Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-03-05 Transcription March 5, 2007 March 5, 2007 Council: UISG: Staff: City Council Work Session Page I City Council Work Session 5:30 PM Bailey, Champion, Correia, Elliott, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilburn Baeth Atkins, Dilkes, Franklin, Helling, Johnson, Karr TAPE: 07-22; Sides 1 and 2 Wilburn: Atkins: Wilburn: Bailey: Wilburn: Champion: Wilburn: Dilkes: Wilburn: ITEM 11. Johnson: For tonight's work session, with the approval ofthe Council there's a couple of items I'd like to move ahead of Planning and Zoning. One, we received in our info. packet a explanation from, a memo from Eleanor about rezonings, due process, and ex parte communication. I think before we have our Planning and Zoning items we should probably discuss that. The second is related to item number 11, I believe, since Captain Johnson is here. Is that the one? Yes. He looks very nice in his sweater vest out there, so we want to get him on his way. I didn't even recognize him. So if it's ok with the Council we'll start with those two, with the rezonings, due process, and ex parte communication first. That's great, because I could hardly understand that and I thought she was gonna probably explain it to us. Can you give us a walk through? Do you want to do that one before we do the (can't hear) Urn, sure. Let's do the, yeah, let's do the panhandling one so Matt can. And thank you for coming tonight, Captain Johnson. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 8, ENTITLED "POLICE REGULATIONS," CHAPTER 5, ENTITLED "MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES," SECTION 2, ENTITLED, "BEGGING," TO PROHIBIT SOLICITING FROM AN OCCUPANT OF A VEHICLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Glad to be here. I guess I would just say that this is, well, I will leave discussion about the construction of the ordinance to the City Attorney, that the ordinance as created is really minimally restrictive and addresses issues solely on the basis of how they relate to traffic safety and traffic efficiency. The restrictions would put in place prohibition against solicitation from public right of way, but only when that solicitation is directed to This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 5, 2007. March 5, 2007 Elliott: Johnson: Elliott: Johnson: Elliott: Bailey: Johnson: Elliott: Johnson: Dilkes: Johnson: Dilkes: Johnson: Dilkes: City Council Work Session Page 2 vehicles in the public right of way. So it addresses solicitations that are occurring from the street, from the sidewalk, from the traffic islands, from the median, to vehicles in traffic. What sort of drove this request from us was the number of complaints that we receive regarding people moving out into the public way to conduct these solicitations, and the movement itself or the after effect of the movement from the solicitor being caught in traffic once that traffic signal changes. There's just a great deal of unpredictability about not only the actions of the solicitor but also the actions of the driver or the actions of other drivers who are not necessarily the focus of the solicitor's actions. So this takes the subjectivity out of, the required subjectivity out of the equation and makes it just simply a prohibited act to do those solicitations from the public right of way when it's directed at a vehicle in traffic. Matt, my question is when the vehicle is in the right of way - I presume when it's on private property that's not the right of way. Correct. How about when the vehicle is parked? Does it make a difference if it is parked with or without the motor running? I don't think that it makes a difference in terms of this ordinance, because if it's parked on the street, for instance, it's on the public right of way. So if someone is downtown and talks to someone within inside a car, then that would meet this? In a parking space. Correct. It would be illegal. Correct. No, I'm going to have to disagree. Because it says it has to be operating. Oh, ok. The vehicle that is being operated on the public right of way. So. So then apparently the only occasion when that would be the case was if the vehicle was running. Yes? Yes. The vehicle I think would have to be running. But the idea is that it's vehicles traveling in the public right of way. I didn't use the word traveling, because I didn't want to get into arguments about whether an idling vehicle is traveling. And operating I think there's, there's a notion to what operating means under the (can't hear - coughing) statutes. So I think that was a better word to use. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City Council meeting of March 5, 2007. March 5, 2007 Champion: Oilkes: Champion: Oilkes: Bailey: Oilkes: Bailey: Oilkes: Bailey: Oilkes: Bailey: Oilkes: Bailey: Oilkes: O'Donnell: Johnson: Wilburn: City Council Work Session Page 3 In one of the letters we have tonight in our access materials it says that the police chief said would still be able to solicit if they stay on the sidewalk or on traffic islands. Mmm mm. Not. That's, I don't know if, I don't know if the Chief was misquoted or what happened, but that's not accurate. Right, but I mean, it says he said. It's not a quote. That's not accurate. You can obviously solicit pedestrians. You can solicit pedestrians. But you couldn't solicit anybody who's operating a vehicle. Right. Car, bike - is vehicle? It's a motor vehicle. It doesn't include bicycles. Just motor vehicles. You know, that, that, it was a thought that we had that for staff, for safety issues frankly it probably should. Yeah. It should probably. But it, but as written it does not. It's clear the intention is to keep the operator of the motor vehicle's attention on the driving rather than out the window or watching. Absolutely. Matt, I can appreciate the potential, the safety potential and you all raising this question. And I, I can understand for a variety of reasons some members of the public having problems with someone soliciting them from the car, not necessarily from the safety standpoint, but you all are bringing this up with the safety standpoint. I'm just trying to get a picture of, on how frequent a problem is this? And I'm thinking really on a day to day type basis. Because I, I mean, well just today I was trying to think of just the feel of whether it felt unsafe. There was someone soliciting off to the side of the public right of way and someone stopped in front of me, thought we were coming out of a parking lot, and at least at that time of day it didn't appear to be, and again, the potential is there and you never know. But you know, that didn't feel quite as invasive to me as there's a particular group that does fundraising this way. They always stop on, I think you probably know who I'm talking about - on Riverside and 6th. And they just, they wait for the light to stop and they walk in the street from car to car, and that obviously feels This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 5, 2007. March 5, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 4 unsafe to me. But how frequent do we hear reports or see where it's clear there's a problem here. If you can just walk me through, walk us through that. Johnson: From January '06, January I of '06 until March I of '07, we logged 24 different complaints directly related to people's presence as it relates to vehicles in traffic. I would add that not just in support of the ordinance, but I would add that this is significantly underreported, in that if our communications center takes S calls on the same event, just for efficiency sake, they might not log ailS of those complaints as separate items. So it happens with some frequency. I think the illustration you gave is very accurate. I think it's dependent in part on location and also on the solicitor, but I don't know that those are controllable factors. And the safest way is obviously to bring it to prohibition. Wilburn: Right. Is the nature of the complaints, is it against, is it a safety factor, or is it I'm feeling threatened by this person? Or do you get, really get a feel for that from the complaints? Johnson: Those 24 complaints that I referred to are all directly related to safety, to articulated safety concerns. Peoples' feet in the roadway, they're sitting on the median, or they're moving into the right of way. Wilburn: Ok. Johnson: I'm certain that there are others who are calling to express dissatisfaction with the event itself, but we're letting them know that unless there's a traffic issue, we're not restricting it, simply because of the way the present ordinance is crafted. Wilburn: Correct. Other Council questions? Correia: Well, I'm thinking about when different groups do there car washes and you see they've got their signs, they're walking kind of off the public right of way maybe into the area between. This would cover that as well? Dilkes: No it wouldn't. Correia: Even though that's a charitable group soliciting? Dilkes: But remember, it has to be, there has to, the focus is on a transfer from a vehicle to a person standing or otherwise occupying the right of way. Wilburn: The exchange. Dilkes: So holding a sign saying Come to Hy-Vee for Our Car Wash is not going to violate this ordinance. Vanderhoef: Unless they step out in the street. Correia: But they're not stepping out, your saying they're not stepping out on the street to get money on the street, they're just stepping out on the street to get people to come in to then get a donation. