets
some discussion, but it is not even with this proposed to be altered the base fund. But this
would be a new fund using some of the revenue sources. And I attach the state summary
in case you're interested in that level of detail. And you can see what the new things are
that they're proposing. I mean, quite frankly, some of them are pretty far-fetched and just
stuck in there as well, you could maybe do this, but I don't think are very realistic. So, at
any rate, I've got to be real frank with you. I have not heard from any legislative
representatives, nor has there been anything in the newspaper from the Governor's office
indicating any support for these things. But they are there, and I think even DOT, Stu
Anderson, who is the Systems Planning Director, I've discussed this with him and he sees
it, I think, as a longer term thing. Let's get some of these ideas, get the notion out there,
let it build some momentum over a period oftime. He certainly doesn't expect that
everything is going to be enacted to generate 200 million a year from this. But, anyway,
FYI.
Vanderhoef: Ok. Two, two things. Number one, at our last meeting I had reported to you that the
Federal Highway Trust Fund was due to run out in 2010-2012. Ijust had a re-update on
that and it's going to be out in '09, so when we talk about-
Davidson: Now, when you say run out Dee, what exactly do you mean by that, because I thought
that was -
Vanderhoef: They - they're spending it out. It will be allocated.
Davidson: Ok. Ok.
Vanderhoef: So, that's just for future reference.
Correia: Is that like a reserve? You're saying that there's federal gas?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 43
Davidson: Well that's a federal fuel tax, which means it's constantly generated. Maybe, I think what
Dee might be referring to is that it'll be totally allocated to projects and it won't be-
Vanderhoef: And not being replenished at the same rate because of some of these efficiency cars and
ethanol.
Correia: Way to go - efficiency!
Bailey: Drive older cars!
(laughter)
Vanderhoef: Yeah.
Correia: Maybe we need to do toll roads.
Elliott: Get those SUVs out.
Bailey: Through Illinois.
Vanderhoef: Now that was just one update. Another one that we have talked about here is listed on the
first page under vehicle registration, and if you'll get down to option a it is about pickups.
Champion: Oh, right.
Bailey: Oh that's -
Vanderhoef: That would be worth 10 million dollars into the Road Use Tax Fund if they were charged
the same.
Elliott: The tax breaks on pickups, yeah.
Vanderhoef: Mmm hmm. So that's one that has been talked about at different times in the legislature.
Now whether it will come up this year or not, but it's still one that I think, as a Council,
we could take a stand on ifthere's a majority here that-
Correia: Didn't we?
Vanderhoef: We certainly talked about it.
Wilburn: We, yeah, well,just for the benefit of the media that are present.
Bailey: We did take a stand on it.
Wilburn: For the benefit of the media that are present, when we had a meeting with our local
legislators this was an item that came up, and apparently they are, our legislators are
following through, at least with the discussion and presentation of it.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 44
Bailey: That was on our legislative priority.
Wilburn: Yeah.
Vanderhoef: Maybe it's more remind them again.
Davidson: Yeah. I, I, quarterly I attend a meeting in Ames with my equivalents in all of the
urbanized areas. We have a meeting quarterly where we also dine, and this item is usually
on the agenda of what's up with Road Use Tax, because everybody knows how important
it is to cities, so I do kind of keep apprised of it, and I will let you know ifthere's
anything, I hear about of anything happening in the legislature that we might want to
support. But as I said, it's not sounding too positive.
Champion: I think the simple solution is to raise the rate. It hasn't been raised for a long, long time.
Bailey: They're not going to raise any taxes.
Wilburn: Just so you know Jeff, after you walked out it was suggested to put this item on for any
updates or if any of us became of anything that's going on in Des Moines, so we weren't
just picking on you.
Davidson: And you should feel free to pick away.
(laughter)
Davidson: Anything else for me?
O'Donnell: Thanks.
Wilburn: Apparently the meeting are following, local media are following what's going on in Des
Moines as things are being discussed and put out in committee and on the floor. I had a
call, didn't have a chance to return a call, but I know a reporter called, wanted to know
my reaction to a decision to give cities a choice about local smoking bans. I haven't
returned the call but.
Elliott: That's what it was.
Wilburn: Yeah, ok. So I'm sure there's more discussion that's going on, I don't think anything's
been decided there, but at least someone must have introduced that concept, as others.
Vanderhoef: It's been talked about on Iowa Press with the leadership folks, over the last two or three. I
happened to watch it on Sunday morning. Sunday noon, actually, but it's on Friday night
and you get an idea of what some of the leadership is thinking about that and there is still
some interest.
