HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-05-14 Transcription
#2
ITEM 2
Wilburn:
Karr:
Walz:
Champion:
Walz:
Champion:
Walz:
Page 1
PROCLAMA nONS.
(reads proclamation)
Here to accept the proclamation is Sarah Walz, Board Member, Friends of
Hickory Hill Park. (applause)
If I could just thank a few people in the community that have really helped
with this. Judith Klink has volunteered a great deal for this event, and
Christiane Knorr, and Connie Mutel, as well, and I hope that people will
show up. Pulling garlic mustard doesn't sound like a lot of fun, but one of
the things that we hope to achieve through the pull is to teach little people
a little bit about what a healthy woodland looks like and what to sort of
appreciate in our wild areas. So, invite everybody to come out and join us
for the pull. Thanks.
Where did garlic mustard come from? How did it get here?
Um, it came in the mid_19th century. It was a, an herb that came from
Europe to New England. It was a garden herb and it's used medicinally.
It's edible. You can make pesto with it and other things. So...
Thank you.
Thanks.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#4
ITEM 4
Wilburn:
Cohen:
Wilburn:
Page 2
COMMUNITY COMMENT (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA).
This is the time that's reserved on the agenda for the public to address the
Council on items that do not appear on tonight's agenda. If you wish to
address the Council, please step forward to the podiurn, state your name
for the public record, and please limit your comments to five minutes or
less.
Hey there, I'm Leah Cohen, and I have Bo James downtown and live here
in Iowa City, and I'm just here to ask the Council that they try and
schedule for your work session a discussion about this "Fight Night" that's
going on downtown right now. I have a lot of concerns about it. Um, I
think the media's gotten a hold of it a little bit, to look at it. I was going to
have a little tape for you to show a little blood and gore tonight, but I'm
not.. .at the advice of our fine Mayor, urn, but anyway, basically what
happens is a guy is registered through the State to set up a big arena in a
place, and they set up the arena. People can sign up to fight. They have
some fighters that are in training sort of thing and they have a lot of drunk
students that are fighting. I've talked to a number of students who have
come to me after the fact and have said they made some big mistakes with
it. Um, you might have a trained person fighting someone that is a
student. Everyone I have talked to has told me that they have drank before
the event, and urn, we did have.. . our Alcohol Board did have a meeting
with the Union Bar owners. We did talk to them about our concerns. Um,
they assured us that they had a little physical before fighting and that they
did check to see that they weren't drunk. I asked them if they
breathalyzed, and they said well no, they would never go to that extreme.
So, um, the concern, I guess my biggest concern would be the students
that are in this town. I think that we as business owners, certainly, and as
a city, you know, do whatever we can to keep them reasonably safe. This
is not a safe thing to happen, or to have downtown. These things go out
into the streets. We found, and it's proven, that even as a bar, if you run a
fight for instance on TV in your bar, the crowd gets very rambunctious,
gets in kind of that "rah, rah, rah" mood and there's problems. And I as a
bar owner actually never.. .because of that, but this carries out into the
street and it carries out into all of our businesses. I think that we all have
liability and I think we all have something that we need to do about this
here. Um, I don't really have a concern about people in training and doing
this sort ofthing. I think where we're running into problems is when we
have it in an alcohol establishment where alcohol is involved. So I would
hope that.. . encourage Council to talk about it. If you need more
information on it, urn, and to see if maybe we could just add something
into our ordinance that these sorts of things cannot go on where alcohol is
involved. Thank you for your time.
Leah, did you make your tape available to City Clerk's office for...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
M P~3
Cohen: No! I'll get that down to the Clerk though. (unable to understand) look at
some that. . .
Elliott: Eleanor and Steve, with our last discussion, we are looking into that, is
that correct?
Dilkes: Well, I think City staff is going to need some direction from the Council
as to what, if anything, the Council is interested in doing. Um, there's
very heavy regulation at the State level of professional boxing and
wrestling. To be professional boxing and wrestling, um, there must be a
prize or compensation given to the participants. Um, any information that
our Police Department has gathered along those lines will be forwarded to
the Athletic Commissioner to deal with between him and the Attorney
General. Um, there is very minimal regulation of amateur boxing and
wrestling. There was an effort in the State Legislature last year to
completely deregulate this type of activity. Urn, it's my understanding
that that perhaps came at the, um, that that was instigated by the Athletic
Commissioner because he was concerned that there was such minimal
regulation that either they needed to devote the resources to regulate it
properly, or not regulate it at all. That effort failed. Um, so really, I think,
the point that we're at now is I think the Council needs to have, gain a
good understanding of what actually is going on. It's my understanding
that the Police Department has made an effort to do that, and Steve can
maybe fill you in more on that, and then decide what, if any, local
regulation the Council is interested in. My. ..until I know exactly what
that is, it's kind of hard to tell you whether I think there are already pre-
emption issues. My gut reaction is that there probably, if you're going to
stay away from the professional boxing arena, and there's really no need
to do that because it's regulated by the State, but if you're going to do that,
you probably do have (unable to hear) jurisdiction.
Champion: Would it be.. ..is it possible to prohibit those kinds of activities in
establishments that serve alcohol?
Dilkes: I think that would be one possibility.
Elliott: I'd certainly...Mr. Mayor, I'd like to have that on a work session if we
could. It needs to be addressed, I believe. (several talking at once)
Atkins: We did send a police officer to the last one, and substantially as Leah
described. That's the officer's opinion.
Vanderhoef: Uh-huh, well, I had been thinking like you had, do we have breathalyzers
down there, because it's...ifit doesn't happen until 11:00 at night, which
is what I understand - it's some place later in the evening - I don't think
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#4
Page 4
anybody's going to sit down there and wait for their "Fight Night" activity
without having some alcohol, and judgment is poor.
Wilburn: (several talking) I was going to say, in the meantime, while Steve and I
look at the calendar, the work session calendar, I was going to recommend
if anyone has any questions to submit them to you for your consideration.
It seems to me that there's.. .let me.. .right away I had the question about
the preemption, and...
Dilkes: Well, but I don't know what the Council wants to do. I don't know if
there's four Members of the Council who want to completely prohibit it in
alcohol establishments. I don't know if you want some kind oflicensing
scheme. I mean, I think the Council's going to have to. . .
Wilburn: I'm just trying to find.. .okay, we're at our work session. I don't want us
to come to the work session with nobody having done anything. I mean, I
want it clear so that if we are to think about what it is we are possibly
interested in, then we should do that between now and the next. . .
Dilkes: Sure.
Atkins: If you're willing to give us some general direction, I think one of the early
conclusions was that the alcohol and the fighting simply don't...
Champion: No alcohol!
Vanderhoef: I agree, no alcohol.
Dilkes: I would really urge you to make sure you're getting a clear picture of
what's going on, so that we don't jump into something based on what
we've heard. Um, and that we get that clear picture. I know we've had a
number of communications from Monty Cox who is the promoter of these
particular things, and apparently does them throughout the country. You
might want to consider having, you know, hearing from him. I mean, I
think it wouldn't hurt to get a real good picture about what's going on,
from different perspectives.
Elliott: I think a fact-finding session for someone who could provide us with some
facts, and maybe we could find some out ourselves.
Champion: Well, I'm not so sure the promoter's going to have all the facts that we
want to hear.
Dilkes: I'm not suggesting the promoter will have all the facts. I mean, he
obviously has a slanted view, but...I just think that we need to get a
good.. .good picture here, from all sides.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
M P~5
Elliott: We just have a tradition in Iowa City that when people get knocked down
it should be at Kinnick Stadium. (laughter)
Wilburn: Thank you.
Karr: Mr. Mayor, just to clarify. Leah will be dropping off a CD, a.. . and it will
be on...
Wilburn: .. .CD that you have?
Karr: .. . a video, video tape, for like a couple weeks or.. . a couple weeks and
then it will not be archived in the office. It will just be available for
Council. ..(several talking at once).
Dilkes: And I think...
Vanderhoef: Why don't we schedule a work session and let's see the film...?
Wilburn: My preference is if you wish to go view it, ifit's...if someone's getting
beat to a bloody pulp and we're having...I feel like indirectly we're
having the event here if we do that. I don't know if, I mean, and there
may be someone who wasn't aware, they may show up to the meeting not
expecting to see someone getting pummeled.
Champion: I don't need to see it.
Wilburn: So that's why I'd rather, my preference.. .if the majority would like to see
it here, then so be it, but I'd rather if you want to see it go view it
individually.
Elliott: I can just pick it up and look at it.
Vanderhoef: I will.
Wilburn: Thank you.
Porter: Mike Porter, Coralville, Iowa. Just to add on to that a little bit, uh, just to
give you a little perception from another bar owner's standpoint on this,
we need to make sure that Union Fight Night ain't an arena for grudge
matches in Iowa City. That's what I've seen come out of this. We really
need to make sure...I think it's a neat thing. I think ifit's held at the
professional level, but the problem.. .I've had two incidences already
where A, we fired one of our staff members, and now that staff member is
coming back and challenging other employees to go fight in the Fight
Night because he didn't like the fact that he was fired. Second, we also
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#4
Page 6
have problems with, after somebody comes into our bar and we kick them
out for some particular reason, well, now all of a sudden they want to go
to Union Fight Night and settle their grudge match. So, there's.. .the only
thing I really want to add to this is we really need to make sure that Union
Fight Night is professional fighters that are sanctioned or whatever...I
don't know how it's done. It can't be just the Iowa City way to settle
fights. And that's kind of what it's coming down to, so that's my
experience with it. That's all I wanted to add to it.
Wilburn:
Thank you.
Porter:
Thanks.
Wilburn:
Anyone else care to address the Council on an item that does not appear
on tonight's agenda?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14,2007.
#5
ITEM 5
Wilburn:
Siders:
Wilburn:
Page 7
PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
a) VACATING A PORTION OF HOLLYWOOD BOULEVARD
LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 6 AND EAST OF
BROADWAY STREET (V AC07-00001).
1. PUBLIC HEARING
This is a public hearing. (pounds gavel) Public hearing is open.
Good evening. My name's Glenn Siders with Southgate Development
Services. Weare assisting the property owner in this process. We were
the applicants to get the rezoning request and walk through the special
exception, Board of Adjustments, and that sort of thing. I just wanted to
make a couple of brief comments. When Karin commented at the
informal meeting, she made the statement that this is required for the
Sonic establishment. It's not actually required. We could do the Sonic
site without the acquisition of this right-of-way, but in conversations
before we got he rezoning request, there was a willingness on staffs' part
and the Engineering Department said that this was, this six feet was
unnecessary for any future development activities that the City might
partake in. It did assist us in laying out a safer site plan with this
additional six feet. It allowed for a larger turning movement for, um, a
greater turning movement for larger vehicular traffic. This six feet is
encumbered with an easement. It can never have anything built on it. It
would be used as part of the ten-foot landscaping buffer, which allows us
to widen out the driveway and allowed us to get some buffering that the
City wanted to see with that. So, it's not a make or break the deal, but it
would be helpful, and I think would assist in the traffic movement. I know
there's some concerns all the way through the process about traffic safety.
Like I said, the...I think you would find that in the next item on the
agenda, the owner.. .the City has established a price. The owner agreed to
pay that price without questions. So, I would ask the Council to favorably
vote on this vacation. Thank you.
Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak at the public hearing? (pounds
gavel) Public hearing is closed.
2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION)
O'Donnell: Move first consideration.
Champion: Second.
Wilburn: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Champion. Discussion? Roll call.. .go
ahead.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#5
Correia:
Bailey:
Wilburn:
Page 8
I'm going to support the vacationing, even though I didn't originally
support the rezoning, and partially because when we get to talking about
the sale ofthe property, I'd like to again recommend that we take funds
from the sale of this property and set them aside for future affordable
housing activities that the City Council may decide to do after we get the
result s ofthe study. I mean, I think we are, we did lose some affordable
homes on this project, and I'd like to see us move resources from the sale
of this small piece of that, that belongs to the City, to help with our goals.
I'm going to vote for this even though I didn't support the rezoning,
simply because of the safety issues. I'm very concerned about traffic. I
continue to be concerned, but if this helps address some of those issues, I
think (unable to hear).
Roll call. Item carries 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#5
ITEM 5
Wilburn:
Franklin:
Correia:
Wilburn:
Dilkes:
Wilburn:
Dilkes:
Wilburn:
Page 9
PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
c) REZONING APPROXIMATELY 14.5 ACRES FROM HEAVY
INDUSTRIAL (1-2) TO GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (1-1) AND
REZONING APPROXIMATELY 36.65 ACRES TO PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY/GENERAL INDUSTRIAL
(OPD/I-I) AND APPROVING A SENSITIVE AREAS
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH
OF IZAAK W ALTON ROAD EAST OF OAKCREST HILL
ROAD. (REZ07-00004)
a. PUBLIC HEARING
This is a public hearing. (pounds gavel) Public hearing is open.
