Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-09-09 TranscriptionSeptember 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 1 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session 6:55 PM Council: Champion, Kanner, Lehman, O'Dormell, Pfab, Vanderhoef, Wilbum Staff: Atkins, Dilkes, Franklin, Nasby, Helling, Karr, Davidson, Matthews TAPES: 02-69, BOTH SIDES; 02-71, SIDE 1 ADDITION TO CONSENT CALENDAR - DAVE MOORE~ KRORE~ INC.~ DBA MCINNERNEYS Lehman/All right. We're going to go into executive session. Before we do we have a request to add an item for tomorrow night's consent calendar. Dave Moore is here. Kart/Dave, do you want to step to the podium over here and tell Council what you'd like to be. Dave would like something added to the consent calendar tomorrow evening. Moore/Yeah, I'd like to be able to add my liquor license application £or tomorrow's session. I've got everything lined up except I'm waiting for one thing from the state for a DCI background check for my partner Chris Krore. And it should be here tomorrow and I talked to the chief and he said ifI had a faxed copy that would do. Dilkes/Great. Kanner/This is for your new place on Gateway? Moore/Yeah. Gateway Plaza, 161 Highway 1, West. Wilburn/OK. Lehman/All right. Karr/Could I just, for the record, I'm sorry, I just wanted to note for the record that we do not view the application to be in order at the present time, but it is Council decision. Lehman/Yes, but--- Champion/If it's not in order tomorrow night, we won't vote on it. Moore/Right. Dilkes/OK. Moore/That's the understanding--- This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 2 Lehman/That's the understanding, that it will be in order tomorrow night. Moore/Yes. Lelmnan/OK. Moore/All right, thank you. Lehman/ (Formal meeting / Executive Session) PLANNING & ZONING Lehman/Thank you, Dave. OK, Planning and Zoning, Karin. a. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR SEPTEMBER 24 ON A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADOPT THE SOUTHWEST DISTRICT PLAN FOR THE AREA LOCATED GENERALLY SOUTH OF MELROSE AVENUE, WEST OF THE IOWA RIVER, NORTH OF HIGHWAY 1 WEST AND EAST OF THE IOWA CITY LANDFILL Franklin/The first few items are setting public hearings. The first one is setting a public heating for September 24th on a resolution to amend the comprehensive plan by adopting the Southwest District Plan. I have put a copy of the Southwest District Plan at each of your places, the hope being that you would be able to give it a good solid read before the public heating. On the 23rd during the work session, the staff will be in to give a presentation of the plan and I would hope that you would have a chance to read it before then so that if you have any questions, there are some policy considerations as there are in any plan that, hopefully, you take note of now and not later when we have to deal with a particular issue and find you don't like it. Lehman/OK. b. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR SEPTEMBER 24 ON A ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM 1) HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RM-44, TO MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RM-20 WITH A CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT, FOR AN 8.69-ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 1 AND WEST OF MILLER AVENUE; 2) COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, CC-2, TO MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RM-20 WITH A CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT, FOR A 1.45-ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 1 AND WEST OF MILLER AVENUE; AND 3) MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RS-8, TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, CC-2, FOR A 1.45- ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 1 AND WEST OF MILLER AVENUE. (REZ02-00013) This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 3 Franklin/OK. Second item is setting a public heating for September 24th for a rezoning, and this is of the Ruppert property along Highway 1, West. This is the much-debated, contested zoning that we've had for years. That's not the illustration on the...on the screen now. It's rezoning from RM-44 to RM-20 with a conditional zoning agreement, and we are optimistic rezoning from RM-44 to RM-20 with a conditional zoning agreement, that we will have a signed conditional zoning agreement by the hearing. Kanner/Why are they going down in density? Franklin/Well, because this is on the hillside of Highway 1 (Laughter) Franklin/It's not that. OK. Kanner/OK. Franklin/OK. It's on the hillside of Highway 1 and that land is now zoned RM-44. We had a study done of that property to see exactly what the holding capacity was of that land and, in fact, it's less than RM-44, as we suspected, given the steepness of the land and the constraints on access. And. so, this proposal is a proposal that's been worked out with the neighborhood, with the property owners, with potential buyers of the property, and it contemplates a rezoning to RM-20 with certain conditions on that rezoning, which I'll go over when we do the public hearing in two weeks. Some of this is addressed, Steven, in the Southwest District Plan. So I think if you read that plan, you'll get a very good sense of not only the overall district plan but also this zoning item. Kanner/But, so far, it looks like most of the parties, or all the parties, are pretty much in agreement. Franklin/We seem to be going down an agreeable track. Kanner/Yes. Lehman/Been there before. Franklin/We have been there before and we've been derailed before, but hope springs eternal. e. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR SEPTEMBER 24 ON AN ORDINANCE VACATING PORTIONS OF THE HARRISON STREET AND PRENTISS STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND AN ADJOINING ALLEYWAY, WEST OF MADISON STREET. (VAC02-00004) Lehman/ OK, item c is a public hearing on the 24th on vacating a portion of Harrison Street and This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 4 Prentiss Street right-of-ways. This is at the request of the University of Iowa. Kanner/Now, what were the reasons for the vote no on that? At the three Planning and Zoning, that's a pretty close vote. Franklin/Ann Bovbjerg is here, that can address this ifI am in error, but I believe that the concern on the part of the three people who voted against it had to do with ensuring that there was access to the Iowa River. The vacation contemplates retaining a blanket access easement across this fight-of-way to ensure that in the future when the configuration of land uses in that area changes that we do have access to the river. And when I refer to the configuration of land uses, I'm talking about the railroad tracks. Right now there are used tracks which go through there so it's not feasible for us to get an access point to the river. At such time as those tracks are not used, which will be sometime in the future, which I can't say when, we wanted to ensure that we had access through this right-of-way to get to the river, and that is provided. I think that the three who voted against were concerned that that access was not being provided. Pfab/Was there a history of the University fencing off access, something similar to this, at a location not too far away from the--- Franklin/Not that I'm aware of. Pfab/(can't hear) .... at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, that came up and there was something said, well, they either did or they didn't fence something off. People want to be able to have access to go down to fish. Lehman/They should just walk on the fiver. Franklin/Right now, both of these roadways are, are east-west streets. They go to the fiver, but they also go across the railroad tracks. The University has use of the property around there, I believe that they may have put up fences on one or both of these fights-of-way, at the end, at the westerly end of it just before the railroad tracks. If that's what you're referring to--- Pfab/So, the Iowa City public, while they may have the right to get to the fiver, they are physically blocked. Is that it? Franklin/You probably can crawl over the fence if you want to, but I don't know whether we would want to encourage anyone to access the river at that point anyway, because of the railroad tracks. But, we, we have not blocked offthat road at this point in time. The University may have fencing up on one or both of the streets, I don't know. Vanderhoef/Do that across the easement. Franklin/OK. OK, the public access easement is to enable us to get public access to the fiver at This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page such time as we can develop that river bank for appropriate public access. It is not something that we want to encourage now because there is a railroad track that goes across there, and the bank is not improved. I mean, I think, if we're trying to provide access points to the river, we want to do it in places where there is a safe, easy access to the river. And these two points would not be it now. But the access easement is to ensure that in the future, as things change, that we do have a pedestrian access to the river at these locations. Lehman/What....what .... Dilkes/You know, can I just make a ..., we're kind of stabbing in the dark here. We don't have any P and Z minutes, which will be provided with your next agenda, and after reading those we could probably have a more informed discussion about this whole issue. Pfab/There was just the response of no, I, the vote was that, that was what my understanding. OK. Lehman/Well, I think we can get into that when we--- Pfab/OK. Dilkes/Before the public hearing. Pfab/I guess I just wanted to alert the rest of the members that there is, there was some strong debate on this thing, and what I didn't, when, when this was going on, I didn't understand. Now--- Lehman/Irvin, we'll get into that at the public hearing. Pfab/No, I just want to ask a question, nothing to.... Is there any timetable for the University to abandon that rail? Franklin/It is not the University's rail line; it's CRANDIC rail line, and not that I'm aware of. Pfab/So, it, it could be in perpetuity? Franklin/It could be. There will be representatives of the University and of the CRANDIC Railroad at your meetings on the 23rd and the 24th. Pfab/Thank you. d. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR SEPTEMBER 24 ON AN ORDINANCE VACATING GRAND AVENUE COURT FROM MELROSE AVENUE TO A LINE 295 FEET TO THE NORTH OF MELROSE AVENUE. (VAC02-00003) This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 6 Franklin/Item d is to set a public hearing for the 24th on the vacation of Grand Avenue Court from Melrose to a line 295 feet to the north of Melrose Avenue. This is also a request of the University of Iowa. Rod Lehnertz, who is the project manager for this, will be at your meetings of the 23rd and the 24th. He would like to do a presentation of the plans that the University has in that general area. The question that I have for you is one of whether you want to have that at your work session or during the formal meeting. Vanderhoef/I would like it, personally, at the work session and--- Franklin/Logistically, it would be easier because he has a PowerPoint presentation and all that kind of thing. Pfab/What--- Vanderhoef/I think so and as I spoke with Jeff Davidson today with special emphasis on the Melrose Avenue connection to Grand Avenue, and I understand that that has not been totally worked out, and I would like to have that pretty well worked out, personally, and before we vacate. Pfab/I would beg to differ because right now we're seeing, we're getting into we really can't discuss it. And if the University is here to answer the questions I'd much rather have them do it at the, at our formal meeting. Because we don't get into this situation--- Franklin/Well, you won't be on the 23rd, because that's the work session before your heating. You will have the staff report, you'll have the minutes. The objections that Eleanor is raising tonight are because this is just setting the public hearing, whereas on the 23rd, it will be in preparation for having the public heating. So it will be perfectly appropriate to have questions and a discussion. Pfab/But the public has no input here. And...,I think that when the University presents its case, I think the public should, that would be the time that the public should be--- Franklin/ He'll be there on the, to answer questions from the, the public on the 24th, on Tuesday night. I really think we need to discuss--- Pfab/So they'll be, so they'll be, so they'll be there both times? Franklin/Yes. Davidson/I can be in attendance both times. Lehman/OK. Pfab/OK. OK, as long as I---. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 7 Davidson/If I can ask just one question of Council. I've seen the, I went as the City's representative, I can't remember if anybody else was there from the City, I think actually I think the fire department was there at the presentation they made on the West Campus plan, and it's a very good presentation. I think it'll answer a lot of your questions, both the specific project that they have fight now with the Athletic Learning Center and then give you the big picture--there's a new residence hall and a bunch of other stuff. With respect to Melrose Avenue, when I had discussion with the University's consultant this afternoon, he asked me, I'm supposed to call him tomorrow and tell him exactly what your expectations are with respect to any traffic issue, just making sure that, you know, they will lay out for you what their plan is for Melrose Avenue. And that's all it is right now, is a plan. There's no, there's no program to build any of it at the present time. Are there any other traffic issues that you want to make sure are addressed? Vanderhoef/Yes. There's been some comments floating around in the public about closing North Grand Avenue and making it only accessible to the buses, so, to me, that means we have a whole traffic circulation thing that we need to be looking at and being sure that we have the right and the safest and the most efficient way to move traffic on an east-west arterial. We do not have very many on the west side of the river and it's real important to me to be sure that Melrose Avenue is functioning. Davidson/I think, Dee, I think, Dee, that will be adequately addressed to the level that they can address it at this time. As you know, they like to call their plans "planning frameworks," and they do that deliberately because things change over time and they don't want to be necessarily pinned down right now. So, what they tell you fight now will be sort of what fits into their plan for West Campus, that you'll be seeing, with respect to Melrose Avenue. Vanderhoef/I'll save my comments for next--- Davidson/I'11, I'll make sure that they address those. Vanderhoef/Yeah. Thanks, Jeff. Lehman/Thank you, Jeff. Vanderhoef/Thank you. Kanner/This is where the radio station was? Champion/Is that Grand Avenue where--- Franklin/Yeah. Champion/Yeah. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 8 Kanner/Coming from Melrose, in about halfway, a hundred yards, they're, they want--- Vanderhoef/Grand Avenue Court. Franklin/That should be---. Kanner/Or is that the whole street, just--- Franklin/Wait. Grand Avenue Court from Melrose Avenue to align 295 feet to the north of Melrose Avenue. Yeah. Davidson/There's one property owner, who has, as best my understanding is, has said that once she leaves, she's fine with them vacating the street, but she, I, I think, I don't know if it's life estate or what you call it, but that's why they're not doing the whole street right now. Once this individual leaves, then they'll do the remainder of the street. This is just the north part that they need for the Athletic Learning Center. Franklin/Somh part. Davidson/South part. From this individual's house north then will not be vacated. Pfab/While you're there, I have a question. I think this is a question that at the right place, time to answer. Is the University ever looking at mrming or the City or whatever, running First, or no, Burlington over, over as an overpass over Riverside Drive or Highway 6. Davidson/We don't have any plan right now. Pfab/OK, there's, there's nothing the University or nothing out there now. Davidson/A plan 40 years ago proposed Court Street going over, you may have seen it if you were up in engineering they have a drawing of it, but we don't have anything like that now. Vanderhoef/That's where the law school was built. e. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR SEPTEMBER 24 ON AN ORDINANCE VACATING PORTIONS OF FRONT STREET AND PRENTISS STREET GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF BURLINGTON STREET AND WEST OF MADISON STREET. (VAC02-00002) Franklin/OK. Next item is setting a public hearing for September 24th on an ordinance vacating portions of Front Street and Prentiss Street. This is a request from CRANDIC and we will get into all of that, again, on the 23rd and 24th. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 9 Karmer/What was the reason for the denial of P and Z? Lehman/Well, we'll get that when we get the information on the hearing. Kanner/Well, I just want to get a heads up, Ernie, because I'm not familiar--- Franklin/ We'll get the minutes and you'll get the stand people--- Karmer/.... with them, just a brief summary. Franklin/It had, it had to do with the disposition of the property, really, and not the vacation. There were concerns with how it was going to be disposed of, and if we could just talk about all of that on the 23rd when that's an item on the agenda. Pfab/My question is, is the people that have answers to these come to the public meeting? Franklin/Sure. Pfab/OK. That's, that's my only concern. f. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY (OPDH-12) PLAN FOR LOT 259 OF WINDSOR RIDGE, PART 15, GLEN BROOK CONDOMINIUMS, A 46- UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT THE INTERSECTION OF COURT STREET AND CAMDEN ROAD. (REZ02-00011) Franklin/OK. Item f is a public hearing. You can talk about this. This is an ordinance amending the OPDH Plan for Windsor Ridge Part 15, and you can also look at the screen. This is over in the Windsor Ridge Development on the east side and Court Street. This is the corner where the twelve-plexes are and then there's £our-plexes that go up this side of Cameron Road. That's a difficult drawing to see, but this is where the change is is right in here, and the change is to insert another set of four-plexes there along this road. Initially, these four-plexes had a different footprint which took up more space. It was redesigned to include these four-plexes which are essentially the same thing that's on the west side of Camden Road, and it lefl enough space that enabled the developer to put in four more units here. It does not exceed the density that is allowable under the OPDH-12. The red line indicates what it would be like if this drive came all the way through. We have taken this through the fire department, all the necessary departments. The staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission are recommending approval. Pfab/Is this, is this road where the red lines, is that a planned road? Franklin/No. That was just a driveway. Here the platted roads are Camden and then I can't remember the name of this road, it goes over to Stone Bridge Estates and there's some building that's already been done out there. This is a driveway that accesses the four- This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page I0 plexes from behind and--- Pfab/Public parking lot. Franklin/Yes. And this, likewise, will access these four-plexes from behind. Pfab/So forget the red lines. Is that, is there, is there any fire protection or police, police protection problem because of the (can't hear) (fence?) Franklin/No. Pfab/...exit out that way? Franklin/No. We took that specific question past them and that was not an issue. Vanderhoef/Is that an interior road that those stubs are for more units on that property? No. Franklin/Here? Lehman/Across the street from (can't hear). Parking. Franklin/No. It's visitor parking. Lehman/OK. Vanderhoef/And those are not street stubs at all? Franklin/No. Vanderhoef/OK. Franklin/It's like these things right over here---. Vanderhoef/OK, the circulation is only from the south end of the--- Franklin/This property, if it does not go to the school district, would come from here. There's likely to be another road that would come down here, across from Arlington, and then this site would also have access over here from Stone Bridge Estates. Vanderhoef/OK. Pfab/As of now, this, this would be the, what you see inside of the road and the line that's the end of that--- Franklin/Here? This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 11 Pfab/Right up. There's no more buildings going up at that--- g. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TItE ZONING CODE, SECTION 14-6It-1, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE, TO ALLOW REPAIR OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL TRUCKS AS A PROVISIONAL USE Franklin/ Well, actually, that is Item number h. But we'll go to g first, g is a public hearing on an ordinance amending the zoning code to allow repair of commercial and industrial trucks as a provisional use in the I-1 zone. For some reason, we did not allow truck repair in industrial zones, which doesn't seem to make any sense, so now we're going to--that's the recommendation. Kanner/In the memo from Robert, they should be limited to commercial and industrial trucks. How do you make sure it's limited to that? How do, how do you not get a sliding slope where, maybe the trucks they fix get smaller and smaller. How does one look at that? Champion/Why do we care? Kanner/That's a big--- Lehman/That's a good question. Kanner/That's a big issue of you're not allowed to do small truck and auto repair in certain zones. Champion/I know I read that too but I thought what--- Lehman/What's wrong with a pickup? Champion/Yeah, what's wrong with a pickup? Kanner/That's a good question. We discussed that. I would assume that we don't want that kind of traffic in them when it's more of an industrial nature, that we would have more residential people coming in and that's not what we want. Pfab/Like your business trip. Kanner/But we can discuss that and say maybe we do want some of that. Franklin/Well, these---. Champion/I thought that's kind of strange. I mean, what if you have a four-wheel drive that needs repair, this guy out there is really good at it, and you can't take your four-wheel drive out there to get repaired? I don't know. It just seems---. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 12 Pfab/A thing is, is---. Champion/...regulating things beyond belief. Pfab/It, it, I think---. Franklin/Well, in the actual ordinance, in the conditions of the ordinance that i~n't carried through, service and repair of commercial and industrial trucks provided no vehicle stored no more than 45 continuous days, the parking and trailer storage is surfaced with asphalt, concrete, etc. Screening is preserved, planned and constructed or maintained. There's no distinction about the size of the trucks that are being---. Lehman/The word "commercial"---. Franklin/Oh, but is says service and repair of commercial and industrial trucks. Lehman/But the word "commercial" would indicate that, for example, my pickup has my store name on it. I use it to deliver suitcases, that's commercial. Franklin/Yeah. Lehman/If Connie has one exactly like it that she uses for going back and forth to work, it is not commercial. Champion/I just put dresses in it; it certainly is commercial. (People laugh.) Lehman/All right. Ross has one then, and he doesn't deliver anything. Franklin/I understand your point. Pfab/Yeah. Franklin/I don't know how we would enforce it. Dilkes/It would be a fact-based analysis like any of these types of things would be. If it appeared that the predominant use was to service residential vehicles like my car and all of our cars, and we saw every morning at 8:30 people dropping all their cars off there to be serviced, one might question whether that was a commercial and industrial repair facility. Franklin/But probably if you bring a truck in, a pickup truck, occasionally, how about a number of show of hands. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 13 Lehman/It says commercial (can't hear)--- Vanderhoef/So we're even talking--- Lehman/It says commemial vehicles. Female/You could have commercial vans. Any commercial. Yeah, commercial and industrial trucks. I mean, if it's a van, it's a truck versus a car. Kanner/When someone wanted to put something in there, we'd get a sense probably what they're going to do. Of course, they can always slide other things, but you get a sense of what it's going to be like. But let's say they slide it more toward residential or private vehicles, would it be a complaint basis that this is a violation of Code? Dilkes/It would probably be something in which it was a complaint or it raised issues for people in that industrial park. That's how I can think of it coming up is if there was some kind of conflict between just