Bailey: There's a House file 35, at least, that's what the League's last legislative link, and then
the House study bill about, both of them concern smoking. The League is looking.
(end of tape)
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 45
Vanderhoef: That was a more probable outcome.
Correia: Right, right.
Bailey: Oh, absolutely.
Correia: Right - which that's I think what we like, right, is the option?
Vanderhoef: Well-
Wilburn: The session's not over yet though.
Bailey: We're not sure what we like yet.
Correia: Oh, really? Ok.
Bailey: We don't know what we've ended up with.
Champion: You'll be lucky if you end up with anything.
Bailey: I had a question, because I had a question last time about Senator Hatch's bill, and I was
wondering Dee if you knew, I'm assuming you look at the legislative link from the
League. It looks like Senate file 29 was, has been assigned to the Senate Economic
Growth Committee, and it sounds like the same thing, that he was proposing about
increase in historic preservation tax credits, cultural and entertainment district tax credits,
expansion of recreational trails, and increased funding for the Main Street Program. So
that does seem. like it's at least in committee if it's the (can't hear)
Vanderhoef: Mmm hmm. Oh yeah ~
Bailey: I didn't go online to look at the tax.
Vanderhoef: And that is one that was put together by Senator Hatch and Mayor Beach from
Marshalltown.
Bailey: Right.
Vanderhoef: And so cities had input into this bill at that level, and I was at that meeting with Senator
Hatch this spring, early summer, and there were a number of city mayors or
administrators there talking about this and they felt that this was a very, very good use of
their moneys, and certainly the League will be supporting.
Bailey: Well, it looks like something that would be very beneficial to our city. Perhaps we can
take a look at the wording and, I don't know, perhaps send, communicate with. I don't
know what the process is or what you would feel comfortable with. It's not necessarily on
our, our list, but it sounds like something that would be very beneficial to us, with our
cultural and entertainment districts.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 46
Wilburn: Would it pay for a trail through our, a designated bicycle way through our cultural
district?
Vanderhoef: The one, the one ~
Bailey: I think we could probably look into that. I think we should.
Vanderhoef: The one thing that might, that's in the bill, that might not be accepted very well in the
rural areas, is the piece that he put in there about eminent domain to connect trails.
Bailey: Yes, yes, yes.
Vanderhoef: That piece could well come out, but Mayor Beach was making a case for that they have
trails in the city of Marshalltown that they're trying to connect up with-
Bailey: Right.
Vanderhoef: What is it, the Cedar Valley Trail?
Bailey: Cedar Valley Trail.
Vanderhoef: And they're within a mile or so ofthat, and they have a property owner that absolutely
won't let 'em get through where they need to get through. So that one will, we'll follow
along. At this point we don't have that problem, but it doesn't mean it won't appear in
Johnson County at some point in time.
Baeth: While we're on this agenda item I wonder if! can give you an update on the rental
deposit legislation?
Elliott: Good.
Baeth: Three students and I went to Des Moines last Thursday. We were there lobbying - yeah,
my first time as a lobbyist. And it was successful. We got the bill drafted in both the
House and the Senate, thanks to Joe Bolkcom and Mary Mascher, so it's going to go to
committee in a little bit and we're going to be, we go down there every Thursday
morning now to do a little lobbying, so if there's any other issues that you want me to
pass along, I'll pass this along as well as others. And so next Thursday we're meeting
with the leadership in the House and the Senate about this issue.
Bailey: What committee has it been assigned to?
Baeth: It hasn't been assigned to a committee yet that I know of, but they think it's going to go
through the State committee, State government.
Bailey: Oh, ok.
Elliott: I've had both a daughter and a grandson involved in the short end of that situation, and
it's, it has needed to be addressed for a long time.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22, 2007.
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 47
O'Donnell: Goodjob.
Bailey: Way to go.
Elliott: You still going to school, by the way, Austin?
Baeth: Every once in a while.
Champion: You're taking one course did you say?
Bailey: And we don't know anything about the commercial, commercial property tax task force,
is that correct?
Vanderhoef: No.
Atkins: The Legislative bulletin discusses it.
Bailey: Yeah. I saw that they're going to meet one more time, but do we have any sense of well,
why? Ok.
Vanderhoef: I talked to them at the League this afternoon, and still didn't know what was going to
come out.
Champion: Didn't they talk about changing condominium tax rates?
Bailey: You heard anything?
Vanderhoef: That would be, that's in this whole discussion, so we'll see what they come out with for
recommendation.
Champion: We could staff the fire station if they passed that one.
Vanderhoef: Yeah.
Atkins: What was that again?
Vanderhoef: I said we could staff the fire station.