This is a rezoning of property, as you noted, from 1-2 to I-I, and that is to
enable the entire use of... that is being proposed on this site, a concrete
pipe manufacturing plant, and accessory storage area to be placed in one
zone. It is also a request for a planned development, since this is a
sensitive areas ordinance, within a sensitive areas' ordinance jurisdiction,
to fill a wetland that is in the area, and also to reduce the buffer from 100
feet to 50 feet. All ofthe conditions that were noted in the staff report
have been included in the conditional zoning that has been signed so that
the public hearing can be closed this evening. Urn, also, the deficiencies
and discrepancies that you might have noted at the end ofthe staff report
have all been resolved and are included on this site plan. Are there any
questions?
Will we have an opportunity to ask questions after the public hearing?
Sure. Anyone else care to address the Council on the public hearing on
this item?
Hold on.
I'm sorry?
Ex Parte.
Oh, that's right. Does anyone have any Ex Parte conversations,
discussions that they need to reveal at this time? No? Okay. Now?
Okay. (pounds gavel) Public hearing is closed.
b. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST
CONSIDERATION)
O'Donnell: Move first consideration. (several talking)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#5 Page 10
Wilburn: That was it. The public hearing is closed. Moved by O'Donnell, first
consideration.
Champion: Second.
Wilburn: Seconded by Champion. Discussion?
Correia: If this is the area.. .Izaak Walton League right now, and you go past...
Franklin: It is just west of the Izaak Walton League shelter. That area between the
Izaak Walton League property and Oakcrest Hill Road, and it abuts
Oakcrest Hill Road and Izaak Walton League Road. Izaak Walton League
Road is on the south.
Correia: Okay.
Franklin: Okay? I'm sorry.. .my visuals have done something. They went
somewhere.
Elliott: Izaak Walton officials are well, have been made well aware of this
situation?
Franklin: All ofthe property owners within 200 feet are notified, so they would have
received notification, yes.
Vanderhoef: Okay, with the conditional, urn, zoning, uh, we waive the typical size of
parking lot because of the fewer workers that they were documenting to be
put into this industry.
Franklin: Well, they got a special exception to reduce the parking required, yes.
Vanderhoef: Right. That special exception goes away if the building is sold and reuse
of building happens. Is that correct?
Franklin: The special exception is for a concrete pipe manufacturer. It's for the
specifics of their operation. So, presumably if they left and some other
business went in there, it would not enjoy that special exception.
Vanderhoef: That's.. .what I wanted to be very clear about.
Correia: And so this piece of property is heavy industrial zoned? Is there any other
industrial activity, besides what they're doing now?
Franklin: Not in the city, but right across the street, across Izaak Walton League
Road is an excavation operation that is in the County. That has been
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#5
Page 11
operating there for some time. I can't tell you exactly how long, and in
fact, the maintenance ofIzaak Walton League Road is done through an
agreement between Johnson County and S & G Materials, which is the
excavation company to the south of Izaak Walton League Road.
Correia: I'm concerned about the wetlands.
Franklin: Well, the wetlands, um, I mean, there has been a mitigation plan put
together, which has been done by wetlands specialists. This will all have
to be approved by the Corps of Engineers. They are providing
compensatory wetlands that are then a larger wetland area than what was
there naturally.
Correia: But we're losing the natural wetlands.
Franklin: Yes, that's part of the whole decision-making process here. Um, in terms
of when this is done, what is looked at is what the quality ofthat wetland
is now, what the size ofthat wetland is - that also comes into play in terms
of the buffer considerations, and the determination was made through the
wetlands specialist and then reviewed by staff and reviewed by Planning
and Zoning that in fact what would be the outcome of this would be as
beneficial in terms of filtering storm water or filtering runoff than what is
there now.
Bailey: That's my question, because it seems like, it's an interesting trade off
because we're doing more to manage the storm water runoff than probably
is occurring now into the wetland area. Is that correct?
Franklin: Uh-huh.
Bailey: From a heavy industrial area. Okay.
Vanderhoef: And they also agreed to clean up the part ofthe wetland that was not, will
not be disturbed. They want to go in and clean out an invasive species that
has gone in there that could take over the whole wetlands. So that's a
positive in increasing the viability of that wetland.
Correia: But right now there's not, or there's not heavy industrial use on this
property.
Franklin: On the property.
Correia: What's the current.. . current use?
Franklin: Right now, well, let's see. I think, and maybe Mr. Barker can.. . can speak
to this. The Itoo property has had some excavation occurring on it. Bob?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#5
Barker:
Franklin:
Correia:
Barker:
Correia:
Franklin:
Barker:
Correia:
Barker:
Elliott:
Correia:
Franklin:
Page 12
If you would. The question is, what has been occurring on this property?
Did you have an excavation operation on the northside?
No, a prior owner did.
A prior owner did, okay.
There hasn't been a use currently, an industrial use?
We've been storing materials on it, and recycling some materials.
Okay, okay. You know, w hat I'm wondering about is, we.. .the City has
industrially.. . land zoned for industrial use, that's available for purchase.
Is that correct? In the Airport?
No. We have, in the Airport Aviation Commerce Park, that property is
zoned CC-2 or CI-l. Nothing that would be appropriate for this type of
use.
It's my understanding, the current zoning permits this property.
No, I understand that part.
And it's just a matter of trying to get it all to the same zone, so we're
downzoning it, in order to meet the staffs requirements.
I think the concerns certainly are legitimate, but from past history, staff
concerns and considerations usually are very stringent, very technical,
very sound, and I feel confident if the Commission has reviewed this and
the staff has reviewed this with the technical engineering people, I feel
confident that you folks have covered your tracks and it will be a sound
proposition.
Well, I'm not saying.. .I'm not questioning that at all. I'm just, seems like
this is an area in the staff reports, and you know, another use would be to
be purchased to be a park, you know, if the City wanted to preserve that
land in its...
If that were the case, and I know what you're referring to.. .at the time of
the Comprehensive Plan being done or the District Plan being done for
that area, this area was shown as open space, and that's been done in one
other instance in which the property was privately held and that's Sand
Lake, and that evolved such that, yes in fact, we do now own that, and it
will become public open space. The way that this would become public
open space is if we were to purchase it. Um, the zoning that is in place
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#5
Page 13
allows, gives certain rights to the property owner. So, that's kind of where
we are with it.
Correia: No, I understand that part.
Bailey: And then screening between Izaak Walton, and then also as you come into
the city, it's going to be what, S3 landscape screening? So that will
involve evergreens and some permanent. . .
Franklin: Yeah. Uh-huh.
Bailey: Make sure that that entryway is...
Vanderhoef: Okay. There is another owner for the property east of this one that's not at
least shown in our crosshatched, so is that a different property owner that
owns right up to the river?
Franklin: That is east ofIzaak Walton? Is that what you're referring to?
Vanderhoef: Well, the.. .it shows on our map that there is a white area that would
indicate to me a different owner.
Franklin: Okay, let me get to that. You're talking about the location map?
Vanderhoef: Uh-huh. We know part ofthis property is in the...
Franklin: To the north is the Russell property, and they go over to the river. I don't
know who owns...I mean, Izaak Walton, where the. ..the shelter is, I think
it's. ..
Vanderhoef: I don't know where the shelter is in relation to this map.
Franklin: I'm sorry. I don't understand what you need to have answered, Dee.
Vanderhoef: You're referring to the shelter, and I said, I'm sorry, I don't know where
the shelter is in relationship to what I'm seeing on this map.
Franklin: I believe it is just east of the crosshatched area.
Vanderhoef: So that is already in preserve ofIzaak Walton?
Franklin: Yes, that is in the County.
Vanderhoef: Okay. What I'm thinking of is that at some point in time there may be a
river trail coming down that area, and what I was looking at was to see
whether this property would ever be involved in what might be a...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#5
Page 14
Franklin:
The West Bank Trail.
Vanderhoef: Uh-huh. And it just....
Franklin: Not this particular property.
Vanderhoef: .. .it doesn't appear to be, by what is shown on this map.
Franklin: Right.
Vanderhoef: So that's fine. I mean, that's many yeas out, but it's something that to
preserve right next to the river for a scenic walk. That's an option that
future people will probably chose to do.
Franklin: Anything else?
Wilburn: Roll call. Item carries 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14,2007.
#5 Page 15
ITEM 5 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
d) CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY
0.77 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 828 E.
WASHINGTON STREET FROM NEIGHBORHOOD
STABILIZATION RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION
DISTRICT OVERLAY (RNS-20/0CD) ZONE TO PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY/NEIGHBORHOOD
STABILIZATION RESIDENTIAL/CONSERVATION
DISTRICT OVERLAY (OPD/RNS-20-0CD) ZONE (REZ07-
0003) (SECOND CONSIDERATION)
Vanderhoef: Mr. Mayor, I will be abstaining from this vote, as I am a member of this
fraternity that sits on this site.
Bailey: Move second consideration.
Champion: I think they want it expedited.
Karr: They want it expedited.
Bailey: Oh. All right. Get the little, I haven't memorized this yet, which is
shocking. I move that the rule requiring that ordinances be considered and
voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting at
which it is to be finally passed be suspended. That the second
consideration and vote be waived. That the ordinance be voted on for
final passage at this time.
Champion: Second.
Wilburn: Moved by Bailey, seconded by Champion to expedite. Discussion? Roll
call. All those in favor say aye.
Dilkes: I'm sorry. Just need to do the Ex Parte again.
Wilburn: Okay, before we.. .does anyone have any Ex Parte conversations that they
need to.. .disclose at this time? No? Now, can I have a roll call. Item
carries 6-0 with one abstention - Vanderhoef due to conflict of interest.
Bailey: I move that the ordinance be finally adopted at this time.
Wilburn: Moved by Bailey.
O'Donnell: Second.
Champion: Second.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#5
Page 16
Wilburn:
Seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Item carries 6-0 with one
abstention - Vanderhoef due to conflict of interest.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#6
Page 17
ITEM 6
AMENDING THE FY2007 OPERATING BUDGET.
a) PUBLIC HEARING
Wilburn:
This is a public hearing. (pounds gavel) Public hearing is open. (pounds
gavel) Public hearing is closed.
b) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION
Champion: Move the resolution.
Wilburn: Moved by Champion.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Wilburn: Seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion?
Elliott: I'd just like to know what the amendment is. Just summarize.
O'Malley: Bob, actually it's the...a number of amendments. It's probably like 300
amendments, but some of the more significant things was clean up for the
tornado and the ice storm this year, some extra clean up. There was some
larger purchases, like Sand Lake and some expansion on the Fire Station
#2. We did a refunding last September on some water GO Bonds.
Elliott: Good. That's fine! That gives me a flavor of it. Thanks.
Wilburn: You don't want the other 275? (laughter)
Elliott: Next meeting!
Correia: So we had an increase interest income of$3 million.
Wilburn: Kevin is shaking his head yes.
Bailey: It's in the packet.
Correia: And then, under the General Government, it says that we doubled, we
used twice as much of our contingency as we budgeted for. I guess I
wanted to know about.. .more about how that happened, or what...
Vanderhoef: Some clean up!
Correia: Some clean up is listed under public safety, that's listed there, and then in
the General Government amendment.. .okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#6 Page 18
Wilburn: Kevin?
Atkins: Kevin, have you found it yet? May have to go to the other copy.
Correia: Page 204, use of contingency amount among all program areas, but there
seems. . . twice. One of the contingencies finding out about at the end of
the year?
Atkins: Question again - was the General Fund contingency... .I'll give you some
of the larger items. There was over $100,000, again these are planned
adjustments for the Senior Center bathrooms, which many of you mayor
may not know there's mold was discovered and all ofthose walls have to
come out, so that's about $100,000. Tornado clean up. Urn, Fire
Department overtime. These are all the larger ones, larger is usually
$30,000 or $40,000 or more. Almost $50,000 for fuel, cost of fuel went
up. Police and Fire vehicles. Our Comprehensive Liability Insurance up
$40,000. A repair to one of our weather alert sirens. Anything else?
Correia: So those are all.. . all items that hadn't been...
Atkins: Beyond our control.
Correia: Right, and hadn't been built into...
Atkins: That's correct.
Correia: The departmental budgets?
Atkins: On the up side, those are really good experience with our investment
income this year, too. Any others, Kevin, you think...
O'Malley: . . . came to mind that you might have mentioned was the additional
$40,000 in fire overtime. And uh, of course our clean up costs from the
ice storm.
Atkins: Now we just finished with FEMA about a week ago, and we have applied
for about $100,000 in aid. Now, we have not been guaranteed that, but we
got that information. So that would be another budget offset. Positive.
Correia: Right.
Vanderhoef: Thank you. Tornados don't count, but maybe ice storms do.