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of . March 5, 2007. March 5, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 5 Champion: Advertise. Vanderhoef: That I think is unsafe. Dilkes: Well then you, ifthey're stepping into the street and it's a safety hazard and you see that happening, then, it may be, depending on what the officer sees, it may fall under the existing ordinance. Bailey: But I can stand on a traffic island with a sign, not engaged necessarily with a specific car, but stand there with a sign advertising a charitable car wash or asking for contributions or panhandling and that's Dilkes: Or panhandling? Bailey: Well yeah, collecting money for myself or an organization or indicating that there is a car wash or whatever. Dilkes: If you have a sign that says call this number and donate to United Way, I think that we would have difficulty proving that they're standing there for the purpose of extracting money from vehicles as they go by. Bailey: Right. Or if l' m saying out of work, please donate - I can still do that, right? Elliott: No. Dilkes: No, not if the intention is to, and to extract money from the vehicles that are driving by you. Correia: Have there been any, any accident - I mean, people feel like it could not be safe - have there been accidents? Have people been injured? Johnson: In that reporting timeframe that I mentioned earlier, no. I'm not aware of any that occurred as a result of this type of activity. Correia: No. Ok. Ok. Vanderhoef: How about the hitchhikers who stand on the - Champion: Road, basically. Vanderhoef: On the right of way, on an on-ramp for instance, and they hold up their sign - Des Moines, something like that. And they're basically hitchhiking. To me it's unsafe, so I don't stop for anyone like that, personally, but I think it's distracting to have anyone standing in those areas where traffic is moving and accelerating and so forth. So would that be covered? Dilkes: That is not addressed by this ordinance change. Ifthere was a violation it would have to be under the existing ordinance. We would have to observe an actual safety problem with, you know, coming into the street. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 5, 2007. March 5, 2007 Johnson: Champion: Dilkes: Wilburn: Dilkes: Johnson: Dilkes: O'Donnell: Baeth: Dilkes: Baeth: Dilkes: City Council Work Session Page 6 And some of those behaviors would be addressed already under state code, under the disorderly conduct section, which prohibits infringing on the traffic flow. Some of those would. There would be a more direct connection between the presence on the roadway then, for instance, on a traffic island. But some of the illustrations that you've pointed out are already addressed in state code. My problem with this ordinance is I think there's going to be a fine of $50.00, did I see that? I don't think most people panhandling have $50.00. So does that mean they're going to have a warrant out? I mean I'm not so sure the punishment fits the crime. No, no. Well, first of all, I can't remember a citation in my time here. I think, I think there can be a citation if when the person is told that it's not allowable they don't leave, but that's typically not what happens. So typically, people say you need to move on and they do. Right, right. And secondly, $50.00 is the lowest fine, you know, for a simple misdemeanor, that we can provide. And no, there would be no warrant, because it's a scheduled amount, although there's some dispute about that. But it's, citation is not the likely result of this. I mean it's possible, but do you know of? Oh I agree with everything you've said. I think that this certainly gives strength to the officer who wants to make contact with someone who is in that position and say now clearly there is a violation and you can't do this. Whereas before, there had to be that connection between observing the behavior and making the nexus to a traffic efficiency or public safety issue. I think one of the things to think about is it allows for consistent enforcement, because the safety concern is specifically defined, as opposed to having to make a safety judgement each time the officer encounters the situation. You know, I've seen cars driving along and I've seen people standing in the medians, and people will drive along and they'll have a dollar hanging out the window and I've seen people run between cars, and I think it is a real safety issue. And I, Ijust think this is an overdue ordinance. Eleanor, do you know how common this law is, among other cities? I can't hear you. How common is this law? Obviously, St. Louis County has it, but is it very prevalent? Well, I know Ames has one. Coralville has one. I've not done a survey of other cities in Iowa, but I think, particularly in light of the Eighth Circuit decision, which addressed an even more, a broader ordinance than this one and found that it was not a violation of the I" Amendment, I would suspect it's not uncommon. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 5, 2007. ,,__~'__n"_'___'_'_'__'__________"_~'___~"_"_.___'_-.-,.-..-.,---.-----.-----~..-.-. March 5, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 7 Elliott: I think the ordinance appears to make a lot of sense when it comes to hitchhiking. As a person who hitchhiked all over the place when I was much younger, if it inhibits hitchhiking from either side, either picking up or being picked up. I'm not a fan of laws that protect us from ourselves, but ifit hampers hitchhiking, I can't think that's bad. It's, I think that's one of the more unsafe things that people can do these days. Vanderhoef: Tell me, ah, the way the ordinance is written here, and you've got, in the following - so it's under # 1, title 8, etc., that the whole begging ordinance is deleted in its entirety and the following new section is substituted, but then you've got, out in the right hand side, you're saying deleted. Oilkes: Ok. Let me explain. The reason I gave you this is because I wanted you to see the redline version. Ok? Until you get to b, it's essentially what we've got. Bailey: Mm hmm. Vanderhoef: Mm hmm. Oilkes: Except I changed begging to soliciting or, yeah, I changed begging to soliciting because I think soliciting is the more appropriate term for what we are prohibiting, at least in people's, what people think of. And so the first A 1,2 and 3 are what we've already got. Vanderhoef: We have them? Oilkes: They exist right now. That's been our ordinance for a long time. Bailey: That's been for some time. Oilkes: The only new part is B. Vanderhoef: So A will be there with those things, so that will take care of soliciting in our downtown, for instance, not in the right of way of a street but people on the street, on the sidewalk soliciting. Champion: No. Oilkes: If it's accompanied by harassment, assault or fraud, conducted in a confined space, intruding on the physical privacy of others, conducted in an area where the activity will impair orderly movement. Vanderhoef: Ok. That, that's what I wanted, to be sure that stays in. Oilkes: That already exists. Well it won't, the word, yes. That will stay in, that will stay in. Unless you change that. Vanderhoef: Ok. Bailey: So essentially with this ordinance, I just need to make sure that I'm understanding this correctly - we will not see people with signs asking for money in the traffic islands at our This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 5, 2007. March 5, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 8 intersections in Iowa City. I mean, we might see them, but based upon a complaint, these people would be asked to leave. Dilkes: Something that says homeless, please help. Bailey: Yes. Dilkes: Something that says donate to the United Way by calling such, such- Bailey: No, I'm talking, I rarely see the United Way employing this device. Correia: I mean, homeless, please help doesn't have- Dilkes: Ok, but those are the hypotheticals we're getting so I need to distinguish what you're saymg. Bailey: Right. Homeless, please help. Karr: I need a job. Bailey: I need ajob. Out of work, please help. We won't, that would be- Dilkes: No. You won't see that. Bailey: Ok. We also won't see, I remember somebody collecting money in a boot for something somewhere. We won't see that. Champion: Some firemen do that in some towns. They collect. Dilkes: No, you won't see that. Champion: We won't see that. O'Donnell: In Coralville. Champion: In Coralville? I've only seen it in Missouri. Dilkes: There are some cities that I'm aware ofthat have made, or I've been told that make a distinction between someone who is soliciting for themselves and someone who is soliciting for an entity, a charitable entity, and I can't make that distinction when we're talking about a safety issue. I don't think that makes sense. Bailey: And we won't have people running out to clean your windshield for money either, right? Vanderhoef: Or selling you a newspaper. Champion: They're not soliciting money. They're just doing your windshield. Bailey: Oh right. Out of the goodness of their heart. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 5, 2007. March 5, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 9 Wilburn: Any other comments or questions for Matt? Vanderhoef: Thank you. Wilburn: Ah, Matt, just so you know, this is my own personal, I'm still sorting through this between now and 7 o'clock. I clearly, I get the safety concern, and my comment here, some people may be able to understand where I'm coming from, others may not. And it's more purely a community sanction, political type question. A concern. Related to, you know, regardless of some of the human service agencies, regardless of some of the programs available, for a variety of reasons there are some people in homeless or near homeless situations, and this is a primary source of them getting assistance from the community. And you know, we're, as a community, while we're waiting to hear from the Supreme Court about whether or not, for example, Shelter House can be where they wish to be, with a larger facility and the day programs and things like that. And so on one hand there's a part of the community that says we don't want that. And now here I am making a decision to take away a primary source of income for some folks, and if we, and it's not that, you know, if Shelter House is able to do that and that goes through, it's not that that's going to cure all, but it's like well now we're not doing that and here you can't do that. And so it's kind of a personal value type ofthing. And everyone faces that, regardless of taking away from, or moving away from the safety concern, to get back to just the individual decision. It's up to the individual decision whether or not, when someone approaches you on the street, whether you decide to give or not, so. I'm just still sorting through that, but Ijust wanted you to know where I was thinking about this. But I do appreciate the safety component of it. Thank you. Rezoninl!s. Due Process. and Ex Parte Commuuications Wilburn: Dilkes: Ok. Rezonings, Due Process, and Ex Parte Communications. Eleanor, if you could give us a summary to your overview, and then we could just start throwing questions out to you and to each other. Ok. I'm going to focus on basically the first page and the very top of the second page. The discussion really is something that I felt like I had to memorialize, but it's the legal analysis and how I got there, so you don't necessarily have to, unless you're particularly interested. So the meat of it is on the first page and the very top of the second page. As I said, in the Sutton case, the Iowa Supreme Court was faced with a Dubuque rezoning that was being challenged. And typically challenges to rezonings are done by what we call a certiori action, and that action has to be brought within a 30-day period. The challengers in that action brought a different type of action, after that 30-day period, and the city defended on the grounds that they should have brought the cert action within 30 days. And in order to, in order for the court to say yes, that the city was right, they had to make a decision about whether the rezoning was a quasi-judicial or legislative proceeding. And the court said it was a quasi-judicial proceeding, therefore it had to be challenged by cert, therefore the challenge goes away. But all that, that was a different issue in that case, but what we're left with is the Supreme Court telling us that in some circumstances, rezonings are quasi-judicial matters, not legislative matters. And when you have a quasi- judicial matter, I mean, think about what - what that means is, it's like ajudge deciding a case where he's got a pro, he or she has a pro, and a con. And quasi is just kind of an This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 5, 2007. March 5, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 10 administrative judicial procedure where, like our Board of Adjustment. Our Board of Adjustment makes quasi-judicial - that's all they do is they make quasi-judicial decisions. And when you have a quasi-judicial decision you have due process requirements that kick in, which are basically notice, right to notice, an opportunity to be heard, and an impartial decision-maker. So ever since that case came out there's been a lot of discussion among City attorneys and others about what that means for the rezoning process as we know it. There's at least one City Attorney, the City Attorney in Dubuque, who I believe has advised his Council that they should not have any ex parte communication. And if you saw the article in Cityscape, Barry Lindahl from Dubuque helped with that article, and basically they advocated you just, just kind of a wholesale adoption of Board of Adjustment proceedings for rezonings. Board of Adjustment proceedings, they are not to have ex parte contact with the interested people. The staff presentation is made at the Board of Adjustment proceeding. Everything is on the record, etc. etc. So I started looking at whether there should be some distinction between a wholly quasi- judicial body like the Board of Adjustment and a legislative body like you all are, elected officials that make quasi-judicial decisions. And so the determination that I came to is what's set forth in the memo. I think under the standards set forth in the Sutton case, most of your rezonings are going to be quasi-judicial decisions. They are localized. They are applications by a person or an entity in the community for a change in the zoning that is a localized change; it doesn't apply to the whole city, it applies to just one area. And it, that application engenders support for the application and opposition to the application. Sometimes we have a different application, but the majority of what you're faced with, I think are quasi-judicial under the Court's reasoning. And so my, the advice that I'm giving you is that you may continue to have ex parte communications if you so choose, but that you need to disclose those communications on the record. The proceeding is not just, it's not like a BOA proceeding which typically takes place, not always, but typically takes place in one hearing and then a decision is made. You know we have, because we have an ordinance requirement that we give three readings we have an extended process. We have a public hearing and then we have three ordinance readings. If you have had a communication prior to the public hearing you should make that disclosure at the public hearing. You don't have to disclose the things that Marian hands out, that's all on the record, that comes to Council as a whole, etc., etc. But if you, or less than a quorum of you, have had a communication with a party, interested party, about the rezoning, then you need to, on the record at the public hearing, say who you have talked to and a summary of what that discussion was about. Doesn't have to be detailed, but it has to, and remember, the idea here is that so people who are out there and want to give you there input know what else you've heard and know how, and so they can respond to that. And so it's kind of to give them notice of what else you've heard that's not on the record. That will include conversations with staff. If you have a conversation with, except for my staff, because at least at this point I'm taking the position that those are privileged communications. But if you have a conversation with Karin or one of her staff members, that's like a conversation with a developer or a neighbor who's opposed to it. Same kind of conversation needs to be disclosed. Do you have any questions about that? Well, let me get through the whole thing. Then we can do questions. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 5, 2007. March 5, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 11 Remaining impartial. You do not have, you bring your own thoughts and philosophies and all that stuff with you when you run for the Council, when you're elected, etc. But when you are making a quasi-judicial decision, you have to wait until you hear everything that people want to say to you from both sides before you make a decision. And that just really means that you have to keep an open mind, not that you might have question - I mean, it's the same thing we talked about with the Coronet rezoning the other night. Which is why, because I knew this was coming, and is partly why I was so sensitive to it. But you need to keep an open mind and not let your pre-judgements govern you. You need to listen, take it in, listen, weigh it, and then make your decision. And so we, I mean there is a very real possibility that if you guys put statements on the record, that you've decided something before people talked to you, that we are going to have a real problem upholding our rezonings, so you just can't do that. And then the final thing is staff presentations. As you know we currently do staff presentations. Sometimes they're redone at the public hearing but, but kind of the meat of it is at the work session. I don't think that's an ex parte communication because it is on the record, and people have the opportunity to come and sit and listen to that. So I don't, I don't think it's a prohibited, or an ex parte communication that requires disclosure. My concern about that is that staff is not a disinterested party. Staff takes a position and to give them a crack at you, frankly, at the work session, when nobody else has the opportunity to respond to that, I don't think it bodes well for kind of the fairness and impartiality of the whole proceeding. Not that somebody can't sit there and listen, but I think it just, the appearance of fairness, some, a lot of courts will say the appearance of fairness is just as important as the actuality of fairness. So, so I think the staff presentation should be at the public hearing. I think it's also more efficient to have them at the public hearing, because Karin makes her presentation, somebody is in the audience, the developer makes their presentation, and responds to what Karin has said, in the same forum that she has said it, as opposed to, you know, listening the night before and responding to it there. So I think it's a much more efficient procedure, too. So. Vanderhoef: However, following up on that. Speaking for myself, there are times that I have the questions for Karin and want to get all of that into my thinking before I make a decision and hearing from others. So I would say, I would never accept anything but a presentation at that first meeting and then it would have to wait until the next meeting to have a vote on it. I don't expect myself to sit there, necessarily, and make a decision that fast. Dilkes: That may be. And that may mean that you have to continue a public hearing, if there's information that you cannot gather at the public hearing. But I think there are also times at the work session where you ask Karin for information that Karin doesn't have. And a developer, if that information, if Karin was providing that information to you at the public hearing, the developer might be in the audience able to stand up and provide that to you, because there isn't this prohibition that, you know, that other people can't talk at the work session. Wilburn: Otherwise, at least in terms of communication with staff, you're saying that can continue, we just need to disclose it at the next meeting. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 5, 2007. March 5, 2007 O'Donnell: Bailey: Dilkes: Bailey: Dilkes: O'Donnell: Dilkes: O'Donnell: Elliott: Bailey: Dilkes: (laughter) Elliott: Dilkes: Elliott: Dilkes: Elliott: Dilkes: City Council Work Session Page 12 Eleanor, I see, I see this really on everything that's going to require a vote by us. Would you, you said here all staff presentations? No. Only rezoning. No. I think it only applies to. I didn't run for judicial office. No. It only, it only applies to rezonings. To rezonings only. It applies to zoning decisions that are quasi-judicial in nature. That is going to apply to most of your rezonings. Only zoning (can't hear) As you know from my memo to you, why is, why is the rezoning issue different than our discussion about the intersection changes at Gilbert Street? Because you have the greater good of the City and the people who oppose it for their own - it's the same small group against large group, and opponents and proponents. Why is that different from rezoning? There's been a court decision. Because the Supreme Court says so. The otlier thing I said in the memo: sometimes our laws don't make sens~. Well it actually, I mean, sometimes there's going to be a fine line between what is a legislative decision, what is a judicial, a quasi-judicial proceeding? Oh yeah. That's- I think we're going to have to err on the side of saying it's quasi-judicia1;because we don't - yeah. That's a reasonable answer on your part. It's the law. My only concern is impartiality. I mean, we campaign on the basis of telling people how we feel, what we'd like to do. We can not, we are not, we can not presume to be impartial. We can presume to keep an open mind. And hope that will- but we are definitely not impartial. We're a l~gislative body; we're elected by people whom we tell we will be supporting something. And so we can't then turn around and say I am totally impartial. I have already been on the record, I am opposed to that or I'm in favor oftha!. Well but Bob, the example. I don't agree with you. The example that you're giving, the example you gave me in your memo. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 5, 2007. -_._-"~"-~--~-_.._._-,-_._- "--------_._--_.,-------~-- --,-.----.---.---- ,_._"-_._-_..__.-..._~~--_._-----+-_._-_.._----_._------~._--~...- March 5, 2007 Elliott: Dilkes: Elliott: Dilkes: Elliott: Dilkes: Elliott: Dilkes: Elliott: Dilkes: Elliott: Dilkes: Elliott: Dilkes: Bailey: City Council Work Session Page 13 Mmm hmm. Was, for instance, you say you've taken the position that we're over-regulated. Mmm hmm. You can take the position that we're over-regulated. That doesn't- So how can I be impartial? But that doesn't mean - judges have opinions about things. But that, bec<iluse you think we're over-regulated, you can not though then look at a particular rezoning and say ok, because I don't, I think we're over-regulated I'm going to say yes to the tezoning. Then if we're, if, the next person who campaigns for City Council, ifthe)"re asked something, for instance, if the Sand Hill Estates question were to come up and that person were to say how do you feel about the zoning regulations for the placement of garages, for the design of houses, you take a stand. You have stated where you stand and you are not impartial. That's not a quasi-judicial proceeding. That was a zoning code amendment that applied throughout the City. So it's only ifit applies at a certain subsection? You have to start by saying what proceedings are we talking about. Look at, if you look at the factors that the court set out, it's typically a citizen application. Mmm hmm. Ok. And a public hearing, which of course we have to have. And that as a result of that application, you get proponents and opponents weighing in on the process, and that that decision is localized in its application, affecting a particular group of citizens more acutely than the public at large. And you say that applies only to rezoning proposals or requests, simply because the law says it. I, I have to go along with that. But that, that's the same situation that exists in almost everything we do, but as you say, the law says that it focuses on rezoning so that's the only one we focus on. I, well, the court says it. And I think there is a distinction between rezonings, things you do that have, that are localized, that have visible proponents and opponents, as opposed to a legislative change that affects the entire City, such as the one we were just talking about earlier. You make a lot of those kinds of decisions - you know, the soliciting on the medians. Yeah. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City Council meeting of March 5, 2007. March 5, 2007 Elliott: Bailey: Elliott: Dilkes: Champion: Dilkes: Bailey: Champion: Bailey: Dilkes: Bailey: Dilkes: Bailey: Elliott: Wilburn: City Council Work Session Page 14 But the intersection of Gilbert Street isn't because it doesn't involve rezoning. It has proponents, it has opponents, it is very much localized, but it's not rezoning, so it doesn't, we shouldn't focus on it. There hasn't been a court ruling on that, as a decision yet. I - I understand. That's the law. There could be. And remember you know, the court hasn't addressed. We're just, we're trying to make our best guess on what we're, on how we should change our zoning process. It just keeps it more open, basically. It does. So what I, what I need to know is how does this look then? What does our process then look like? If Dee, for example, says I don't want to see a presentation and make the decision the same night, how, how are we going to accommodate? That's, I mean, I fully understand this, to the degree I can, but I would like to know how that practically changes our process. Well it might not have to. Actually, some of it might be, you might be able to make a decision that night, or people may want to think about it. Or how are we going to disclose, and what level, I mean, what do you expect when we're disclosing ex parte communication? Because I talk to a lot of people about these different decisions, and so how are we going to approach that? And I'm assuming that that also includes email, but does it include email if we're part of a list and we just read something? Or does it include email where we have actual correspondence? It includes any communication to you. And if you want to bring a copy of that email you can just bring a copy of the email. Ifit's a written communication, you can certainly- But if you're part of a listserv, for example, we should, that's a communication to us, even. Mmm hmm. Ok. Or a newspaper editorial. One of the, there are a few questions that Eleanor and I talked about were some of these logistical, practical, day to day type of things. Because I had given an example: for example, I get a phone call and the person doesn't identifY themselves, but I can see that it's Mike Snufty by caller id. Then I need to mention that Mike SnuffY talked to me about this rezoning and spoke against it. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 5, 2007. -~,,---~-"-"~"-"'------'--'-~-'--'-- . --_._.__._--_._---_._-_._-~--"'_..._-~--_._--_._,..~_._.--'-- March 5, 2007 Champion: Wilburn: Bailey: Champion: Bailey: Wilburn: Bailey: Wilburn: Bailey: Wilburn: Elliott: Bailey: Elliott: Correia: Wilburn: Correia: Bailey: Correia: Bailey: City Council Work Session Page 15 How do you know it's him? Caller id. Caller id. That doesn't mean it's him. Well that's another question too. Well if they leave a message, then. Do we need to do broad disclosure too? I mean, obviously when I correspond via email, I have the disclosure statement that this may be subject to open records. But people call because that's not necessarily subject to open records. I mean we need a wider disclosure so they know when they're calling concerning zoning matters, this conversation will be disclosed. That was another part of our conversation. Ok. That you know, someone approaches me on the street, hey you guys are doing this, and I need to say we are considering that, just so that you know, if you want to continue to talk about this, I'll need to mention you by name at the next Council meeting, that we had this conversation. I always, when I talk to people, I always ask them if I can, ifit's appropriate, if they agree with me identifying them as a source, so I know whether I can say that. But- One of the things - I guess I have a question - Let's - hold on a section, Bob, so I can finish that. So I give them a disclaimer, and then they can choose, just like they would with a disclaimer that we have on our email.to mention it or not. Yeah. But if they've already said something to you, I don't know that there's a, we're not required to disclaim. I mean - We are. No. Apparently. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City Council meeting of March 5, 2007. March 5, 2007 Elliott: Dilkes: Correia: Dilkes: Correia: Dilkes: Wilburn: (laughter) O'Donnell: Bailey: Correia: O'Donnell: Bailey: Correia: Bailey: Wilburn: Franklin: Dilkes: City Council Work Session Page 16 What, what- I don't think there's any requirement. I mean, you certainly could choose to tell people that, but I don't think there's any requirement that you do so. I guess I don't mean requirement. I guess I just mean, you're having a conversation, all of a sudden somebody says something. At that point, it's really too late to say can I, can I disclose this? They've already talked to you. Yes. That's right. You're saying we already have to disclose it. And that's the example I used with Ross earlier today. If somebody runs up to him and says God! Argb rrrrr rrr! You're outta here! Were you there? About the only thing we can do is advise them beforehand. But you don't know what they're going to say. You don't always know, that's what I'm saying. But I think you do. Excuse me, my parents live in town. Oh, I was walking into a coffee shop and they gave me their opinion about rezoning, so now I have to- Yeah. I guess the bottom line is we're trying to protect rezoning decisions that we make from, from, I don't want to stay court action, but being overturned in court action, because we can always be take to court. Maybe when you start, 'cause we're gonna start doing this sort of thing in terms of the staff presentations at the formal meetings. That when you start that segment, for a few meetings, just indicate why it's gonna be different. And then we probably also can put something on the website that indicates, you know, just as a notice to the public, that this is a new deal. I think we can put something in the agenda. Ifwe're going to continue to do, if we're going to continue to do the staff presentations of the other Planning and Zoning items, like plat approvals and that kind of thing at the work session, I think we can put actually This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 5, 2007. March 5, 2007 Karr: Oilkes: Atkins: Bailey: Oilkes: Atkins: Oilkes: Atkins: Oilkes: Bailey: Champion: Franklin: Bailey: Wilburn: Correia: Oilkes: Wilburn: Correia: City Council Work Session Page 17 on the item you know, this will be. Well, we're gonna have to on the work session, agenda - Agenda item 6 a, band c. Yeah. Eleanor, are we prohibited from doing it on Monday night if we repeat it on Tuesday night? You do two? In terms of fairness. No, no, I don't think I can say you're prohibited from doing that. Ok. I don't -like I said, I don't think it's an ex parte communication. It's on the record. I think it, it undercuts the appearance. What I'm thinking about is that opportunity on a Monday night to ask some questions, then incorporate that information as a Tuesday night presentation. I don't think it's a good idea. I think it's a preference. Ditto. I can't guarantee I'm going to say the same words on Monday night and Tuesday night. Yeah. Yeah. Well and that's, ifI'm someone from the public or a group from the public, and/or if I'm a developer and it ends up not going my way and I was at the work session or I heard at the work session this was discussed but there was slightly different information, you know, I'm going to court. Ido- Well look at it this way. If, if, let's say I'm, I'm going through a divorce and we're talking over who gets the house. And, you know, one spouse gets to talk to on Monday night and the other spouse doesn't. You know, he has to wait 'til the next night, and remember what the first spouse said at the meeting the night before, so he can appropriately respond. I mean, that's what we're talking about. Yeah, yeah. I agree with Dee that, that, it is, I think depending on the rezoning, depending on a lot of different things. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 5, 2007. -~-_._,---,._--------,~-,--_._~~-~-'---"'----^--'-'-------~_._------_.- March 5, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 18 Bailey: Complexity. Correia: It's gonna be hard to hear a presentation and have the first reading, depending on how long the public hearing goes within minutes of everybody's presentation. You get no time to consider or think. I would rather. But it is not fair to say oh, but in some cases we will or not need that. We could continue the public hearing. Champion: You wouldn't continue the public hearing, would you? Bailey: Yes. Correia: Well that's what she was saying. [ftwo people feel like they need it but not four people, then two people are set up for making a decision when they don't feel ready when all the rest of the majority feel like they can make it- (cut off - end of tape) Dilkes: . . . Monday and Tuesday night. Bailey: We're not getting a presentation. Dilkes: Well yeah, you just, you can still- Correia: It's 24 hours. But we're not getting a presentation Monday night, you were saying- Dilkes: Well [ know, but that's, we're not saying you can't continue to have your discussions with staff as long as you disclose them. Correia: No, [know. Dilkes: You can educate yourself, you can, you know. The same way prior to the presentation that you did. [don't know, [ guess [wouldn't be doomsday about the inability to make a decision at this point. We may, yes, have to do some alteration, but [ don't think every rezoning we do requires that time lag. Vanderhoef: When, when you talk about you can do your own due diligence and so forth. I read a packet over the weekend. Monday morning I pick up the phone and [call Karin and I'll say [don't understand this or is this such and such or something else. Or you or to Steve or to someone. But now you're saying that this is going to be more efficient, if we all call Karin on Monday morning to get our questions answered so we're, so we have 24 hours. Bailey: They'll never call in on Monday again. (laughter) Vanderhoef: So we have 24 hours to think about it. Correia: And then we'd all be caught telling, telling about our conversations. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 5, 2007. March 5, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 19 Franklin: W ell let' s think about this. It sounds like what you've got some issues with is the first consideration right after the public hearing. That that is going to be a concern for you. Bailey: Potentially. Franklin: But there have been Councils in the past who have never done first considerations right after the public hearing exactly for that reason. Vanderhoef: Mm hmm. Franklin: In many cases, it's not going to be a big issue for you. It's going to be in the more controversial rezonings. And those usually get strung out anyway, for a variety of reasons. But let's say that it's a fairly ordinary rezoning, but there are some questions that come up during the public hearing and there are a couple of you that want some more time to ruminate on it. And so you've got two more weeks out before all of you are comfortable with the first reading. Ok. You can do that first reading, and then at your next meeting you can collapse the second and go on to the third, and as far, if it's a timing issue that you're concerned about. Dilkes: Or you can not do the first reading, continue the public hearing, and collapse the next time and - Bailey: Yes. Or we can have developers understand that because of this ruling rezonings may take longer, because we might not do the first reading until after the public hearing and we may not choose to collapse. Franklin: That it may take two weeks longer. Bailey: Yeah. Franklin: We always tell people that it's going to take 3 months for a rezoning, from the time you submit your application. And that is based on two meetings of the Planning and Zoning Commission, which doesn't always happen; sometimes it's just one. And five meetings ofthe City Council: set, hold public hearing, and three readings. And so, anytime that you do a public hearing and first consideration at the same meeting, you're expediting it already. So I guess my point is that it's a valid concern, but think about it in those, in that context. That there are ways to deal with that issue. Elliott: I think that a part of the process that we have to acknowledge I think should change is when we have staff telling us about what's happening in a rezoning, on Monday nights we ask questions and follow-up questions and there is discussion. And if we do that, the tradition has been for the past several years that at formal Council meetings the public addresses the Council but doesn't interact with the Council. I think what we need to do if we hold this on formal meetings, we need to interact with staff. Then we also need to interact with those people who are addressing us on the subject and that's going to make those discussions infinitely more longer. I, longer, not more longer. Bailey: Not infinite, right? This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 5, 2007. ---~~--,--------~_._,_._,-~.__._---,.-..,~.._~------~------_.,~-------_.._.__.^ ._--"_._--_._--~-,,._'---_..- March 5, 2007 (laughter) Elliott: Correia: Elliott: Correia: O'Donnell: Elliott: Correia: Dilkes: Correia: Elliott: Wilburn: Bailey: Dilkes: O'Donnell: Bailey: (laughter) City Council Work Session Page 20 No, because it's hard to tell. Some may not- Significantly longer? But this is, this is going to be a change that will take place at our formal meetings. I think it'll make for better legislation, but I think we have to understand it's gonna take longer. Because if we're going to ask staff to our questions and follow-up questions, I think it's only reasonable that we give those people who either are proponents or opponents the same courtesy and that we learn the same from them that we do from staff. Aren't we allowed to do that? We don't address them on Monday night either though, at the work session. No. Monday night they don't have a chance. But our tradition with this Council has been that they address us, they don't interact with us. I thought that was only during community comment. That's only during community comment. When it's on the agenda we can talk to them, when they talk. I think it's going to make our meetings longer. I think it'll make it better, but it's going to make it longer. I think historically too not all Councils, not all have taken comments from the public unless it is a public hearing. Right. Right. Well and Marian tells me that there are many cities that don't even, don't have work sessions. That's true. They just fly blind. Vanderhoef: And they have 4,5,6, 7-hour Council meetings. Some of the big cities go on for. Karr: Some do, but you have to, you also would combine your work session and your formal to figure that out here, if you're going to combine hours. Wilburn: At risk ofthrowing something else in there- This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 5, 2007. March 5, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 21 Vanderhoef: I've' got something too. Wilburn: And I'm going to ask you to say what you said so I don't muck it up. I would ask the question what about our, are conversations between Council members considered ex parte? Dilkes: I don't think you should, frankly, even be having those. Champion: I don't. (laughter) Wilburn: Ok. So I shouldn't call Connie or stop by her store? Champion: You should stop by and buy a dress. Dilkes: I think you should do it at the Council meeting. I think if you have them you should disclose them. Wilburn: Maybe I will. Dilkes: I think those discussions should occur at a public meeting. Wilburn: Yeah, yeah. Elliott: And I think the courts are moving us from a legislative body to a judicial body and I think that's inappropriate for the people we represent. I think there's nothing we apparently can do about it, but I do think it's unfortunate. I think the people will lose. Dilkes: Well and if you don't like what the courts are doing, just wait what the legislature, 'til what the legislature does after the, you know, open meetings and open res - (can't hear) Elliott: And I appreciate your bringing this to our attention because it's important that we do. Bailey: When will we? Dilkes: I think the more we stay above-board on that stuff the better off we're gonna be. Vanderhoef: Ok. I have another, something we haven't touched on at all. Dilkes: Ok. Vanderhoef: Ah, phone calls from the reporters. Bailey: Parte I ex parte? (laughter) This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 5, 2007. March 5, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 22 Vanderhoef: They, they're used to calling us. They're used to, you read in the paper the quotes polling of on serious issues. I don't recall right now whether it has been on a rezoning per say, but certainly on a P & Z kind of activity. Dilkes: Mmm hmm. Vanderhoef: And how do you handle this, other than to say no comment if you're concerned with being open and above board? Because certainly I have talked with, with reporters, particularly some of the young ones and the journalism students and you give them a little history of what has happened leading up to this and how I have come to my conclusions and why I'm leaning this way or that way. I mean, personally I feel like a teacher in that, that capacity and I'm happy to do it. But, I don't know where to cut that line unless I cut it exactly like with Karin. That I have to report back everything that we talked about. Dilkes: Well, first of all, I, I don't know that a reporter is an interested party. And I mean, they're interested in the reporting of it, but - Vanderhoef: Selling newspapers. Dilkes: Yeah. My, my concern about conversations with reporters would be in, would be statements by you that you've decided an issue before all the evidence is in. Vanderhoef: Don't poll me anymore. Dilkes: So what's that? Wilburn: They can poll you, you just have to say we're having a public hearing on that tomorrow night. Correia: I will weigh all the issues at the public hearing tomorrow night. That can be your statement. Vanderhoef: Oh, it's going to be a different way of doing business for newspapers, for radios, all of our public communication. Dilkes: Mmm hmm. O'Donnell: Only on some issues. Correia: I do think - right. Champion: Only on rezoning issues. O'Donnell: I mean that's, I don't recall too many calls. I just, Ijust don't think it's gonna be that big a problem. Correia: Mmm. I do think - This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 5, 2007. March 5, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 23 Vanderhoef: I think it's moving into that problem. O'Donnell: Well let's not move it any farther. This seems to me- Vanderhoef: Well I don't think we're going to have a choice. Dilkes: I mean we, you could, you know, if you don't want to struggle with the issues, then you could simply say I'm not going to engage in any ex parte communications. It sounds to me like maybe Barry Lindahl in Dubuque had