Atkins: If -
Vanderhoef: If we got condominium versus apartment.
Bailey: Well that would be one way.
Atkins: Oh.
Correia: Apartment versus condominium.
Council Time
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 48
Elliott: I got my second complaint of, I don't know what they call them, panhandlers we always
called them, at the intersection of Riverside Drive and Highway 6.
Atkins: In the street?
Elliott: In the street.
Atkins: I encourage people-
Elliott: There were two of them going into the street.
Atkins: Yeah. I encourage people to call the police. The police, because it's dangerous.
Elliott: Oh yeah.
Atkins: And most of the panhandlers are pretty good about moving to the curb.
Elliott: My understanding is if they're on the curb or on the safety island - can they be on the
safety island?
Atkins: They can be on the safety island, but it gets a little.
Elliott: We don't bother them, but.
Atkins: No we don't.
Elliott: Ok.
O'Donnell: That's really dangerous.
Atkins: It's very dangerous, Mike, you're right.
Vanderhoef: Where were they?
Dilkes: We don't have a specific ordinance that addresses this situation. What we have is our
begging ordinance, which prohibits begging if it's accompanied by something else. One
of those something else's is a safety issue, and so that judgement call needs to be made
each time.
Atkins: At least tell your complainer, just call the police and we'll dispatch a car.
Elliott: And the second item, Steve, I was just thinking at the meeting that discussed the
downtown fire safety proposals, talked about sending communications to all of the firms
that would be impacted by it. How many of those, how many emails do we have? I'm
thinking, you know, we keep talking about mailings, and I would assume that every
mailing costs the City at least .50 when you figure postage, letterhead, and somebody to
mail it. Can we legally use email? Because that provides, email would provide us a
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 49
Atkins:
Elliott:
Atkins:
Bailey:
Oilkes:
Elliott:
Bailey:
Elliott:
Bailey:
Correia:
Bailey:
Elliott:
Bailey:
Correia:
Atkins:
Bailey:
Elliott:
Correia:
Oilkes:
record of to whom it was sent. Can we collect email addresses to really cut costs on those
things?
Ah, I'm not so sure whether, because of the legal aspects for Eleanor, but a lot offolks
don't have computers.
No, but I think a lot of people do, and I would assume email would get to almost the
place that the telephone is now before too long.
I have to check on that.
Well, you can send it also-
Well, there's nothing preventing us from communicating by email on something like that.
I mean, it's getting the communication out by email.
It just cuts the expenses to ~
But you're not talking official notice. You're just talking awareness notices. Is that
correct?
We're saying, you know, we're talking about something that will impact your property,
have financial impact to you. I just think that a number of things the City sends out, let's
use email where we can.
Awareness.
Yeah. The only thing, the only issue that I have is that, let's say that somebody, their
computer has crashed. You don't know that they didn't get their email.
You could send thing read receipt if you were really interested.
Right.
But it also generates a lot of back and forth.
Yeah. So I mean.
If it's an important correspondence, we would send certified mail.
It should be mailed certified.
Ijust-
If it' s something we want to make sure they go, so they can respond, I guess I wouldn't
necessarily want to rely on it.
Yeah. I agree. Yeah.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 50
Champion:
Dilkes:
Karr:
Elliott:
Dilkes:
Wilburn:
Elliott:
Bailey:
Wilburn:
Correia:
Wilburn:
Correia:
Wilburn:
Correia:
Atkins:
Bailey:
Correia:
Bailey:
A legal thing you'd want to send certified.
I just think, yeah, but when I have an important matter to communicate about, I don't do
it by email.It.s not saying that you couldn't, but.
I think, in my office dealing with liquor licensees on a regular basis, we found a number
of things. Number one, when we send the letter, even though it's minimal postage, often
it's just as quick and we have the hard copy back as unrefused, or we know that the hard
copy is delivered. Secondly, there are a number, as you all know, the State has gone with
licensing their alcohol electronically. There are a nurnber of people who do not have it.
And thirdly, they don't check it routinely, and I would be concerned that if, depending
on how much notice you were giving, that it would be enough notice for a person who
did not regularly check it.
Good.
I think we also probably, before we make any changes in the use of email, we want to
wait and see what comes out of the legislature this session (can't hear) issues, because
there's clearly going to be a look at email communication in terms of open records.
You tired of being smacked around, Bob?
No, no, no - I'm tough.
That idea - I'm on the computer all the time.
Anyone else Council time?
I had - oh.
Go ahead.
Regenia and I did a budget teach-in on Saturday for FAIR, and while we were, we were
just bringing up some, highlighting some capital projects and so one was the East Side
Recycling Center. And there was a question by somebody about whether sharps would be
able to be, like diabetic sharps, biohazards -
Medical.