Atkins: Well, it's interesting, we had the tornado and of course it was in April
carried over throughout the summer to a new fiscal year and then we had
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#6
Page 19
the ice storm. So, in the one fiscal year you have a tornado and an ice
storm. I think we're done for a while.
Wilburn:
Roll call. Item carries 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
~ ~w
ITEM 8 CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE
CITY CODE, ENTITLED, "USE OF PUBLIC WAYS AND
PROPERTY," CHAPTER 3, ENTITLED, "COMMERCIAL USE OF
SIDEWALKS," SECTION 3, ENTITLED "USE FOR SIDEWALK
CAFES," TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE EIGHT (8)
FOOT UNOBSTRUCTED WALKWAY REQUIREMENT IN THE
CB2 AND CBS ZONES. (FIRST CONSIDERATION)
Vanderhoef: Can you give me an example?
Bailey: Let's move first consideration so we can all get an example.
Champion: Second.
Wilburn: Moved by Bailey, seconded by Champion. Discussion?
Bailey: Can we get an example?
Dilkes: In the Linn Street Cafe area.
Bailey: So what would happen? They could have a sidewalk cafe, but they don't
need eight feet.
Dilkes: Right now you have to have outside the Plaza area, you have to have eight
feet of clearance in front of your cafe, and this would change those
requirements for outside the CB2.
Bailey: So this seems to facilitate more outdoor cafes, that many of us really like!
Elliott: It addresses reality.
Bailey: That we don't have large sidewalks everywhere, right.
Vanderhoef: So, what are we talking about, for the through walkway then in those
constrained areas? A certain percent of whatever the sidewalk...
Dilkes: No, no. There won't, they won't encroach on the existing sidewalk.
Karr: .. . maintaining the sidewalks.
Dilkes: Will be maintaining the existing sidewalk.
Correia: It just doesn't have to be an eight-foot sidewalk.
Dilkes: Right. It doesn't have to be eight foot.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#8 Page 21
Bailey: So if you've got room outside your establishment, which I think Linn
Street, that area along Linn Street does, you could have chairs and tables
out there that wouldn't go on to the sidewalk. There's some.. .does that
make sense?
Vanderhoef: Uh-huh.
Champion: Then do they also have to be fenced in?
Dilkes: All the other requirements would apply. They have to be delineated.
Champion: Oh.
Wilburn: Any more questions? Comments?
Champion: Why do they have to be delineated?
Dilkes: Actually, that rule comes from the Alcoholic Beverages Division. You
have to have...you can't have, you have to have entrances and exits to an
alcohol establishment. You can't just have comings and goings, and it
becomes part oftheir licensed area.
Champion: Okay.
Dilkes: I think we do have the requirement in our ordinances, as well, that it
originally.. .
Champion: I was just thinking that downtown I can see that, if you have narrow, a
narrow area for a few tables and chairs, that maybe could not, if they
didn't have to fence it in, so to speak. They just have to delineate it.
Dilkes: We have a fencing requirement in our ordinance. One can imagine
different ways of delineation.
Wilburn: I'm sorry the Les Nesman tape on the ground came to mind. That goes
back a few years. Any other discussion? (laughter) Roll call. Item
carries 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
~ p~n
ITEM 9 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REQUEST FOR
QUALIFICATIONS FOR A PUBLIC ART PROJECT AT THE
ROBERT A. LEE COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER.
Bailey: Move the resolution.
Champion: Second.
Wilburn: Moved by Bailey, seconded by Champion. Discussion?
Bailey: It's such a great idea!
Elliott: I'm reading and they were going to pay an artist $500, but it said it will
include things like shipping and a number of other considerations, which
could become quite costly, but I see no ceiling on that cost.
Franklin: Oh, that's right! (laughter) Actually, no, there was quite a bit of
discussion at Public Art about that. Urn, the idea here is we go out first for
qualifications. That is not asking for specific proposals. One of the
reasons is because the art piece could be a painting. It could be a mosaic.
It could be a wall sculpture. All of which are different mediums that have
different costs associated with them. Usually when we put a budget in
something like this, either a request for qualifications or request for
proposals, if you put a budget in, this is a not to exceed, you get every
single one that comes back at that top point. So, if we can with
qualifications get examples of work that have been done by these folks
and prices on what their previous projects have been, we'll have a better
idea of what will work within the.. . our means, um, and still provide a nice
enhancement to that wall.
Elliott: And so possibly, this may even be a cost-saving adventure?
Franklin: You could look at it that way. Yes, Bob.
Elliott: I would like to. (TAPE ENDS)
Franklin: .. .narrow it down to four finalists, or some number of finalists, but
probably it would be no more than four and those folks are given the $500
to put together a proposal. It's a fairly common way to do it.
Elliott: And I noticed you do the same with artists that the educators do
with... they never pay them. They provide them with an honoraria.
Franklin: Yes, yes.
Elliott: Oh boy! (laughter)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#9
Page 23
Franklin:
I knew you'd love it!
Wilburn:
Roll call. Item carries 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#10 Page 24
ITEM 10 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE IOWA CITY FY07
ANNUAL ACTION PLAN AND APPROVING AN ADDITIONAL
REPAYMENT OPTION FOR FY07 COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME
INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS HOMEBUYER PROJECTS.
Wilburn: Item 10 involves Community Development Block Grant and Home
Investment Funds. I have a conflict of interest with that, and cannot be
part of the deliberations, nor the vote, as I work for an organization that is
a recipient of this source of funds.
Bailey: (reads Item 10)
Vanderhoef: Move the resolution.
Correia: Second.
Bailey: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Correia. Discussion?
Elliott: I did have to check and find out what a silent mortgage was, but I
overcame my ignorance in that respect, and I will support this.
Bailey: Any other comments or questions?
Vanderhoef: The only thing that, uh, I keep thinking about. Habitat, I am told, has a
15-year affordability to their contract with the homeowners, whereas the
City has through CDBG or Home Funds, has just a 10-year affordability.
So I was really quite pleased with the land grant loan that was in the
original proposal, land trust is what I'm trying to say, and then I started
thinking about the possibility of getting funds back into our CDBG
accounts at some future time. That would be helpful. My concern always
is with homes in this particular area that they remain owner-occupied and
don't become rentals, and with CDBG they could be sold and become
rental in ten years. So it's a balancing act between getting another five
years of affordability in a land trust or whether we go with the shorter
affordability and take our chances.
Correia: Well, and I also think though, that given the data and the history from the
Habitat, that in the last however many years you've only sold one.
Vanderhoef: Turnover. . .
Correia: Turnover is very low, and I just think that what you're worried about is
likely not to happen, and...
Vanderhoef: It's possible.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#10 Page 25
Correia: And certainly there's a need for rental homes in the Iowa City area, so I'm
not sure about that concern. I don't share that concern.
Vanderhoef: I had concern with more rental and that Block Grant.
Correia: And I don't share that concern, but I hear that concern.
Elliott: Amy, had you expressed some concerns or questions earlier about CDBG
funds and where they're going, or whether to the lowest on the rung of
financial need, to the mid-rung, and I have those concerns also. I'm going
to be checking with some folks this week on that, because 1...I have
concerns, but I think I'm going along with this, but I'd like to talk with
you a bit too and find some more information.
Correia: Well, and I mean, I think Habitat, you're. ..1 mean, Mark is here if we
could ask him a question, that the average income for the folks that
purchase Habitat homes, is it 50% and below?
Patton: Yeah, um, we're between 25 and 50%.
Correia: Okay.
Patton: So roughly for a family of four for Iowa City, it's between about $16,000
and $34,000, $35,000.
Correia: Right. So we're, I mean, this is really providing opportunities for home
ownership for folks that wouldn't have any, in this market, any other
ability to become homeowners. So...
Champion: I strongly support this.
Elliott: Thanks.
Bailey: Roll call. Item carries 6-0, Wilburn abstaining due to conflict of interest.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#11 Page 26
ITEM 11 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST AN IOWA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENT FOR THE INSTALLATION AND USE OF AN
INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ITS-7480(333)- -25-
00.
Bailey: Move the resolution.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Wilburn: Moved by Bailey, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion?
Champion: I have no idea what this is.
Correia: Sounds very science fiction.
Knoche: On Interstate 80, both east-bound and west-bound, there's changeable
message boards out past the Herbert Hoover Highway, and then out
towards Tiffin, and then on 218 and 380 there's also the same. This ties
those message boards together, and then also there'll be traffic cameras at
the major points in the corridor. So if you wanted to see, you're going
east-bound 1-80 and how bad the traffic was, pull it up on your computer
and take a look at it and see what's.. .
Champion: While you're driving?
Knoche: No, for planning your trip! (several talking at once)
Correia: So like a web cam!
Knoche: A web came, exactly, and then the news channels will also have ability to
show that during their newscast.
Elliott: But this provides also information on any blockage or slow-down ahead.
Is that correct?
Knoche: Correct, correct.
Elliott: Such as, you go into Chicago and you're on 294, 88 and there are signs
that say how much time it might take you to get to.. .okay.
Knoche: Yes, and then also through the agreement, we'll get a line of fiber along
Interstate 80.
Elliott: Good.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
# 11 Page 27
Vanderhoef: And that's the question I have, how are we envisioning using this
additional fiber that they are dedicating to us?
Knoche: What they're planning on doing is having connections, both at the
Dubuque Street interchange and then also in the future at the north Dodge
Street interchange, and that will get us a loop with the fiber system that the
City has. So it's a different route of information that we can get to the
Water Plant or future Fire Station #4. It just increases our fiber network.
Vanderhoef: So, what you're saying is it adds capacity for the fiber network, and are
there times that what we have is.. .is maxed out?
Knoche: No, this would just give us a different route for our fiber use. Ifwe would
have a cut at our Dubuque Street corridor to our Water Plant then we
could re-route and use the Dodge Street, Interstate 80 and go across that
way. So it's redundancy in our system.
Vanderhoef: Okay.
Bailey: Which is particularly good, we're looking at the Joint Emergency
Communication Center on that site, so I think that that's another reason
this fiber will be very beneficial. The redundancy is absolutely critical.
Correia: And the State is paying for this, I mean, we're not.
Knoche: There is some cost that the City incurs, but it's minimal.
Champion: What is minimal?
Knoche: I believe there is $5,000 in a couple locations called on the agreement.
Wilburn: Thank you, Ron. Item carries 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#12 Page 28
ITEM 12 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF lOW A CITY AND THE lOW A CITY
LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL #183, AFL-CIO, TO BE EFFECTIVE JULY
1,2007 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2010.
Correia: Move the resolution.
Bailey: Second.
Wilburn: Moved by Correia, seconded by Bailey. Discussion?
Champion: I like these three-year agreements. Probably do too?
Wilburn: Roll call. Item carries 7-0.
Champion: Now can we have a break before we get to the next one?
Wilburn: Okay. How long of a break do you want? (laughter) How long of a break
do you want, Connie? Ten minute break. (TAPE OFF)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#13
ITEM 13
Wilburn:
Boothroy:
Elliott:
Boothroy:
Page 29
AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE 7, ENTITLED FIRE
PREVENTION AND PROTECTION, AND TITLE 17, ENTITLED
BUILDING AND HOUSING TO ESTABLISH FIRE AND LIFE
SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW AND EXISTING GROUP
A-2 OCCUPANCIES.
a) PUBLIC DISCUSSION (CONTINUED FROM 4/16 AND 5/1)
This is continued public discussion. 1'd like to have staff.. .Doug, if you'd
come forward and review any changes before I allow public discussion.
Included in your packet, um, were changes that were talked about at the
last Council meeting, and I'll just take a couple minutes and go through
those. I did lay those out in the cover memorandum, pointing out that in
terms of new occupancies, there were no changes and that's consistent
with all the discussion that we've been through over the past. With regard
to existing occupancies, A-2 with an alcohol permit, with occupant load of
300 or more, we did change the time period from five to three years, as
discussed at the last meeting, and we did add the exemption, which was
also discussed at the.. . for single businesses and single-story stand-alone
buildings. And we included in your packet then a second document that
laid out by name businesses that were included and businesses that were
not included, as a result of that proposed change. Also, for existing A-2
occupancies with an alcohol permit between 100 and 299, the same
exemption was applied, single business, single-story, stand-alone
buildings, and in that one we also pointed out those businesses that would
be required to comply, and those that would not be. For those that are not
stand-alone businesses in a single-story, they would still be required to
comply within. ..if they had an improvement of$25,000 or more for, or if
there was a change of ownership. I should point out that we also, based on
our discussion, modified the definition of change of ownership so that
there is some discretion in that ordinance. The building official would
make the determination as to the significance of that change of ownership,
and we added the verbiage, um, I'll read it to you. There's a change in
business ownership defined as sale transfer or assignment of any legal or
equitable ownership interest, except that the owner may show to the
building official's satisfaction that said change in ownership is one of
form and not substance, and what we were getting at in that change is to
deal with some of the financial changes that could occur that were
considered minimal or minor, as opposed to when a business is completely
changed from one ownership to another.