it right, because it sure would have been a lot easier to simply advise you not to have any. Wilburn: I thought you were gonna say don't run for Council. (laughter - can't hear comments) Dilkes: Ah, oh to not be a Council member. Bailey: How do I do this, don't run for Council. Vanderhoef: Yeah, when you're campaigning for instance, and they go down the line and everybody is to answer the same question. Bailey: They rarely ask zoning. I will say that - they rarely ask zoning on those forums. V anderhoef: Yeah. The zoning. Well, they talk about zoning, but not rezoning. Correia: Can I just, so, so just taking the information that came before us last meeting about Coronet. Dilkes: Uh huh. Correia: All that information that we heard had all been in the public privy already, like the developer, in the Planning and Zoning minutes. Like the HACAP presentation, we had the letter though we didn't have the letter, but I mean, it had been in the Planning and Zoning minutes. Garry Klein had a letter or something prior to that, he said it at the public hearing. And those were the only presentations we had last meeting of public, at the public hearing. DiIkes: Ok. Correia: And I'mjust, I'mjust wondering about- DiIkes: What's the- Wilburn: We would have to include, we would have just had to mention at those meetings you know, I spoke with this person, this person, this person. We didn't receive correspondence from them but I spoke with them, they were for this, they were against this and for this general reason. Is that, I mean, that's essentially how it would be, would have been different. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 5, 2007. March 5, 2007 Dilkes: Elliott: Bailey: Wilburn: Bailey: Wilburn: Franklin: Wilburn: Bailey: Dilkes: Wilburn: Dilkes: Bailey: Elliott: Dilkes: Elliott: Champion: City Council Work Session Page 24 Right. Well- And then that's what I want from you. How do you plan to run our zoning sections of the meetings differently or how do you want us to communicate those? Are you going to go down the line, are we going to disclose our ex parte communication when we typically speak to - how do you foresee it? Well, just taking a look at tonight's agenda. Mmm hmm. There are three, there are four. Oh, I'm sorry. Planning and Zoning. A, b, c and d. Yes. A, b, c and d. We would be doing those and discussing those at the formal Council meeting. Mmm hmm. Right. Now. E and f we can discuss in the work session, correct? Mmm hmm. Now the way it's, motions setting public hearings are supposed to work is that we just set them, and so we really shouldn't have to discuss those at a work session anyway, so I'm gonna put those on the public. Because- Right. We don't, you don't let us discuss them. Keep your gun ready for us. So yes. Even though, yeah. In case there is any discussion, it' Jl be at the public hearing. I can guarantee you that if this question regarding the proposed rezoning for the Pepperwood area, if that came up in late October, anybody who's running for Council would be asked what they think about it and how they plan, whether they plan to support it or not support it, and I don't see how you can be elected if you don't respond to that. You are not impartial. We are not impartial. This is not an impartial body. We're elected officials. But we can keep, but I think the ex parte part, within reasonableness, I think we can meet that. I don't know. You make a lot of statements when you're campaigning, but you can say right now, this is how I think I would vote, but I haven't heard all the answers and all the questions yet. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 5, 2007. March 5, 2007 Dilkes: Elliott: Champion: Correia: Champion: Dilkes: Correia: Bailey: Correia: Wilburn: Dilkes: Wilburn: Franklin: Bailey: Wilburn: Bailey: Dilkes: Bailey: Dilkes: City Council Work Session Page 25 And I think you can say you know, I have concerns about, for the city, you know, I don't think those are gonna be a problem. I think it's the, there's no way in hell I'm gonna grant that rezoning application once I get on the Council. Something similar to that. That's what I say. But you could even say that if you weren't on the Council. You couldn't say it if you were on the Council. You couldn't say it. Right, right. So tonight, do we disclose our ex parte communication? That's what 1- About Coronet. Well, the other thing that I was just gonna, as we get- You do the best you can tonight. As we get into discussing Planning and Zoning, if that comes up at a work session, an idea we bantered about was maybe for the work session, instead of just Planning and Zoning items it would be Planning and Zoning items d and e. Yes. Oh yes. For this work session, as one just logistical type thing. Perhaps as we get into Planning and Zoning matters making a, at tonight's formal Council meeting, item 6 Planning and Zoning matters, just as a FYI for the public, that the Council, in light of a Supreme Court decision, will be including any ex parte communications, phone calls, that type of, figure out something to say. But that's a help, I guess. Yeah. But then - On a and b, on the motion setting a public hearing, I don't think we, you don't have to disclose at that point. I think the proper time to disclose is at the public hearing for those communications you had prior to the public hearing and then if you get them after that, the next time the item comes up. I think it would be helpful ifas we do an item if you just remind us, I mean, maybe we just disclose at the beginning of the discussion, and you just ask, instead of waiting. I think at the public hearing. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 5, 2007. March 5, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 26 Wilburn: At the public hearing. Dilkes: At the beginning of the public hearing, if Ross says, you know. Bailey: Yes. Wilburn: Are there any ex parte communications that Council wants to mention? Dilkes: Anybody wants to disclose, you disclose them, then everybody who's here can respond to those as they make their presentation. Bailey: That wants to reply. Vanderhoef: Ok. With b, for instance. Dilkes: Mmm hmm. Vanderhoef: I have a request for information. Do I offer that at the work meeting? Dilkes: Not going to be on the work session agenda. Correia: It's not going to be on there. Dilkes: You can ask for it when it's set. Vanderhoef: Ok. So when we set the public hearing? Bailey: Eleanor will be inteIjecting a lot for the next couple of months, I imagine. Wilburn: Yes. Set the public hearing, discussion, can we make sure that staff includes at the public hearing information about x, y and z. Dilkes: Yes. Yes, that's fine. Vanderhoef: Ijust noticed this, that I meant to call Karin today and ask her if she had this information. (laughter) Bailey: They have to disclose intentions now. Vanderhoef: But this is the way I work. Dilkes: Intentions haven't come under discussion, no. Bailey: Oh, so confusing. Dilkes: I don't want to hear about your intentions. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 5, 2007. March 5, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 27 (laughter - can't hear comments) Champion: !t's going to be a much more open process. Bailey: Poor Eleanor. Poor Ross. It's going to be tough. Champion: Keep your mouth shut the rest of the time. Bailey: Poor Karin. I'm going to call Eleanor, because I don't have to disclose it. Vanderhoef: You're going to have all the answers, you stand right there. Wilburn: We'll ah, we'll hold each other's hands as we walk through this. Bailey: A little kumbaya. Dilkes: We'll just have to, we're going to have to, we'll do some things with the agenda next time. And ah, O'Donnell: We can hold hands, Ross, but you can't talk to each other. Wilburn: Well there you go. About rezoning, about rezoning. Correia: There can't be a majority- O'Donnell: You know, this brings up another point. When you do run for Council, you say you're going to be accessible to everybody and you're trying to be as transparent as you possibly can. But, you know, I don't disagree with you, but I really think we're going to have problems with this. Bailey: I do too. Wilburn: Maybe, I guess, maybe, it's another way to experience potential conflict of interest. You know I always have, people will come and talk to me about some items I can't vote on if I have a conflict of interest, and I let them know I'll be glad to listen, just so you know, I won't be able to vote on this item, x, y, z. Maybe that parallels to, I don't know, but just something to think about. Dilkes: Yeah. And on the other hand Mike, you can say that, you know, they can come to the public hearing and they can talk to you. And then not only will they get your response, but they'll get the response of somebody who, you know, is out there who has other information about it. I mean, you can look at it, I think, as increasing the amount of information exchange that goes on. And the more information everybody has, the better your decisions are. Wilburn: That kind of gets back to Bob's point. Dilkes: Theoretically. You know. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 5, 2007. March 5, 2007 Elliott: Wilburn: Elliott: O'Donnell: Bailey: City Council Work Session Page 28 I had a point? Yeah. I thought so - I was with you. Oh good. I'm not going to talk about it. Are we not doing Planning and Zoning? Planninl! and Zoninl! Wilburn: Bailey: Franklin: Wilburn: Atkins: Franklin: Atkins: Franklin: Wilburn: Franklin: Wilburn: Franklin: And so, Planning and Zoning. Item d. Which items are we doing? D? Item e. I'm sorry, item e. That's right. Karin, before you start - so this evening, are you prepared to? Ok. Oh sure. Wanted to be fair to you. I mean, in future meetings obviously when I have illustrations for things, that will all be set up and we'll just do that in the formal meeting and I'll work that out with cable, so forth. Did we ruin your shtick tonight? Pardon me? Never mind. Go ahead. Item e. e) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF OLDE TOWNE VILLAGE PART 2. (SUB07- 00002/SUB07 -00003) Item e is a resolution approving a preliminary and final plat of aIde Towne Village Part 2. The Planning and Zoning commission did recommend approval of this by a vote of 7 to O. Basically, what this enables is the subdivision of the property such that it can be sold to different entities. If you notice out there the buildings are already under construction. Usually we don't see that happen before the platting process. But this was approved under a planned development, and major site plan review. That has all been approved. The building permits have been issued. What this does is it takes this commercial area and divides it up into lots that those can then be sold to individual enterprises. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 5, 2007. March 5, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 29 Vanderhoef: Instead of condominiumizing and still having a - f) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL PLAT OF FIRST AMERICAN BANK ADDITION, A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 2 OF RUPPERT HILLS, IOWA CITY, IOWA. (SUB06-00021) Franklin: Yeah, yeah. Item fis a resolution approving a final plat of First American Bank addition, a resubdivision of Lot 2 Rupert Hills. This is on Highway I West,just east of the Lodge. What this does is it divides that vacant property between Hawkridge Road and Sabosky Carpet into two lots. And one of them will have on it constructed First American Bank, the easterly lot next to Sabosky Carpet. Karr: Karin, which one of these got deferred? In your email today? Franklin: That one, this one is "being deferred to March 20th Bailey: F. Karr: You're requesting to defer to March 20th. O'Donnell: This is? Franklin: Yes. This one. F. They're both American Banks, but they're different banks. One first and the other one's not. Vanderhoef: March what? Correia: What? Franklin: 20. That's your next meeting. Bailey: So - can I ask a question? Franklin: Yes you can ask a question. (laughter) Wilburn: You just did. Franklin: Disclose your motivation, please. Bailey: Since I'm completely clueless, so this, for consistency cc to discussion's sake, I know that RF 8 that's to the north of this is undeveloped. Who will be responsible for screening once that's developed? Franklin: There will be screening requirements that are imposed upon the commercial property. That's part of the commercial site development standards. Bailey: Ok. That's what I thought, but Ijust wanted to make sure. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 5, 2007. March 5, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 30 Franklin: And that's all I have. See you later. Correia: 45 minutes. Vanderhoef: You're gonna quit coming to work meetings. Franklin: We have to talk about that. Vanderhoef: Yeah. Dilkes: One thing I just wanted to mention back at the earlier discussion is Planning and Zoning has had for some time a bylaw that requires that they disclose their ex parte communications, so It's doable. Bailey: I've never seen that in the minutes. Vanderhoef: I haven't either. Correia: Maybe they don't to anybody. Dilkes; Well, maybe they don't talk to people, I don't know, I don't know. But there is a bylaw. Bailey: I guess I've never seen anybody disclose. So they don't talk to anybody else? Or it's not in the minutes. Franklin: There have been disclosures. It's not something that you get a lot at Planning and Zoning. But also, it's been pretty much a practice over the years, particularly with people who are used to working with the City, is that the political pressure does not go to the Planning and Zoning Commission, it goes to the City Council, because that's where the decision is being made. Yes, really, yeah. So what you get at Planning and Zoning are people coming to the public meeting. Every single item on their agenda is public discussion. Bailey: Right, that I've seen. Franklin: So I think there's just less ex part communication as a rule. Elliott: And Ross, our, historically, whenever there's an item that we discuss in the formal meeting, we do accept people to comment on it. Isn't that correct? That we have historically allowed that? Whenever we have an action item? Wilburn: Well, ah, so- Karr: Even though the public hearing is closed, if the item is being considered. Wilburn; I believe there have been some councils in the past have not, or some mayors have not in the past. Bailey: That's discretionary for the mayor. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 5, 2007. March 5, 2007 Elliott: Wilburn: Elliott: Wilburn: Elliott: Champion: Wilburn: Bailey: Elliott: O'Donnell: Al!enda Items City Council Work Session Page 31 But I think we have recently. Recently, yeah, yeah. That's what I thought. And since any of us have been on Council. I think both you and Ernie did. We have our 6:30. All right. Why don't we take agenda items and then we can take a break before our 6:30 meeting. So. Agenda items? Don't you want to do appointments? Because you have that later. Agenda items? Council appointments. Appoint (can't hear) Elizabeth. ITEM 16. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ANNUAL BUDGET FOR HUMAN SERVICES AID TO AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2008. ITEM 17. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ALLOCATING THE HUMAN SERVICES AID TO AGENCIES FUNDING FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2008. Vanderhoef: Oh I have one. 16 and Bailey: 17. Vanderhoef: Aren't they the same? Champion: I thought they were too but they're a little bit different. Correia: Is 16 just the amount and then 17 is the division? Atkins: Got it. One adopts, one allocates. Bailey: Yeah, ok. Correia: The question I had on 17 with the allocating, the memo on Shelter House? It didn't look like it was changed? Bailey: Updated? I don't think it is. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 5, 2007. March 5, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 32 Vanderhoef: Linda didn't get it- Correia: Still said STAR grant match. Bailey: Right. Vanderhoef: That's right. I saw that too and wondered about it. I figured that's when we were gonna vote on that, on 16. Bailey: Yeah, I mean, she had the electronic copy. She could have updated it. Correia: We just need to amend that memo? Bailey: Yes. Correia: Do you remember the wording of it? Bailey: No and I don't think I have it with me. Karr: I have it. If! have some time I'll pull it. Bailey: Ok. Thanks. Wilburn: Any other agenda items? Elliott: Pretty bland, tonight. Bailey: I thought the work session might place me in a Council Appointments Wilburn: Council Appointments. Airport Commission. Greg Farris. Bailey: Yes. Vanderhoef: Yes. Wilburn: Yes. Ok. And what was the other one, Historic Preservation? O'Donnell: Elizabeth. Vanderhoef: Vh huh. Brown Street, James Pronto, I think that's fine. Bailey: Yeah. Wilburn: Alicia Trimble or Richard Carlson? O'Donnell: Alicia Trimble is really getting press. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 5, 2007. March 5, 2007 City Council Work Session Page 33 Bailey: I thought we'd get both of them. Champion: No. Correia: We have to choose one? Elliott: Richard Carlson has already served six years and is in an additional term. And therefore I just think it's time for someone else to be there. O'Donnell: I like, I like Alicia's resume. Vanderhoef: I'll go with Alicia. Bailey: I can support that. Correia: Yeah, me too. Wilburn: Ok. Alicia Trimble. Vanderhoef: And we don't have anyone for Summit Street. Wilburn: No one for Summit Street. Correia: Do we have the gender breakdown? Elliott: Yeah, we got that. Wilbum: We got it? Vanderhoef: Mmm hmm. Wilburn: Ok. Unless someone wants Council Time, we can- Bailey: Let's do that later. Wilburn: Take ten. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of March 5, 2007.