Would be able to be recycled, if we had been considering that?
Recycling them? No, we haven't, disposal-
No, no, no - disposed of there, personal household.
Disposing. Sorry, sorry. So now, I guess they, people take it out to the landfill.
Landfill.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 51
Atkins: Dispose of them.
Elliott: Needles, you're talking about?
Correia: Yeah, like diabetics, insulin. So there is a person wondering.
Atkins: There is a company in town that does provide that service. I'm aware of that. I can find
out a little more for you.
Correia: No, no -I mean, they now, there's a group that now takes their sharps out to the landfill.
The question was will this be available at the East Side Recycling Center?
Atkins: Oh. Don't know.
Correia: That was the question. Could we do that, or look into that.
Atkins: Let me look into that.
Bailey: Well, if we - what waste will collect at the East Side Recycling Center I think, to take it
farther. How convenient will it be for, you know, paint and other things, or will that
require the mobile unit to be there? We're talking about household, not medical.
Correia: Yeah, household medical, or -
Atkins: Ah, we'll check and get back with you.
Correia: Ok.
Atkins: We want it as comprehensive as can be, that's my personal opinion.
Bailey: Well, and given the number of people who are insulin, well, I don't know if you call it
insulin-dependent or using insulin- I think that makes a lot of sense.
Champion: I know, and that's (can't hear)
Vanderhoef: If you use insulin -
Correia: What?
Vanderhoef: I said if you use insulin, then you are insulin-dependent.
Correia: Yeah.
Champion: Unless you're trying to kill somebody.
Wilburn: Anyone else Council time?
Correia: I had a couple of other things
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 52
(laughter - can't hear)
Correia: One of the other things that came up was at JCCOG - JCCOG adopted a complete streets
policy, and so I'm wondering if that's something we may consider on the Council, on the
City level for projects that aren't JCCOG.
Bailey: Arterial streets.
Correia: Want to throw it out there.
Bailey: Is there any interest?
Atkins: (can't hear) I'm sorry, I could have asked you that.
Correia: We don't have, yeah, I guess maybe we could start talking about it?
Bailey: Would there be any interest, I guess, on the Council level? I mean, we adopted a policy at
the JCCOG level for complete streets that accommodate vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles,
and move them all equally in an equally safe manner.
Vanderhoef: I think we do.
Bailey: We don't have, I mean, we don't-
Correia: A policy.
Bailey: We don't have a City policy, we have a JCCOG policy.
Vanderhoef: We have an unwritten policy, I think.
Bailey: Well let's write it then. Let's write some policy.
Vanderhoef: When we're doing arterials, we are-
Bailey: Well arterials, of course, because they go on the map to JCCOG, and if they go to
JCCOG, of course. But is there any interest in having an official policy at the City level?
Champion: Yes.
Wilburn: One, two, three, four.
Vanderhoef: I'll sure look at it.
Wilburn: Want to put something together or have?
Atkins: Let me talk to Jeff first and find out what's involved in this. There may be something out
there already.
Correia: Right. I just want to know is it feasible, what would be the implications, can we do it?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 53
Atkins: Sure.
Wilburn: He might as well just stay the whole time.
Correia: He should.
Bailey: He should never leave.
Vanderhoef: All he has to do is walk out and we come up with something.
Bailey: Tell him not to leave early.
Wilburn: Any other Council time item?
Vanderhoef: He really didn't want to spend his Monday night like this anyway.
Correia: I just, one, and I'm going to announce this tomorrow, but I just wanted to let folks on the
Council know that the County along with JCCOG, the Iowa City Housing Authority,
United Way, the University oflowa Tippie College of Business, the Retired Senior
Volunteer Program and Iowa City Community School District have all partnered to do
tax, the free tax preparation clinics out in the community. These are the VITA sites that
students have been doing at the Iowa City Public Library for years and years. They have
been wanting to get more out into the community, felt like people who are eligible to get
free tax preparation assistance weren't availing themselves of this service because it was
only at the Iowa City Public Library. So the sites are going to be out in the community,
trying to reach out to families and workers who are eligible for free tax assistance but
also may be eligible for other tax credits to get larger refunds that they are eligible for.
The National League of Cities has a big effort to try and get the word out about these
campaigns that are going on in a lot of cities around the country. Another site is on
Wednesday at Penn Elementary, and there's going to be a site at Lucas and Pheasant
Ridge on Sundays. Iowa City Public Library is going to stay as a site as well on
Wednesday nights and Sundays, so we're excited about it, we're going to keep track of
information about how many people use, are gonna receive assistance, and then what the
tax credit they're getting back from the earned income tax credit. In some cities you can
see a huge infusion of capital into people's pocket books which is turned over into the
community, and also trying to get folks that are unbanked hooked up with banking
products this year at Lucas. We're hoping to expand that.