In essence, Doug, would that mean when the management responsibility
changed?
Right, well, I don't know if that would be...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#13
Elliott:
Boothroy:
Elliott:
Dilkes:
Elliott:
Boothroy:
Page 30
It isn't if you bring in a silent partner who has 5% ownership, but means
that...
They might go from 5% to 10% or something like that, of ownership, or
they may, there may be an inheritance issue. In those situations, that
would not be considered a change in ownership. One ofthe things that
this does do is it, the building official would have to make a finding. That
finding could be appealed to the Board of Appeals, because any decision
ofthe building official would go back to the Board of Appeals, ifthe
business owner thought that we didn't get it right, and so I think that's an
important safety net for the builder.
For the common folk, the word "substantial" comes to my mind first and
foremost, whatever the legal definition of, meaning something other than
just adding someone to the management structure.
We chose to draft it this way because I didn't want to mess with just your
basic change of ownership. I wanted that to be very broad, because I don't
want people messing around with that to try and get around it, and so, but
then what we did is provide that there is an exception, so that if someone
can show that the change in ownership is, you know, minor - more a
question of form. Giving your child 10% for tax purposes, or whatever.
There's any number of things that might happen, then they can avoid that,
but it has to be with.. .we left that burden on the business owner.
I'm sorry to interrupt, Doug.
No, that's fine. 1... that was an important change that we talked about last
time. One ofthe things that you would might note is with these changes,
the exemption in particular, we went from approximately 54 businesses
impacted down to 24, and of those 24, seven of them would require
sprinklers and alarms, seven or ten would require sprinklers only, and
seven would require alarm only. So, there has been a change in terms of
the type of businesses impacted. Also, looking at the exemptions, um, I
think that the exemptions do sort out more of the non, the characteristics
that we were concerned about. We're looking at more restaurants in these
particular categories than the larger bars, for example. That seemed to be
the larger problem in terms of safety. It's not a perfect change, and we
probably will talk about that tonight, but we've discussed these changes,
and while we feel that our first recommendation was the best
recommendation, we're also comfortable with this recommendation
because it's taking a step in the right direction, and we need to start
making the effort to do something, and no matter how small that step
would be. Secondly, just mention that we, I also added in here three
possible options for loans. These are, the first two options were based on
what the City gets for selling bonds. The first option with a 20-year
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#13
Page 31
possibility of a loan by the use oftaxable bonds, and that rate 5.25% is the
current rate that we've received. That rate could change, depending on
economic conditions of when we sell the bonds and all that stuff. The
same is true with option 2, except that it's based on non-taxable bonds.
It's for a shorter period, a ten-year period. It's suggested in there that we
do a 20-year amortization, which means that the payments could be
lowered with a ten-year balloon, if that's the mechanism that would be
chosen by the person receiving the loan. That's currently at 3.75, and then
the last option is looking at the possibility of subsidizing the interest rate.
I choose an example here of$1 million. That approximates what.. .if
everybody on the 24 were to get loans, we estimate, based on some of the
costs that we looked at, that the City would be possibly loaning out at
much as $1 million. So, if you looked at that over ten years and you, you
underwrote one point, it would come out to about $100,000 or $10,000 per
year. I wanted to also mention about this that every time we have a fire,
we do subsidize. It's either loss of business. Sometimes it's expenses,
such as the Mondo fire, where we spent $8,000 to get a second opinion on
engineering ofa wall. There's staff involved. There was tax abatement
done for the business, which exceeded the amount of money that we're
talking here in terms of over ten years. So, there are subsidies that go on,
so it's not as if a subsidy doesn't occur when there's a fire. It's not black
or.white. It is what it is, and something to think about as you look at these
options, as you work through these particular decisions tonight. Any
questions about the changes that...
Vanderhoef: When you talk about, um, single story building, urn, the possibility of
having housing over the top of an eating establishment, how would that fit
into this picture? Even if it was a...
Boothroy: It would no longer be a single-story building.
Vanderhoef: Pardon me?
Boothroy: It would no longer be a single-story building.
Vanderhoef: Well, but my question is, why would we, a free-stand building or as you
put in here, a non-abutting building, when we look at doing density and
doing small commercial on the first floor, those kinds of things, and
housing on the second story.
Boothroy: Well, for new construction it's not an issue. This is only, we're only
dealing with. . .
Vanderhoef: For new construction it isn't.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#13 Page 32
Boothroy: Right, we're only dealing with existing uses. If you had an existing
single-story building and they wanted to put additional floors on, they
would need to upgrade to current standards, including the first floor
commercial. It's all within one building. Whatever happens in that
commercial space will impact the building, the structure and possibly the
occupants. So, it needs to be accounted for. I don't know ifI answered
your question or not, but it...I answered your question, I guess. (laughter)
Vanderhoef: Not really.
Boothroy: Well, I guess I'm not sure 1...
Vanderhoef: I know what you're trying to say is you want to get it all sprinkled, but I'm
thinking of a few buildings that I can think of, that might fall into this kind
ofthing. Their present commercial is not a bar at this point, but in a future
it could.
Boothroy: Ifthey change occupancy under this code, they would have to comply.
So, if they went from a use that is not an A-2 with an ABDL, it would be
changing. For example, ifit's retail or something like that, they're going
to have to bring that premises into compliance. I think that as far as the
residential above the ground floor, I'll let Tim address that. It depends on
how that building was constructed. Ifthere is proper fire separation, that's
going to define the degree of improvements that would be needed on the
floors above the first floor. Am I correct on that, Tim?
Hennes: The ordinance talks about fire area, and that fire area can be at that ceiling
of the A-2 occupancy, but it's a fire resistive issue. Does that...
Boothroy: I'm not sure she got that in English. Did you understand what he said?
Hennes: It's fire area. You can have more than one fire area in a building. As long
as....
Boothroy: As long as that separation is there, then that's your fire area, so if you've
got the proper fire separation between the commercial and residential, then
you're only looking at that commercial space. If you don't' have that
proper separation, then you're going to be looking at all the floors above.
Champion: You're talking about fire wall and fire doors and...
Boothroy: Right.
O'Donnell: Can we move to a different area? On page 3, you have sprinklers required
if $25,000 in improvements or change in ownership.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#13 Page 33
Boothroy: This was page 3 ofthat...
O'Donnell: Your memorandum here.
Boothroy: Where it has all the.. .where it lists all the businesses?
Champion: Right.
Boothroy: Did you.. .could you say it again...
O'Donnell: The $25,000, is that a structure improvement?
Boothroy: That's, in the ordinance we're dealing with, interior permitted
improvements. So it's not exterior.
O'Donnell: Is that... .one year?
Boothroy: Right. That's cumulative, excuse me. So it could be either one year, or it
could be over the life of the business.
O'Donnell: So, ifthey do $7,000...
Boothroy: One year, and $2,00 the next and $15,000 the next, you catch them on the
third time around.
Correia: So by the time they've reached $25,000, they need to have included
these.. .
Boothroy: Right. When they come to a point in time where they're doing $25,000
cumulative improvements, that's when a trigger kicks in.
Elliott: Within what time frame?
Boothroy: It's cumulative. So there's no time frame.
Elliott: You mean if you do $5,000 now and $20,000 50 years from now?
Boothroy: You could do that.
O'Donnell: That was my question.
Elliott: Michael, as usual, I'm sorry, I wasn't listening. I have a question, make
sure I understand this. We went from this as it was initially put forth, this
would impact 53 establishments. I have this reducing it down to about a
dozen. Is that correct?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#13 Page 34
Boothroy: Twenty-four.
Elliott: I had a dozen. Ifi! doesn't impact anything that's under 300. I had 300.
Boothroy: If you count through here, and I've gone through and counted several
times, and I've had back-up counters.
Elliott: Oh, there might be some, because you identified those which have an
operating area that is either above or below street level. I'm sorry. I
didn't catch that.
Boothroy: Right. The number should be 24.
Elliott: Okay.
O'Donnell: Did I misunderstand the last meeting? Were we talking about an
establishment with 300 and any new business or sold business? That's
what I thought your amendment was.
Champion: Yes.
O'Donnell: So it didn't get into the one to 299?
Boothroy: The one to 299 is only required to comply if there's a change or
improvements.
O'Donnell: Of$25,000 over a 50-year period.
Boothroy: .. .or change in ownership. Otherwise, there is no compliance within three
years or ten years or fifteen or the life of the business, as long as none of
those, those two triggers aren't triggered.
Bailey: And that was Connie's point that she thought that would get everybody to
compliance, and I was thinking, well, you know, I guess I didn't realize
this 50 year option, but yeah, cumulative, because I would like to have
something stated that at the end of "x" number of years everybody is in
compliance, if they fall into this category, whether it's 12 or 15, and sort
oftie this up, instead of waiting for these improvements...I mean,
potentially as Connie said, the improvements will trigger this more
quickly than that, but it would be good to know that we had everybody in
compliance at a certain point in time. From my perspective.
Elliott: You mean, all businesses?
Bailey: Businesses that fall into this category with ABDL.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#13 Page 35
Elliott: Why would we limit it to that?
Bailey: Because that's what we're focusing on.
Elliott: Yeah, but I mean, if you're talking about long-range planning then,
certainly the long-range says that all businesses need to be sprinkled.
Bailey: Well...
Elliott: Because you're right next door to a bar. It breaks out. I think if we're
talking about long-range then we gotta talk about long-range.
Bailey: Well, I did ask about ifthat was on the horizon for the National Code, and
they indicated it's not. I mean, because I asked about some of our other
establishments downtown. We have a lot of coffee shops and I've gotten
some questions from them, and both, they've indicated that that isn't on
the horizon.
Boothroy: We know what the 2009 Code is anticipating. We're in the process of
doing the 2006, but in development ofthese International Codes, you're
always developing several years out. That is not in that 2009 Code.
Bailey: Because of public safety, the critical factor was identified as alcohol.
Champion: Right.
Elliott: I think the critical factor has to be how many people are in there, how
rapidly and how easy and efficiently it is to get to the exit. I know some
structures downtown that I would much rather be caught in a bar fire than
in one ofthose structures.
Wilburn: I'd also from.. . from our building and fire professionals, and the part of the
logic behind that code was, yes, that there are larger numbers of people,
but there's a behavioral factor too, in trying to get someone who's
impaired out, and out safely, and out safely for themselves and for the
firefighter that's trying to get them out.
Boothroy: Alcohol's an important factor, there's no question about it, but it's not the
only factor, as you correctly point out. All of these other factors play...a
high occupancy, loud noise, dark environment, other types of issues come
into play. Not every place is going to have all of those conditions at one
point in time, but many of them have several of those.
Elliott: I'm not.. .I'm not wanting to hang you up on this. I think we're venturing
into some common ground and I'd like to at least get started on something
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#13
Page 36
that seems reasonably effective and financially capable, and I'll be long
gone before you start talking about the other stuff.
Bailey: Well, do we...
Boothroy: I don't know how you mean that! (laughter)
Bailey: He'll be watching baseball.
O'Donnell: There's several different ways to interpret that, Bob. (laughter)
Elliott: I hope for the best.
Bailey: So I guess my question is, is do we feel that the $25,000 in improvement
ties it all up and gets everybody compliant, or do we want the more overt
statement about compliance within "x" number of years?
Champion: Well, I haven't really accepted all of these...
Bailey: Well, I just, I just want to talk about. . . I mean, I think that that's our goal
and when we started talking about this direction, I was thinking about this,
and it would be nice to sort of tie this all up and get everybody compliant
within a certain period of time.
Wilburn: Can we hold that question...
Bailey: Sure.
Champion: My idea was a $25,000, was that would be a major, part of a major
remodel. Not cumulative, because the way prices escalate...
Bailey: Well, that was how I interpreted it.
Champion: Yeah, that was...I think when I remodeled my business, you know, I did a
major remodel inside. It was $60,000, so to me, but not all that had to be
permitted. So, $25,000 worth of permitted - that's a major overhaul to a
building, to me. So, I'm a little uncomfortable with that. What I'm
talking about is somebody comes in to my clothing store and turns it into a
bar. It's going to cost them more than $25,000 to turn that into a bar.
O'Donnell: That doesn't matter, because it'd be a change of usage. (several talking)
So they'd be required to do this anyway.
Boothroy: Right. That's correct.
Champion: Well, it already has a sprinkler system, but, this...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#13 Page 37
Boothroy: No, but that is covered.
Vanderhoef: The cumulative thing is the thing that I'm a little concerned about, because
you may have someone, uh, who puts in a new furnace or an NC, and
they might even stagger it, depending on what kind of AlC they have, but
they might get it in a small building at $25,000, and under, that it wouldn't
trigger it, but then the next time they had to replace a couple of windows
or something, a front door. . .
Correia: We're talking permitted improvements. (several talking at once)
Bailey:
I guess I didn't understand it was cumulative. I thought this
was.. .(several talking).
Champion: I mean if you.. .so if you did a majorremodeling, you would simply have
probably that much money tied up in electrical work and plumbing, which
has to be permitted. What else has to be permitted when you remodel?
Boothroy: Plumbing, electrical, mechanical. (several talking at once)
O'Donnell: And that could easily be $25,000.
Champion: Yes. So that's what I was thinking, a major remodel.
Boothroy: And what we based that on was $25,000 was a number we were using for
about the cost of a sprinkling system, and if you're putting that kind of
effort towards it, that that would be a good trigger for this point, for that
amount. Without that being in there, I think people would just skirt the
issue and do $24,000 this year, wait a year, they'd phase their
constructions and we'd never get a...
Bailey: That's why I thought we would have a point at which everybody had to be
compliant. I mean, it gets this sort of done. I mean, I think that's our
objective.
Boothroy: The cumulative permitted, we've got a good software program that can
help us track that. I mean, ifit's the $25,000 that's an issue, we could
increase that. I mean, that number could change a little bit too.
Champion: Yeah, you have to account for inflation.
O'Donnell: Do you have any idea how many businesses downtown that are presently
sprinkled that we're going to have to change?
Boothroy: Because of this ordinance?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#13 Page 38
O'Donnell: yes.
Boothroy: We do have a matrix that does show which ones are sprinkled. Some of
them are involved with the alarm (unable to hear) that question, but in our,
in one of our original matrixes, we did have (several talking at once). All
of these that...I don't have the exact number, and just because in that list it
says that, trying to think of one here.
Correia: The Sports Column, it says, or does that mean they already have?
Boothroy: They did put in a sprinkling system and I believe they're compliant, but
they're over 300, so they'd need the voice alarm.
Correia: The voice alarm, right, but they wouldn't have to...
Champion: What are we talking about cost-wise for a voice alarm?
O'Donnell: $15,000, and then upgrade the electrical box. Is that what we decided?
Boothroy: Closer to $8,000 for electrical, and I'll let Roger speak to that.
Jensen: I don't have all the data with me, Mike, but the total cost, if you started
from scratch for a voice alarm system, for practically any of our bars,
restaurants, nightclubs could be accomplished with expenditure of about
$8,500.
O'Donnell: Does that count the upgrade to the electrical system?
Jensen: It wouldn't require an upgrade to an electrical system. It would require a
fire alarm control panel and the devices that are associated with the fire
alarm.
O'Donnell: And that's included in your $8,500?
Jensen: Yes.
O'Donnell: Okay.
Wilburn: Why don't we.. .we do have continued public discussion. Why don't we
take some comments from the public. I'd like to invite people who have
not addressed the Council first, and then if you've already addressed the
Council, please wait 'til someone who has not had an opportunity to
address us.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#13
P ge 39
O'Donnell:
I want to say one more thing here. I got two calls today from people hat
were concerned about this change, and they were, they had the
understanding that the meeting was tomorrow night.
Champion: I know.
O'Donnell: So, I would really like to take that into consideration tonight.
Wilburn: Is there anyone who would like to address the Council who has not h d an
opportunity yet? Please come forward. And state your name for the
record, and please limit your comments to five minutes or less.
Brown: Sure. Ruadhri Brown. I run the Dublin Underground and uh, this
ordinance effects me in a couple of unusual ways, and I'd like to hav
your attention so I can let you know what they are. Currently, 1 have a
sprinkler system, and over the years I spent several thousand dollars
maintaining it. Uh, my business is 1,000 square feet, a very small
business. I have 16 sprinkler heads, and that makes it so I have one
sprinkler head for every eight foot by eight foot grid. Last year, Fire
Marshall Jensen was kind enough to come down and let me know tha I
have a few shortcomings with the sprinkler system. The primary one is
that it is supplied through the City by a two and a half foot, two and half
inch City main coming in. The new requirements are a four-inch mai
So ifI'm to update my system for the new requirements, I first have trip
out everything that I've been maintaining over the last 15 years, and tat's
before I dig up Dubuque Street, before I tear holes in walls, before I 0 all
the usual stuff that I'm sure you can imagine. Not only does this see like
a step backward, but it's a huge expense, before I get to point A wher
everyone else starts at. Uh, and seemingly it's a good deed going
punished. I'm going out of my way to maintain a system and then I'
being asked to pull it out and start fresh. Um, this ordinance also say that
it does not effect establishments that are under 100 in capacity. I am
under 100 in capacity, presumably because it is financially detriment I to
the business. It goes on to say later that those businesses over 300, a d
those that are above or below ground, must comply under the same
parameters, so I'm finding myself being a very small business, being
thrown into same categories as the biggest nightclubs in town. You now,
one night, on Friday night, a cover charge is more than I make in an ntire
week or two of sales. You know? Should we be in the same categor ?
Should we? I don't know. Now, I also want it known that I have al ays
worked with our City leaders, you guys. You guys have said, 'Hey Ii ten,
we have issues with underage drinking,' so I stepped up and said, '0 ay,
fine. 21-only to get in my place. ' You've said, you worry about drin
specials. I have not done a drink special since that meeting. Uh, you
know, I do not have flaming drinks. I do not have fight night, dance
floors, rock shows, dollar you call it, Friday afternoon club, you kno ,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14,2007.
r--
#13
Wilburn:
Porter:
Page 40
trying to operate a small European-style pub. You know, you stop in after
work, you unwind. Come in in the evenings, meet your friends, that's
what I'm trying to do. You know, with all this, I would like this taken into
consideration, along with the fact that I have maintained a current
sprinkler system when it hasn't been required by my category of
establishment for the last 15 years. I'm going out of my way to put the
fire sprinkler system that I do have in and next thing you know, bam, you
know, I am not against improving fire suppression systems, and there is no
one who is. I am asking that reasonable costs be taken into consideration
before you nail the little guy. $30,000 to $40,000 - I don't think that's an
outlandish estimate for what it's going to cost me to put a system in and
that I think is umeasonable. You know? Where am I flexible? You
know, I know that the fire officials are looking out for the community's
good. Where am I flexible? I would approve of the update when the
name changes on the license clause. I can live with that. Sure, it makes
my business valued at less, but it will also eventually get us to where our
fire officials want us to be. I think that's succinct and hopefully you will
take that into consideration when we put the final draft down. Apparently
there's a new draft out. I haven't seen it yet, so I'm kind of working at a
disadvantage here. Uh, that's what I have to say, and I would like to also
take one last minute to thank, uh, Mayor Wilburn and Councilman
Champion for actually coming down and taking an opportunity to look at
the suppression system that I do have, and I'd like to invite anyone else
down to come take a look at it. Thanks very much.
Thank you. Anyone else who hasn't addressed the Council yet, come
forward. Okay, I'll open it up for anyone who'd like to come forward.
Mike Porter, Coralville, Iowa. I don't even know where to start with this
stuff. There's so many things about it. How many Council Members, just
out of curiosity, have seen the fire video these guys showed at the station
in New Jersey? Bob, I know you have because you've been to all these
meetings. Has anybody else? Have most of you seen that? The...the one
at the Board of Appeals meeting, and the meetings we've been going to at
the Library, they've shown a very bad nightclub fire in New Jersey where
a hundred some people died. I just want to point out to you that that is a
single story stand-alone business that that fire killed a hundred people in.
Double doors, way more capacity. Their doors were wide enough, you
know, it fits that two-thirds thing. Plenty of windows, even side exits. It
was a stand-alone building. I don't know where you're coming from
when you're all of a sudden taking stand-alone businesses out of this
requirement. Then they went further to show us the prime example of a
great thing to happen. Minneapolis, Minnesota - they told us about the
fine line in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It was a building much similar to our
downtown. There was a bar surrounded by other buildings and an old city
block. I think it was two stories, maybe even similar to One-Eyed Jakes. I
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#13
Page 41
don't know, I'm not that familiar with it. It was surrounded by other
buildings. It had a fire suppression, it had sprinklers in it. Not a single, it
was a very similar style fire... they said, I think, it started with the
insulation burning. Very, very similar to the station fire. Not a single fire
was hurt in that fire. And now all of a sudden they're saying stand-alone
businesses don't need fire.. .it's not about whether you're standing alone!
Or whether you're amongst other businesses. It's about the amount of
people in your bar and whether you have fire sprinklers. So, I just, I guess
my question is, is where did this stand-alone business exemption come
from? Does.. .where did that come from?
Champion: It was my idea.
Porter: That was your idea? (laughter) I wasn't here, sorry, and I was at all these
other meetings...uh, that doesn't make.. .if a bar's busy, a bar's busy. It
doesn't matter if the building's connected. Urn, you know, I have a big
problem with that. The second thing is this alarming strobe system deal.
When I built the Summit five years ago, they made me put in all these
alarms, you know, the strobes and the alarms, spent $15,000 on that, and
now, everyone ofthese meetings, it was on February 13, February 20th,
and the one on January lSt\ they came into these meetings and said,
'Those are obsolete.' They said they do more harm when those things go
off because they confuse people. They told us those things are obsolete.
A system I spent $15,000 on, now they want us to put in some other
experimental system where your bartenders get on a microphone and
direct people through the microphone. There isn't any data anywhere that
says these things work. And now I have to put, I have to spend $6,500 on
the one at Summit, and at Jake's, it's going to be $12,000 to $15,000, not
$8,500 or whatever was mentioned as the top price. These things are real
expensive. Um, I have a real problem with these experimental systems
that they're wanting us to put in. Urn, the $25,000 thing, what's an
interior improvement mean? I'm real confused there. Is that putting down
new tile on the floor? I mean, Ijust spent $60,000 at the Summit putting
down tile and replacing flooring upstairs and painting the walls and things
like that. I mean, it's not hard to spend $25,000. What...1....is there any
definition of what a $25,000 improvement means?
Champion: It's permitted.
Porter: So, ifit's $25,000 of electrical or walls or.. . you have to replace carpeting
and stuff like that?
Champion: Plumbing, bathrooms. I wouldn't count like putting in a new floor or
painting walls.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#13
Correia:
Porter:
Wilburn:
Woodson:
Wilburn:
Cohen:
Page 42
Things you have to get a permit from, from the Building Department -
bathroom, electrical, plumbing.
I guess that's just, that was a question to me. Um, I've got so many
problems. Another thing is, this is inaccurate. One Eyed Jake's doesn't
have a capacity of 300 or greater. Urn, we had a fire inspection on
November, let me see, I apologize. This might be a little vindictive, but I
had a fire inspection on November 21st (TAPE ENDS) and not go, we're
just going to go after downtown bars, and I just don't think that's fair. I
don't know where to go after this. Thanks.
Thank you. Anyone else care to address the Council?
I'm Daryl Woodson, Sanctuary. Just a couple of things. Several people
have said to me, well, you know, this current revision won't apply to your
business because you're under the 299. The requirement is still there.
The requirement kicks in upon sale. We have gotten finally an estimate on
the installation of the sprinkler system and alarm system in our building.
We're looking at about $40,000. So essentially that's a $40,000 liability
hanging on the sale of the business. So, I sell the place to somebody, it's
worth $40,000 less than it was before. So the $25,000 number that some
of the places have had, I don't know where that comes from or how many
places, but we're looking at $40,000, and that's a considerable amount of
money for a small business. It's about 12% of the current value ofthe
building. And then just one other quick thing, you know, I said early on in
this that you know, retrofit requirements should meet a high test of safety.
It should be really absolutely necessary to change the rules of the game.
National Fire Protection Association, which is one of the two code writing
bodies in the country, in 2005 their figures, 36,075 fire deaths in the
United States, 82% at home, 14% in a vehicle. 96% of the fire deaths
were in their home or in a vehicle. 4% in all other occupancies. In other
words, people are much more likely to die at home, after they've been out
for the night, than they were while they were out.
Okay.
Hello, I'm Leah Cohen. At my age, I need a sheet to remind me what I'm
talking about here. One thing that I would like to say is that, um, this is a
little confusing to me yet. We just got it Friday, and we had this
graduation weekend. So we haven't really discussed it or notified people
or done anything on it. I'm still kind of trying to absorb who's exempt
and who isn't and why they are and some that may be a little bit and
probably shouldn't be and whatever, because we did just get it and there
was no notice to anybody. There's certainly always concern, and there
still is, that there are some people who have no clue what's going on here,
that are going to be very surprised, but urn, I think that, and also when we
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#13
Wilburn:
Neades:
Wilburn:
Neades:
Wilburn:
Neades:
Page 43
talk about, as we talked about improvements, $25,000 in improvements,
one of my concerns with that is people will not make improvements.