Vanderhoef: How are you spreading the word on this?
Correia: Well we have, there's information on the Johnson County website. There should be flyers
on the bus; Steve Rackis was getting flyers into all of the Iowa City buses. We had a
press release out, there was something in the Press Citizen. KXIC picked it up on the
radio, putting it in the GO Calendar for the Press Citizen. We were at Project Holiday and
actually spoke to about 300 people at Project Holiday, but actually let them know what it
was, and -
Vanderhoef: Would it be useful at the neighborhood centers and the pools?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 54
Correia: Oh, yeah, it's up all over the place. All the family resource centers, gave it out at the
schools. All the neighborhood centers have flyers, all the staff know what's going on. All
the family resource centers received flyers. They are going to get it out in their Friday
folders or however they communicate.
Vanderhoef: Sounds like a good blanket coverage. Ok.
Champion: Is this group interested in endorsing the SILO tax for the schools? Is anyone else
interested besides me?
Elliott: I'm certainly in favor of it.
Wilburn: I voted for it.
Elliott: I don't know if that, ifthat is a precedent into which - Steve, you're the pro with
experience. What are your concerns about a precedent?
Atkins: I think it's a political question being answered by a political body.
Champion: What kind of answer is that?
Atkins: Well, that if you would choose, and support the issue, I wouldn't be surprised, but I also
wouldn't be surprised if you chose not to. I mean, the School District doesn't come to
Council and support your capital improvement plan and the taxes that go with it.
Champion: No, but they did ask us to think about doing that.
Elliott: As a matter of fact they rejected us.
O'Donnell: After asking us.
(laughter)
Bailey:
I would say let it be.
Champion:
Ok.
O'Donnell:
I would say that also.
Elliott:
Let it be. That would be a great song.
Bailey:
I think so.
Champion:
I really wanted it to be unanimous if we were going to do it.
Bailey:
Absolutely.
Wilburn:
Anyone else Council time?
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 55
Schedule of Peudinl! Items
Wilburn:
Correia:
O'Donnell:
Correia:
Wilburn:
Correia:
Wilburn:
Schedule of pending discussion items?
I think one of the pending discussion items that has been on our list is the discussion of
the fourth fire station, public safety needs, and I wonder about, based on conversation
that we had at the last, our last budget work session and conversation that I've since had
with the fire chief, if it might be useful to create a Council public safety committee to
start developing a long-term plan of how we're going to fund our public safety needs?
You mean setting aside some, or you're just talking long range plans?
I mean, yeah, I think that we, we had a plan in place, this was before I was on the
Council, but this was, we had a plan in place to fund, and while the fire station has their
strategic plan, you know, we're not planning through looking at out, projecting three
years, this is our plan, we know we have these needs, we know our community is
growing, and I just wondered if it could speed things along if, like we have a
development committee, if we had a public safety committee for, to come up with a
recommendation.
Could you, could you type up a memo with some thoughts on what that might look like
so we don't get into a discussion that we're, that we haven't posted notice on, about
tonight?
Mmm hmm.
Get back to that at a future Council meeting? Thank you. Anyone else schedule a pending
discussion item?
Future Meetinl! Schedule
Wilburn:
Karr:
Wilburn:
Karr:
Wilburn:
Bailey:
Champion:
Wilburn:
Future meeting schedule? Was there some conflict that came up with this, or potential?
No, that's been on for some time.
Ok.
I did want to reinforce the early start time next Monday at 6:00, and you're already
booked to 9:30, and I don't think we're done yet.
Ok. Plenty of pots of coffee that night.
Treats.
Just for everybody's information, 1 will not be at the March 19th and 20 meeting.
March 19 and 20 Connie's gone.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.
January 22,2007
City Council Work Session
Page 56
Elliott: Which year?
Vanderhoef: That's -
Champion: So don't put anything heavy on that agenda, because I might object to it.
Bailey: Well we could move it - we could consider moving it. I mean we've done that in the past.
Atkins: So you've been warned.
Champion: Maybe we could talk about it at the next meeting.
Karr: You want to talk about rescheduling?
Champion: Well, if possible.
Atkins: Spring break.
(all talk)
Karr:
Well, it's not too soon, because people are looking at - Are we adjourned or you want to
keep talking?
Wilburn:
Ah, we'll just, we'll bring this up tomorrow night, so we're done.
This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of
January 22,2007.