We'll have a bunch of dumpy buildings because they won't want to
because ofthis fire sprinkler thing kicking in, but urn, the one thing I want
you to realize also is, and as small businesses talk about this, and again, I
reemphasize that Bo James does have a sprinkler system. I am in
compliance now. That voice system would not kick in in my
establishments with my numbers. I do not at all like that voice system, but
when it comes down to it, in the yearly costs of this sprinkler system to,
for some of these people that are here, it just gets down to if you come into
it knowing what's going on, I think it's a different story than people that
are here, like Dublin Underground says, you know, he's already got
maintenance cost. He's...I don't know how someone that size will afford
this, but um, the loans that are being looked at now from the City, again,
it's a matter of who can pay back what, how. I've talked to two people
that have talked to their landlords about it and their landlords said they
absolutely will not have a lien on the building with this. Urn, so I don't
know what's going to happen with some of those individuals, because it's
not, I've been told by others that the banks have said that it's not
something that's loanable. It's not concrete loanable for banks, either. So
that's going, there are going to be businesses that plain and simply will not
have the money and you won't be able to have liens on the place. So I
don't know how that's going to be addressed, but um, anyway, Ijust.. .I'm
still trying to absorb what we got just recently on it. So, that's all I have to
say. Thank you.
Thank you. Anyone else?
Hello all. Rebecca Neades, Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce. Urn,
let's see. Just a couple final points. First of all, those of us that were here
a couple weeks ago, this looks a little different than how we heard you
propose it, and so I think anyone that was listening at home, um, I'm
afraid doesn't know that some of these changes have taken place, and
aren't here. The other problem is, it's a Monday night and I understand
meetings have to change once in a while, but I also got calls today saying,
'I'll see you tomorrow night,' and I had to make sure I told them it was
tonight, so that makes me a little nervous as well.
Just so that folks can move on to other comments.
Yes?
I think we've shown that we're, we're willing to extend public discussion.
Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#13 Page 44
Wilburn: So...
Neades: I wasn't aware of that.
Wilburn: .. .save your time for what your concerns are. We, at least we have the
pleasure of going to another meeting with public discussion. Okay?
Neades: Good! I'm glad you clarified that, because I didn't hear that earlier.
Okay. Then, I think the most important thing I want to.. .well, two of the
things I want to bring up tonight, is one, I don't believe the International
Building Code requires voice-over alarms. So I think that's something
new that...
Champion: We haven't discussed those alarms yet.
Neades: .. .okay, and then, so that's something we're very concerned about, and
then the second thing is, at one point, when I look at the back sheet of
what was proposed by the staff, it gives some different options for loan
amounts - 20 year, 10 year, urn, one that you guys will supplement. At
one point you were talking about possibly doing grants, and I understand
that whole discussion and we've kind of moved away from grants, but this
is.. .these are requirements that you're asking business owners to step up
and make, and I really feel like if there was a point where you would have
done grants, I'd like to see you consider a no-interest loan. I know that
this is, you know, I know that's expensive, but it's far less to loan people
money at no-interest and have them do what you want them to do, than see
these changes go on and on and on and not get done, or be put off. So,
that was my last comment!
Wilburn: Okay, thank you. Anyone else?
Mondanaro: Jim Mondanaro. Urn, I was here before, couple weeks I think. So I've
seen this whole thing evolve, and I took a pro position and I'm still pro,
except they've tweaked it, and things in the political process work that
way. How do you get it to happen? By giving a little bit this way and
taking a little bit the other way. Mike makes the point that, why is it that
single, stand-alone buildings aren't in this fire safety concern that we
have. If we really have a concern, then it should be across the board, but
in the political process, we tweak. We try to get a little push and pull.
The thing that I have a problem with is that before when we talked about
this, to get this engine started, we talked about grant money, and we talked
about, if any, a very small, insignificant interest rate on the part of the
package that would be a loan. Well, the grant went away, and I have to
tell you the truth. I think that's right. Connie? You're right. We
shouldn't be getting free tax money to do something in terms of a grant,
but if you want to incentise people to get this done, and it is a fire safety
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#13
Page 45
issue, then I think that you... there has to be a push-pull too. Give the
money and let it be no-interest, as Rebecca would say, to get these people
to get this done, and make it so that it has teeth in it - so that you're going
to offer this in a short window span and you better. take advantage of it
now, because once that goes away, it will no longer exist. That, to me, is
part ofthe process, and everything else for $25,000, you know, to do
improvements, you know, people that are going to drag their feet and not
do improvements, well, those people aren't going to be in business
anyway. I don't worry about those guys. You have to maintain your
business on an annual, daily, weekly business if you're going to be
competitive in today's tough, tough world. So, I think if you look at it
from where we were and where we are today, if someone's going to spend
$40,000 to put a sprinkler system in their building, you know, 5% interest,
now all of a sudden that's another $2,000 hickey on top of the already
reduction in principal. It's the thousands and the five hundreds that start
to break the back of a business. Taxes, as we all know, are out of control
downtown. They're not just downtown. It's all over the state. And so the
business side of it from what the day-to-day expenses to operate have gone
up drastically, where rents have now almost taken a secondary position in
some cases to what the taxes are. And that is a reality, and the taxes will
not go down, and you know, now all of a sudden there.. .from chambers
across the state, there's a real concern about whether businesses can even
take the position and the pressure that's coming from the tax dollars that
are being generated on a daily basis, an annual basis, to pay to
governments to, you know, have fire protection, all those other things. So,
I won't take up any more of your time, but I like the idea of being able to
incentise me to get this done, but I don't like it for people that, I mean,
there's a lot of people that this effects, and some people monetarily may
be able to do that easier than others, but at the end ofthe day, I'll
guarantee, no landlord in this town will pay one penny. It's triple-net
downtown. Period. Doesn't exist any other way, that I know of, and
because of that, these tenants, some of them won't be here ten years from
now, and so to me, if you're going to do it and it's going to cost me
$40,000, then I would say.. .or $30,000. Ifit's $40,000 for ten years, I
have to spend $4,000, or do I spend for ten years ifit's $40,000 - all ofa
sudden it's a couple thousand dollars as it reduces. Twenty years makes it
easier, but I mean, I don't know what is the logical number there? But I
think you need to waive that interest if you're going to do it, or do
nothing, and let it just take its natural course. I went through just now
down at the saloon. We had to do that whole process, and as I said before,
we bellied up to the bar and we did it, because we knew that was the
expense for us to operate in today's times, and a lot of that just takes place
itself, but I feel for the guy that has the Dublin. You know, here he's had
a sprinkler system that's a two and a half inch feed, and all of a sudden
that's not code, but it was code at one time, but he has fire protection. It's
like the bowling alley. You know? It's not a perfect world out there.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#13
Page 46
Somewhere along the line you get, I mean, if you're trying to burden us
with this, and all these people, I think you have to go no-interest. Thank
you.
Wilburn: Thank you.
Champion: The other thing I'd like some time, since we're going to obviously
continue the public hearing, is I'm not willing to give tax dollars to
anybody to repair their building, but we did talk about making sure...I
think it's partly the City's responsibility in making sure the water supply is
there. And so it might be a good idea if we could find out some
information on what areas of town don't have the correct water supply, or
the pipes or whatever it takes. (several talking at once)
Boothroy: We do have information for downtown and we could certainly provide
that by the next meeting. It's on a map. It's easiest to look at it that way.
So we can bring that information.
Champion: I mean, I do think that is partly the City.. .that is, to me, the City's
responsibility to make sure the water pipe is there. So that would be
information I'd want the next time. I like the idea oflow interest loans
and also I'd like to have some more discussion about the, um, what did
you call that thing? The speaker system. (several talking at once) Yeah,
um, that's something that we haven't discussed yet. Urn, I'm wondering
about how Dublin Underground, for instance, 1...I think they, to me, I
think they would be exempt. The Sky Box, even though I know it's on the
second floor, and I'm not sure what their escape routes are, but how can a
small business like that afford a sprinkler system? They can't possibly
afford it. They will be forced to close. There is no way they can afford it.
Wilburn: One, we did have grants on the table. The example ofthe Dublin put an
effort to put a system in that was, you know, that's probably outdated, that
was an example in my mind of one that could possibly qualify for a grant.
Champion: It's a functioning system. It's maintained. It's maintained every year. It's
a total functioning system, in a very small space.
Wilburn: .. .there's a capacity...
Boothroy: .. .accurate statement.
Jensen: Actually in the City we rely on contractors to tell us if the system is indeed
a system or not, and the sprinkler contractors deem that to simply be a
plumber's solution, that some years ago they connected some lines and
screwed some sprinkler heads into it and called it a sprinkler system, but
there's no contractor that's willing to call that a sprinkler system. So it's
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14,2007.
#13
Page 47
not hydraulically engineered to, uh, to perform as such, and there is no
licensed contractor that would say, um, that they would guarantee that that
is a compliant system.
O'Donnell: Would we ever have inspected that?
Jensen: What we have always done, Mike, is we have relied on the contractors.
O'Donnell: You take their word for it?
Jensen: They are the experts. We.. .we expect them to give us information that
pertains to the code, yes.
Wilburn: Well, the point that I was trying to make was, again, we've been trying to
figure out how we can get something to happen (several talking). The
only point I was making was, if any business has shown that they are
making strides in the direction we're trying to go, that that might be a
consideration, in terms of combination loan-grant, grant-grant, but that's
been taken off the table, but go ahead.
Hennes: Just wanted to mention that a couple years ago, the City adopted the
licensing requirement for sprinkler contractors and fire alarm contractors,
and with that adoption, it's making them more accountable for these
systems out there, and they're not so willing to sign off on them, that they
are compliant systems. So, that program's really working well.
Elliott: I wanted to take just a minute to respond to one of Mike's questions.
Mike, after the last meeting, you were talking about stand-alone buildings,
and I didn't find any data on that, but I did check with the firefighters, and
I asked them, 'Do you feel that there is not as much danger to either the
firefighters or the people who might be inside,' ifit's a stand-alone
building like the bowling alley, like, uh, like a stand-alone lodge or
something like that. So that's where that came from and Ijust figured, go
to the experts and find out what they have to say, and their response was
that it was less dangerous to both the firefighters who might be entering
the building, or to any people inside who would be in there at the time. So
that's where that came from. Or at least my agreeing with it.
Wilburn: I'm sorry, we can't have conversation without it being miked and in to the
official record. So if you'd like to respond to that, you're welcome to
come up to the mike, but I can't have folks talking without a microphone
in front of them.
Vanderhoef: I too will bring up, um, what I brought up several meetings ago, and Leah
brought it back up tonight, the lien on.. .we keep saying on the property
owner, but we are going to have to talk about business owner, because I
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#13
Page 48
think that's true, that the triple-net is going to keep every business owner
paying for this upgrade, not a property owner.
Dilkes: Well, there's...I mean, there are clearly going to be security issues.
They're going to have to take, I mean, you don't have to take security for
a loan, but it certainly makes sense to do so. Urn, whether that's on the
business that's actually owned by the person, whether it's on other
property that they own, whether it's a guarantee - I mean, there are other,
but there are going to be issues with that.
Vanderhoef: Uh-huh. That...if their home or whatever, and actually I would like to get
verified whether any ofthe bankers would care to talk about it or not, but
it's been stated to us that the bankers aren't going to be willing to loan
money if you don't own the building to do that upgrade in there. So, is
our loan program the only money that's going to be available? If they
don't own the building.
Champion: I think that they (several talking at once).
O'Donnell: I don't think we can answer that.
Elliott: I did talk to two bankers, and they said that generally speaking, they need
physical collateral, but with, ifthere is a thriving business, they would
loan on the basis of a substantial, reasonable return. So it isn't a flat
statement that they would not loan without physical collateral. So, some
could qualify and some might not.
O'Donnell: I'm not going to support a grant of any kind. I just, you know, the
common sense to me is since we're requiring the change, is a no-interest
loan, and that would also be very difficult for me to support. You're
loaning money, from people who in this community don't support this
type of business downtown, and I don't think that's proper. I really think,
what I came away from at the last meeting was this is going to effect bars
of300, and new establishments or sales of establishments, and I don't
know where the rest of this, and that.. .did I hear that wrong? I heard it
wrong. What did you hear?
Bailey: I heard...
O'Donnell: Were we at the same meeting?
Bailey: Yeah, I think we were. I heard basically what we've got outlined,
although I didn't hear the $25,000 is cumulative. What I heard was the
point, we were interested in getting compliance, and Connie indicated that
she thought the improvement requirements, over a period oftime, would
get all these compliant.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#13 Page 49
O'Donnell: I guess I need to hear what Connie's amendment was.
Champion: My amendment was, well, it was 350, bars over 350 have three years to
comply. Um, because I think they have the money to do it, and I'm
probably not willing to loan them any money, but urn, the other thing that
I... we talked about lowering it to 300, and then I think Dee brought up,
um, below grade and above grade (several talking at once). Ijust see that
that will force people out of business. I think that's all it will do. Urn, we
hadn't talked about.. .well, and the stand-alone businesses I made exempt,
but then I thought the way we could get this all done eventually is that
any, or whatever code, at the change of ownership will have to meet the
code. That would be the long-term way to get this all done.
Bailey: Well, and I think that that's what we need...
Champion: .. . and I still am happy with that. I still am happy with that, although I
know it makes the building worth less money, but I'm not really sure. If
you want.. .sometimes when you buy a business or you go into business,
you've got to be willing to put a chunk of money in it to make it your
business, and not the person that owned it before you, and that always
takes a good chunk of money. So I don't think that the new owner, that
that would be so terrifying, because they know they're going to have to
put some money into this business and so they're going to do it, but to ask
somebody who's got a thriving business, and I'm not talking about
thriving, I don't mean that they're making millions. I mean the business
pays for itself and then make a living off of it. But to tell them now that
they have to put in $20,000 or $40,000, I mean, that's.. .I'm a small
business owner. That's a huge amount of money. That is a huge amount
of money to put into a building that isn't mine. That I'm going to have to
borrow money for, urn, with the change of ownership, people
automatically are willing to put money into a business remodeling. So I'm
still a long way from supporting this whole thing. I am willing to support
some long-term way to get this done, and you have to start somewhere,
and it may take 10,20,30 years - so what? It gets done. And that's a
short time in the life of a city. That's a very short time.
Bailey: But it's not a short time in the life of public safety. I mean, that's too
long.
Champion: But then we shouldn't allow any cars to cross intersections if people are...
Bailey: That's just too long.
Champion: Well, I don't know ifit is or not. Ifwe had started this 20 years ago, it
would have been done.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
# 13 Page 50
Bailey: Well, we didn't, unfortunately...
Champion: I know. But you've got to start somewhere, that's my point, and I'm not
willing to put these people out of business to get this done. I'm really not.
Boothroy: Well, I guess I'm interested in knowing if there is.. .consensus with regard
to change here.
Wilburn: The question that I was going to ask, um, would the changes that were just
made, are there...I don't know if! even want to say, are there four Council
Members who wish to see us move towards getting sprinklers done
somewhere with A-2 occupancies?
Bailey: This is moving in the right direction for me. I have some concerns about
the exemptions. I have concerns about the cumulative. And we haven't
even talked about voice alarms. But this was a step in the direction I'd
like to see. I am concerned about above and below grade, but I'm also
concerned about Dublin Underground that has worked to try to do
something for safety, and so I thought it was interesting, your comment
about that might be a business that could apply for a grant. We do no-
interest loans and grants for economic development all the time, and I
think we should consider that. I mean, this is our, I mean, many of these
are in our cultural district. That's a cultural and entertainment district, and
we should consider that economic development impact and try to frame it
like that. To me, this is moving in the right direction. I'm not there yet.
Boothroy: If we move. . . (several talking). . .I was going to try and move through the
changes to see whether we're on the same page with some of the ones we
proposed, and if we're not, then we can highlight those and come back to
you, if that's. . .if that's a possibility.
Correia: Well, and I wasn't interested in knowing about how much of the
improvements are related to things that the City can do. In terms of, is it
running lines from the City system, if they improve our system how much
does, what does that do? The cost impact on a business.
Boothroy: Well, the water lines in the right-of-way, we would have access to.
Anything inside the building would be...
Correia: Well, I know, but I mean there are things that...
Boothroy: That's about it on the outside, would be the water lines.
Correia: Right. But there are improvements to the water lines that are needed to
get, for folks to get, and so in one scenario the business owner has to pay
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#13
Page 51
for those improvements to the City system to get themselves in
compliance.
Boothroy: Yes.
Correia: Okay, so if I'm wanting to know, how...ifthe City did build
improvements as part of the CIP, what that does to the cost estimate on the
business, what the impact is on the business.
Boothroy: Well, I'll bring the map next time and we can talk. We know specific
businesses in the downtown. We don't really have information for those
outside of the downtown, probably, but we can get those downtown. It'll
give you a pretty good idea. Um, we...
O'Donnell: .. .that it's approximately, on a typical downtown location, it's
approximately $15,000 to increase the water line to the building?
Boothroy: I don't know what that...it all depends on how much the street you have to
cut, and whether it's out front in the sidewalk. When we did the Iowa
Avenue improvements, the T's and stuff, or the Y's are right out in front
of the buildings, so the cost is going to be substantially different than like
along Dubuque Street or along Clinton Street, where you may have to go
farther into the street to get to it and disrupt more pavement. So, I mean,
that's what we'll have to look at. Urn, but where they've already got those
in place, those costs will be substantially less.
O'Donnell: I'd like to know that.
Boothroy: I don't know what those costs will exactly be, but we'll get you a, it'll be
an estimate of some type.
Vanderhoef: I'd like to actually hear from, ah, Public Works on those streets, like
Dubuque Street, north from Washington, and Washington Street that have
not had upgrades for a number of years. What's the actual condition of
the water and sewer lines along those tracts? Where are they on a CIP
consideration for upgrade?
Boothroy: One thing that, uh, under the code, I'll get that information if! can, but
under the code presently, those service lines that we're talking about that
aren't there are private responsibility, even though they're in the public
right-of-way, so um, they may not have actually planned that in their
Capital Improvements.
Vanderhoef: But the point is, if we've got six or eight lines along one strip that needs to
be done, and we're tearing up the street. So, you know, we are talking
about degradation of our infrastructure, the sidewalk, the street, so if we
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#13
Page 52
need to get in there and do any other major step, then why are we not
looking at it in the bigger picture?
Boothroy: I don't disagree. I'll tall< to Rick about that.
Wilburn: Did you want to go ahead and walk...
Boothroy: Mike was talking about the 300. You know, one of the first changes I
mentioned tonight was that the 300 or more, we went from five to three
years, and in that category, we also applied the exemption of single
business, single story, stand-alone buildings. Are you thinking that
looking at that requirement, that it meets with what you talked about last
time, or not? Connie says yes. Any.. .I'm trying to get an idea of whether
or not I anticipated correctly, uh, what the thinking was at the last meeting.
Champion: I mean, I support that.
Vanderhoef: Which one?
Boothroy: The first. The 300, Dee. For the occupancy of 300.
Vanderhoef: 300, that's okay.
Champion: But minus the stand-alone buildings.
Bailey: You support the exemption?
Champion: Yes.
O'Donnell: I do too.
Boothroy: Okay. Then the next one is the existing A-2 occupancies with between
100 and 299, and uh, this is broken out into where you've got an
exemption for single business, single story, stand-alone buildings, urn,
which are only required to comply if they do the improvements, or there's
a change in ownership. Urn...
Elliott: I think, Doug, one of the things that I'm hearing tonight.
Boothroy: I'm sorry. I misspoke. Uh, the 100 to 299, if they're not single business,
single story, stand-alone they would have to comply, ifthey had a change
of ownership or an improvement.
O'Donnell: By $25,000.
Boothroy: $25,000, right. (several talking at once)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#13 Page 53
Elliott: But I was going to say one of the things I heard tonight is, I suspect there
is some interest on the Council in putting a time frame so that it's not
cumulative into eternity.
Boothroy: That was something that we didn't talk about last time, and uh, and I guess
we should have, because obviously it was misunderstanding about that. It
was in the previous ordinance, but in terms of cumulative, we could
talk. ..do you want it cumulative over two years, or three years or...
Elliott: Five or ten years, or something, but I don't know.
Boothroy: I'm not going to be able to tell you.
Elliott: I think if you make it cumulative for eternity, one thing, that's a record
keeping problem.
Boothroy: Well, it's in the computer, so as long as we don't, as long as we don't lose
our system, we're in good shape.
Wilburn: Bob has said five or ten years, Regenia is wanting something shorter.
Bailey: I do, I didn't understand it as cumulative.
O'Donnell: I didn't either.
Bailey: I thought it was an annual expense.
O'Donnell: Yearly expense, that's exactly what I...
Vanderhoef: Okay, why I would not say.. . (several talking).. . cumulative is that if
someone has $25,000 at a single point in time to do upgrades, then it
would be a choice of! do this or I do the sprinkler, but cumulative across
time, what business of the small businesses are going to have that much at
one time, and ifthey, if the system is going to cost them, you know, some
place around $15,000 to $20,000, I'm hearing all sorts of different fees
there, plus do they or don't they have the upgrade on the outside on the
water. So they might be at the $25,000.
Wilburn: So you're saying in one...in one year.
Vanderhoef: In one year is what I was thinking.
Bailey: What I heard is if they have $25,000 to do other improvements, they
should prioritize safety.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#13 Page 54
Wilburn: Right. So, now I'm just trying to hear what other Council Members think
about.. .
Boothroy: One thing that I can also throw in. Building permits are good for two
years. So that's another possibility, looking at a two-year window instead
of one.
Elliott: Give somebody a little bit of time.
Wilburn: So I'm asking, is that okay or not? By a majority. (several talking)
$25,000.. .
O'Donnell: Can I take a time out? Connie tried to drown me. (laughter)
Wilburn: $25,000, um...
O'Donnell: Boy, talk about a safety hazard!
Boothroy: I told you, Connie, to do that earlier in the meeting. (laughter) Just before
the vote.
Elliott: Ross, I get the feeling there's an interest. Now, what the time frame is,
but at least. . .
Wilburn: That's what I'm trying to, so that between now and the next meeting...
Boothroy: You want one year?
Champion: Well, you know, the other thing we could think about, because when I
originally, I'm so sorry, Marian, where are my things. I'm covered with
chocolate. I'm very sweet! When I brought that up as a major remodel, I
was thinking like when you redo a whole business. Maybe, forget the
major remodel, and just say when the business changes ownership. That
would simplify that, because that's usually when there is a, what I
consider a major remodel, is when the business changes owners.
Bailey: The point was that that would get things done.
Champion: It will. Businesses change ownership.
Bailey: No, the $25,000 improvement, that was your point, that it would help
move things along.
Champion: I don't mind that still, I don't mind that still, but I don't know how you're
going to do it in a two-year period. So you have a two year period of
building permits are good for two years, so you wait two years and do the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#13
Page 55
bathroom. You do electrical one year. You do the bathrooms two years
later. You do, I'm sorry, Marian. I think I need to go home.
Boothroy: Chocolate-covered mike, is that the problem?
Champion: I mean, I don't have the answer to this. Ijust know that I'm
uncomfortable with a lot of it. I don't have an answer.
Boothroy: Maybe Tim's got an idea here.
Hennes: Rather than all cumulative permitted improvements, maybe we just go
with building permits, if that's an issue, and get the other permits off the
table, if replacing a furnace is an issue.
Bailey: So what would that look like? Give us an example.
Hennes: Of course when you're painting, flooring...
Champion: You're right! That's exactly what I was thinking.
Bailey: $25,000 in permitted building improvements.
Hennes: No, building permits.
Champion: Building permits are different than permitted.
O'Donnell: Per year?
Champion: At one time.
Hennes: Well, a building permit's good for two years if you wanted to, I mean,
there's option. You could, if you want to go cumulative, you can increase
the value. Go $50,000 or $100,000.
Bailey: I don't want it to go cumulative.
Champion: Like when I built my garage, I had a building permit.
Bailey: Right.
Correia: Are you saying any time there's a.. .when there's a building permit, don't
even look at the amount of money.
Champion: No.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#13 Page 56
Hennes: Look at the amount for the building permit value, rather than the total
permit value, because the total permit value would be your plumbing,
electrical, mechanical.
Correia: Okay.
Hennes: And a lot of those improvements, if you put in a new bathroom, large
amount of that cost is going to be the plumbing permit, which would not
go into that value. See what I mean?
Dilkes: I think they need to understand that this (several talking) building permit,
plumbing permit, you need to explain that to them.
Hennes: Oh, a plumbing permit would be for anything that's adding to your
plumbing system. Additional water piping, vent piping, drainage.
Correia: You're saying don't use...
Hennes: .. .values for the plumbing, just only the value for building permits.
Boothroy: Well, they don't know what a building permit...
Dilkes: What is a building permit?
Hennes: A building permit would be for the walls of your building, closing in
doors, closing in windows, any rearrangement of rooms. To
recarpet.. . (several talking)... those are other permits. To recarpet, to
refloor, those are finishes that would not require a permit.
O'Donnell: You're talking (unable to hear) typically structural.
Hennes: Exactly, exactly. Right. (several talking)
Champion: That's exactly what I had in mind. (several talking)
Hennes: A roof and repairs like that, to the exterior.
Champion: Right. That's...
Hennes: But if you put a new fa9ade on the front, I think that would, should
qualify, because that is an improvement you are making for the business.
O'Donnell: I really think there's so many questions out there and we're so uncertain,
I'd really like to recommend we continue this hearing. I'm uncomfortable
supporting it. I'm...I really don't like the $25,000. I'm just very
uncomfortable. I'd really like to see us continue this hearing.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#13 Page 57
Bailey: Why don't we meet between now and then (several talking).
Boothroy: .. .if we continue it and we don't have anything to come back to you, then
we don't have anything to talk about, except what we've already got.
We're still right where we are, except for two weeks later, or three weeks.
Well, one suggestion is to limit it to just building permit interior
improvements, which would make it less likely to be triggered in a shorter
period of time because there would be less dollars involved in that, in that
computation. (several talking) Well, um...
O'Donnell: You know, Doug, I'm really not willing to compromise on public safety,
and I don't feel like I'm doing that. I really, I'm just uncomfortable with
the $25,000. I'm really uncomfortable with our meeting tonight versus
our normal meeting tonight because of the calls I had today, and I am
interested in hearing from everybody who's got a concern on this and an
interest and it's going to cost more money. 1...I think we're all just kind
of spinning wheels at this time on this.
Bailey: One of the things I did hear that we need to hear next time is what can the
City do and what will that cost us. So that's a clear new piece of
information, and then the no-interest loan, I'm assuming that that would
be.. .$375,000 in costs to the City, but those numbers, productions, based
upon this interest rate, but that discussion, I think, would be helpful.
Vanderhoef: There's another piece in the, um, long program because the way it sits
right now we're talking about three years for those largest establishments,
but we're talking about emollment periods of sixty months. Well, uh, it
has to be done by then.
Champion: Well, that's so other people can enroll in it.
Boothroy: Right. It's for those others that change ownership, or make improvements,
ifthey make it within that five-year period, there's some incentive. If they
make it within the five-year period, they would be able to qualify for the
loans.
Vanderhoef: Okay.
Elliott: I think as we're talking, we're talking about this, this is obviously a public
safety issue. The concern is balancing public safety needs with financial,
reasonable financial concerns with the persons who are going to be left
with the cost. Public safety, we use our tax dollars for the Fire
Department and the Police Department, for sure. Uh, as I sit here listening
to this, I become less concerned about City tax money going to pay for a
portion of this than I was initially, because we use City tax money to pay
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#13
Page 58
for public safety. Most of the things that we're talking about do not add
value to the business. They probably add value to the building, but not to
the business, and I don't know how many businesses own their buildings.
I don't think many. So I'm moving more towards finding a more
equitable way to assist business operators to pay for these kinds of public
safety needs. And I think that the City has some financial responsibility,
as we talk about this, and I don't know if that gets us more deeply into a
hole or helps us dig out of it, but I have started to change my mind a bit
about that.
Boothroy: What I hear is that we can't agree on cumulative improvements. I hear
that we may agree on change of business ownership?
Champion: I think we all agree on that.
Boothroy: Do we all agree that occupancies above and below the ground floor should
be regulated?
Champion: They should be regulated, yes.
Boothroy: Comply with the sprinkling system?
Champion: Not ifit's going to put them out of business.
Bailey: I agree...
Elliott: Then everyone will say this will put me out of business. That's where we
get hung up.
Bailey: ... to avoid that. I think we've identified that in previous discussions.
That's one ofthe public safety concerns, and we've actually considered, I
mean, I think the Council has considered at point or another not granting
alcohol license to above and below grade. I mean, that has come up in
discussions. So, I think we have to look at that.
Boothroy: Ifit's any consolation, we have strong feelings that use of above and
below ground floor should be regulated, because it's a safety issue. Ijust
wanted to emphasize...
Elliott: We have certainly discussed that.
Boothroy: So we're not necessarily 100% on that one? So what I hear is that new
occupancies, no problem; 300 or more, no problem; but we're still having
some difficulty coming to consensus on the 100 to 299 with regard to
cumulative improvements and how that's all going to kick in, and I'll
come back to you next time with some information from Public Works
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#13
Page 59
about that, as well as the downtown services lines, as well as, urn, if
there's any CIP, and one thing we have not talked about, through all this
discussion, and I don't want to get to a point where we have a
misunderstanding or anything like that in the future. We haven't talked
about voice alarms. Is there anything that you need, in terms of
information, with regard to voice alarms, because we need to know now so
we can bring it to you next time.
Elliott: I would like to drop them off the table.
Bailey: Who's using them? Why are you recommending them? What have they
proven? How long have they been on the market?
Boothroy: Can you go a little slower? I (laughter) I didn't take notes. It'll be in the
transcript.
O'Donnell: What does this thing do? Does it just yell, 'Hey, fire, get out!' What's it
do? I know it shuts down (several talking).
Boothroy: We'll do it next time, but you want (laughter).
Bailey: I have one.. . are we in agreement on the exemptions or not?
Boothroy: Single business, single ownership.
Bailey: Because I don't necessarily support the exemptions, but I don't know if
I'm...
O'Donnell: I do.
Champion: I do.
Bailey: I heard from you guys (several talking) single story, single...
Boothroy: We have two that support that exemption.
Elliott: I get, as I said, based on my conversation with the experienced
firefighters, I would go along with that exemption, and 1. . .
Bailey: I'd like to get everybody compliant at some point, even ten or fifteen years
out, you still want to exempt those businesses?
Champion: They're exempt only until they change their liquor license, until they're
sold or they change. We don't all live forever. I'm not going to have my
business forever. Probably not much more.. . (TAPE ENDS)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
# 13 Page 60
O'Donnell: I mean, you're concerned about safety, you're concerned about the
business community, it's very, very difficult.
Boothroy: Oh, I think we've made a little progress. I mean, we've got 300 and we've
got.. .new ownership, and I think that, I think there's a consensus, about
doing something in the public right-of-way that would not be equated into
the financing charges that businesses need to do in terms of bringing their
systems up to grade, so there. . .
Wilburn: Good job looking for the silver lining!
Champion: Maybe the two things.. .maybe the two things we agree on are as good as
it's going to get.
Boothroy: Oh, tell me that's not so! (laughter) After three meetings and all of this
discussion? You can't let it go.
Vanderhoef: Why don't you bring back to us something that includes the ten year span
for everybody, which would include the stand-alones, but it would
certainly, probably happen with, like you say, Connie, a new ownership,
something like that, but at least then we can look at our code and say,
'We're starting to cover everybody.' Some of them just have...
Boothroy: So are you saying that even if they're exempt in the first three years, that
ultimately they're required to comply? (several talking at once)
Bailey: Everybody has to be compliant!
O'Donnell: Everybody? Is that every building downtown?
Boothroy: We're just talking about A-2.
Bailey: . ..qualification, ABDL.
Boothroy: If! understand what you're saying, Dee, and then we can talk about it, is
that the exemption would apply in the short-run, but in the long-run, there
would be like a sunset provision that says at this point in time everybody
has to comply.
Dilkes: Can we just say exempt for a period oftime?
Boothroy: Exactly.
Dilkes: Now, is it just Dee and Regenia who are interested in that, or do we
have...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#13 Page 61
Wilburn: No, I'm interested in that.
O'Donnell: I'm not interested.
Champion: I'm not interested.
Wilburn: I'm sorry, and I appreciate that multiple people are trying to facilitate the
conversation, but I need to come back to, I think we all accept that
everybody's concerned, everybody has a concern here. I don't think you
need to be afraid in the next meeting or two to just say, I'm not there with
you, regardless of how much discussion we can, I don't feel I'm willing at
this time to impose this because otherwise we just, you know, more public
comment, we spin our wheels, so again, I appreciate that everybody's
trying to facilitate this, but 1.. .we're either going to move forward with
something or not, and my preference is that we move forward with
something to try and get us where we need to be, and so...
Bailey: Are you suggesting that a vote will take place at the next meeting?
Wilburn: Within the next couple.
Bailey: I agree with you.
Boothroy: I think I would agree. I think we need, the public deserves a vote up or
down, and let's do it.
O'Donnell: Fine then, all we have to do is determine what that vote's on. Right?
Boothroy: That's your decision.
Wilburn: And what I'm trying to say is, we all accept that everybody's concerned,
but if it gets to the point where you're just saying no, I'm not willing to go
there and do this at this time, just say it. That's okay, but we need to move
on from this.
Bailey: And we'll continue the public discussion.
Wilburn: Continue the, yeah. We'll continue public discussion and the Chair will
entertain a motion to...
Bailey: Move to defer to June 5th.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Wilburn: Moved by Regenia, seconded by Dee. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign. Carries 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14,2007.
# 13 Page 62
Karr: Did we get the ordinance the same way then, match it up, so we get first
consideration.
b) CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION)
(DEFERRED FROM 4/16 AND 5/1)
Wilburn:
Yeah.
Bailey:
Pardon?
Karr:
Also defer consideration of the ordinance to the same time frame. We
continued the discussion. We're going to continue the ordinance.
Bailey:
Oh, I guess I was moving to defer, yeah, the ordinance to June 5th.
Wilburn:
It was both.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#17 Page 63
ITEM 17 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION.
Wilburn: Bob?
Elliott: For the second week in a row, I'll delay my concern about a full-page ad
in one ofthe local papers, but on a light note, I will point out that we are
expecting a blessed event at our house. Mother Duck has been sitting on
nine eggs (laughter) immediately outside our front door for about a week
and a half now. So, Maggie goes out every morning and checks to see if
there are little ducklets. Next.
O'Donnell: Ducklings.
Elliott: Little ducks!
Wilburn: Regenia?
Bailey: Um, I just wanted to say that Karin Franklin did a great job featuring our
public art program in Iowa City at the Vision Iowa meeting last week, and
it was nice to see something in Iowa City featured to that degree, and I
think a lot of people on the Vision Iowa Board learned things from it. I
also noticed the Des Moines farmers' market had 30,000 people on their
first day. I think we should set our sites high and consider how our market
can be that kind of economic development draw. I was also talking to
people with the Cool Cities Initiative, Mr. Mayor, and they've asked that a
task force or committee be developed as they talk to you when you sign
the whatever it was, the Mayor's Proclamation, environmental
proclamation. So, I'm just passing that information on to you, that they
would like some kind of action to come forward from that signing.
Wilburn: Thank you.
Vanderhoef: I'm going to pass for tonight.
Wilburn: Okay. Mike?
O'Donnell: I want to congratulate Karin Franklin. She will be missed, and I want to
congratulate Jeff Davidson for his new position. I was just curious.
Anybody notice the gas prices? (several responding) $3.29, and I'm sure
it went up twice the other day while I was filling. (laughter)
Champion: I don't have anything tonight.
Correia: I just wanted to report that Karen Howard, a planning staffer, and I went
and met with the 6th grade class at Grant Wood Elementary who had
written a letter and a petition on a one of our rezonings or replattings in a
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#17
Page 64
neighborhoods near them. It was a really great opportunity. They
certainly, they were.. . especially the one student who had initiated and
who lived near this property that children have been using as a park, is
going to be housing, disappointed in the action, but I think that they
learned a lot. Karen was great. She brought maps ofthe City. They had a
lot of great questions about planning, and you know, a mother who wants
to start a daycare, you know, where should she call and lots of really great
questions. So, um, wanted to thank Mr. Glen of Grant Wood. He's the 6th
grade teacher who encouraged this form of government involvement and
had us come in and speak to the class for about a half hour. And I wanted
to let everybody know that I participated in the bike-bus-car race between
Coral Ridge Mall and downtown Iowa City, and I was on the bus and I
came in third, but I was relaxed and I had read two chapters of the book
that I was reading, um...
Elliott: Were you driving the bus while reading?
Correia: I was not driving the bus!
Elliott: Oh, I see.
Correia: I was riding the bus, put my .75 cents in, and I think it's a really great
event just to raise awareness, with the cost of gas, just get on the bus and
get your way around town, or your bike, and um, great job to the
committee for the Bike to Work Week.
Champion: I did have one thing. I wanted to thank the City for going high-tech with
our parking ramps. I'm really pleased with this one over here. It's going
to be moving up in the world, moving up to charge cards, and debit cards.
Great, glad to hear it!
Wilburn: I'll point out a couple things, items that we did not get to on our work
session. We will just move those to the next work session. I don't think
anybody wants to stay any longer tonight. Like to invite members of the
public, Wednesday night, to the bike ride between Iowa City Chauncey
Swan over to the New Pioneer Co-Op in Coralville. Meet at 5 :30 and we
will be leaving shortly thereafter, and everyone who comes, I believe, will
get a free bell for their bicycle. Last year I think there were about 160,
170 people. We'll see if we can do better. And this Friday, the 18th, is the
kick off for the Summer of the Arts with the Friday Night Concert, the
City High and West High Jazz Bands will be out there performing. So we
certainly want to see people out supporting that. The Summer of the Arts,
sponsored by the City of the Iowa City as the lead sponsor. It should be a
great summer of movies and music and art and, as the commercial says,
it'll be hot and cool, so come on out.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.
#17
Page 65
Elliott:
Who was it who said that in the commercial?
Wilburn:
I think that was me!
Elliott:
Really?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City
Council meeting of May 14, 2007.