ordinary cars, people bringing cars in versus trucks and commercial vehicles, where, you know, you have a mix of the large trucks and the small trucks. That's the only way that I can think of that it would come up. But whether it's a misdemeanor or whatever, I don't k/~ow. What would it be? Franklin/Well, I think it'd be an infraction, a municipal infraction. Pfab/Isn't this the idea to accommodate---.. Dilkes/Probably not a criminal. Franklin/Oh, whatever. I don't know those things. (People laugh) Pfab/Is this, is this to accommodate the tenants or the occupants of the property, or is it to accommodate the neighbors of these? Vanderhoef/Could be either. Franklin/The restriction? Pfab/Yes. Franklin/I think what it was about is, with industrial land we try to keep it as closely focused on industrial uses as possible. Otherwise, what happens is that that land is generally cheaper than commercial land, and it's easier to put a commercial use there than it is an industrial use. And so, then it diminishes the inventory of industrial land that we have for industrial development. So you don't want to just open it up wide to a variety of commercial uses, This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page because they will locate there much more easily than industrial. Pfab/So, you're saying this is a way to preserve the land or to make the land more accessible to industrial use because of the fact it's not as easy to put it for--- Franklin/So you couldn't just put a gas station or a car repair there. Champion/OK. So that explains the whole thing then. h. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CHANGING TItE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RS-8, TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY, OPDH-8, FOR WINDSOR RIDGE, PART 16, A 31.1-ACRE, 10-LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED NORTH OF CAMDEN ROAD AND SOUTH OF LOWER WEST BRANCH ROAD. (REZ02- 00006) (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Franklin/Good. OK. Where am I? Oh, H. OK, H is, this is an OPDH on this property that is north of the area that we just looked at, with the four-plex. OK? This is your second consideration on an OPDH for this entire area that's zoned RS-8. It's to change it from RS-8 to OPDH-8. Pfab/How big is that now? Franklin/31.1 acres. Pfab/OK. Franklin/The applicant has requested expedited consideration on this and would like the pass and adopt on the OPDH zoning tomorrow night. i. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF WINDSOR RIDGE, PART 16-20, A 31.1- ACRE 16-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED NORTIt OF CAMDEN ROAD AND SOUTH OF LOWER WEST BRANCH ROAD. (SUB02-00008) And then Item i goes with this in that it is the plat to carry out the OPDH for Item H. Lehman/Karin, if we don't expedite h, can we still act on i? Franklin/No. You have to wait on i. Lehman/So, if we don't have an expedited consideration of passing h, then i would be deferred. Franklin/Mm..hm .... This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 15 Pfab/What is the justification for the request for the expedited? Franklin/The correspondence is included in your packet, and do you know what it says, Marian? Karr/Let me look at it here. Oh, let's see .... Kanner/Having the Council collapse the second and third reading of the rezoning request would be appreciated so the applicant can begin construction after October 8 but prior to the end of the construction season. Franklin/It's just to get started this year. But can't we do first and preliminary and final plat at the same time on October 8th, if we don't collapse? Dilkes/You don't have a final plat before you. But you--- Franklin/No, but they're talking in the letter, they're talking about final plat on October 8th. Dilkes/Oh, I see what you're saying. Franklin/So, I don't see--- Dilkes/You could. Vanderhoef/It could happen at the same time. Dilkes/OK. Vanderhoef/It just depends on the order--- Dilkes/Mm..hm. Vanderhoef/... because they can't start grading or doing anything until they have final plat. Franklin/Well, you can start grading on a preliminary plat, but whether they--- Lehman/Well, so this would enable them, if we do expedite it at that time--- Vanderhoef/OK. So that's the reason to expedite it. Franklin/You could start your grading with the preliminary plat approval, after they've had preliminary plat. Dilkes/MMhmm. Vanderhoef/OK. Then it makes sense to expedite. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 16 j. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM GENERAL INDUSTRIAL, I-1, TO INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL, CI-1, FOR 1.14- ACRES LOCATED WEST OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE SOUTH OF COMMERCIAL DRIVE. (REZ02-00007) (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Franklin/OK, let's go down to J, then, is an ordinance changing the zoning from I-1 to CI-i. This is thc Gringer Feeds property. Item, the second consideration on that. Item K, second consideration on a rezoning for a property in the Village Green area, and then Item L, is consider a resolution approving the preliminary plat of Silvercrest part 2. Silvercrest is the assisted living and University of Iowa Medical Center over on Scott Boulevard American Legion Road, you expedited the OPDH on it, and this is a plat which enables the furtherance of that OPDH plan. So it's nothing new. And I'm done. Lehman/All right. Thank you. O'Donnell/Thank you. Franklin/You're welcome. AGENDA ITEMS Lehman/Agenda items. ITEM 14. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CERTAIN CHAPTERS OF CITY CODE TITLES 6, 7, 10, AND 14 TO INCREASE THE MUNICIPAL INFRACTION CIVIL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATING NUISANCE PROVISIONS, SNOW REMOVAL REQUIREMENTS, BUILDING CODE, HOUSING CODE, ELECTRICAL CODE, MECHANICAL CODE, PLUMBING CODE, ZONING CODE, FIRE CODE, AND UTILITIES' USE OF RIGHT-OF- WAY REQUIREMENTS. (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Atkins/Ernie, in Item 14, municipal infractions, a couple of you've mentioned about having a more detailed memorandum identifying where those changes were. Just so I understand what you'd like, can you, Ross, you want--- Wilburn/For example, hold on a second. Lehman/154. Dilkes/I, I think what they want, Steve, is, having talked to Ross about this, is rather than a reference to the Code, which is what the ordinance simply does--- Lehman/Name the items. Atkins/OK. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 17 Dilkes/ ...is a, is a plain language statement as to what we're changing the fine for. Wilburn/Right. As of right now, for example, it says in we're going to have, it says Title 6 entitled "Public Health and Safety," it just says insert what the increased fines are as opposed to. There's a couple that I think I can get what they are, number 3, Title 6, entitled "Weed Control." If I could just get a sentence telling what the, what it's related to. Dilkes/Do you have one of the Code books? Atkins/Well, rather than go to all that work, why don't we prepare--- Wilbum/I don't have one. Atkins/...something for you for the next meeting. Dilkes/My understanding is that some of those are recommendations that were made by the task force--- Atkins/Yeah. Dilkes/...and some of them are recommendations made by staff. Atkins/That's what I want to clarify this for--- Wilburn/OK, that would be helpful. Atkins/And we'll prepare it for the next meeting. If it's, I mean, I would recommend you continue to process the thing. This is first reading. Wilbum/OK. Atkins/By the second reading, we'll have something for you. Wilburn/Thank you. Atkins/OK. That's all I have. ITEM 8. CONVEYANCE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED AT 1821 B STREET ITEM 9. CONVEYANCE OF A SINGLE FAMILY ItOME LOCATED AT 3410 SHAMROCK DRIVE TO TItE TENANT ITEM 10. CONVEYANCE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED AT 244 AMHURST STREET TO A PUBLIC HOUSING PROGRAM TENANT This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 18 ITEM 11. CONVEYANCE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED AT 2409 ASTER AVENUE Lehman/OK. I would like tomorrow night at the begirming of the meeting, after item 3, I would like for us to have a motion to move item 8, 9, 10, and 11 into like 3 B. These are the four homes that we are taking care of in the Ownership Program. Those folks are going to be here to accept the keys to the property, and there are a number of other folks who have been very instrumental in these homes, and I'd like to do that, with Council's permission, at the beginning of the meeting. Pfab/Is there any, is there, is that going to throw anybody else off?. Lehman/They can't throw anybody off any more than public discussion does, because with public discussion, there's--- Pfab/OK. No, I think it's a good idea. I mean, I was just saying is them, is there unforeseen something that we ought to--it's OK. Lehman/I have no problem, but I would a motion at that point. Champion/Have they been notified (can't hear)? Lehman/They will all be here, yes. And a couple of these folks are disabled. With these wheelchairs it would be very nice if we could do this promptly at the beginning of the meeting, so they can leave. Pfab/No problem. Vanderhoef/After item 3 and what's the number on the ones that you--- Lehman/Make it 3B, well, or whatever; all we need is a motion to move those four agenda items into that position. And we'll discuss them, act on them individually, and then at the end of the four items we will make a presentation. Pfab/Could you restate those four items? Lehman/8, 9, 10, and 11. Pfab/8, 9, 10, and 11. Vanderhoef/Good idea. Lehman/OK. Kanner/Ernie, were you done? This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 19 Lehman/Yes, I am. ITEM 15. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FEES FOR SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION OF TItE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND INSPECTION SERVICES Kanner/Steve, I have a question for you. Tim's not here, is he? Lehman/No. Kanner/In regard to the new fees--- Atkins/Mm..hmm. Kanner/...you did mention that we're under, you gave a chart, a nice chart, saying we're significantly under the pricing stntcture of other jurisdictions. Atkins/Mm..hmm. Kanner/It doesn't quite say how we needed, why we needed the fee increases. I assume to increase expenses, but it wasn't quite laid out. Atkins/It was one of the budget items that we proposed to you in order for budget balancing, that we were going to increase the fees, and we incorporated the increased fees into the budget. That was one of the, sort of the primary motivation because that was sort of in our face. And the second was that they had not been reviewed since '94. Lehman/That's a revenue issue, right? Atkins/Oh, very clearly, revenue, yeah. Kanner/Do you look at the fees meeting the actual expenses of the personnel and other--- Atkins/To meet? Yes, we try to do that and because of the level of development activity that we have in town, at least as long as I can recollect, the building fees have always exceeded the cost of the personnel. Housing, on the other hand, does not. That's, so make sure you don't confuse those two. Housing's about two-thirds and 70 percent. Wilburn/Is them a, following up on that item, is there a plan now to, similar to like what Parks and Rec does, they kind of schedule increases to keep up the costs---. Leahman/Parks and Rec does that every two years. Wilburn/OK. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 20 Lehman/We're going to do the same thing. Wilburn/Uh-huh, yeah, good, thanks. Atkins/To allow for more minor adjustments, we did send this through Home Builders Association. To my knowledge, we didn't hear back from them. I think the fact that our rates are still substantially lower than some of the other communities. Now, Tim's going to be here, to my knowledge, tomorrow night, too, if you wanted to question him then. Champion/What are these fees or what is adjusted by the (can't hear)--- Atkins/No. Champion/No? Atkins/No. This is building inspection. Yeah, this is unrelated. Champion/Yeah. Pfab/Are, are these increases, if increases go through, how will they compare with other similar jurisdictions? Lehman/It's in the packet. Atkins/There's a detailed memo in the packet that shows that we are still in the area. I believe we are the lowest? Or close to it? Wilburn/All, all but one. Atkins/All but one? Wilbum/All but one. Pfab/Is, is that, should we, should we attempt .... Wilburn/It was Marion, I think it was. Pfab/Should we attempt to get closer to that? Atkins/Our recommendation still stands, Irvin, the way it is, the reason being is that we have not, you know, we have been somewhat remiss, we should do this every couple of years to keep these things more current. And this is going to be a pretty hefty jump anyway, but we're still level. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 21 Vanderhoef/But you're going to do it in steps? Atkins/No. No. Vanderhoef/No? Atkins/We want this adopted and then two years from now, we'll be back here having a review with you where we are then. Pfab/And you're saying the percentage that it covers, it more than covers the--- Atkins/Yes. In building inspection. Pfab/Just the labor costs? Atkins/No, everything. Well, the cost of labor and benefits for our---.. Pfab/And what about equipment? Atkins/Building inspection, for lack of a better word, has been profitable. Pfab/OK. Atkins/It's a revenue to the general fund and so, as you know, we're very cautious about this. Vanderhoef/ I see some differences in the way commercial is done and we don't have near as many comparisons--- Atkins/Mm-lwarn. Vanderhoeff ...for building, electrical, plumbing, mechanical and all that. Atkins/Sure. Vanderhoeff Is there a reason why, or how is that addressed in other cities? Atkins/I don't know the answer, Dee, but we'll get that for you by tomorrow. Vanderhoef/ Thank you. Atkins/Mm..hmm. Wilburn/I think the memo referred to somehow collapse into one, one permit as opposed to five separate permits. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 22 Vanderhoef/ Oh, I think that's great. Atkins/There were some procedural ways that permits are issued that were changed in this. I can't call them out specifically, but I do recall something like that. They're trying to make the permit, we attempted to make the permitting process easier all along, as you know, we have--- Wilburn/ (can't hear).., one, yeah. Atkins/... that computer on the desk where you can actually call up your own if you want to. But I'll check those for you and have those (can't hear)---. Vanderhoef/The general contractor then knows that the permits have been purchased, number one, which is a great thing in moving a project along. Atkins/That's exactly right, Dee, that it doesn't require them to go back on several occasions. Vanderhoef/All at once it's time for the plumber and he has forgotten to get his permit and there they are. Atkins/I'll talk with Tim and I'll have those for you. Vanderhoef/ When I was looking at both the new fees for municipal infractions and for new building codes and so forth, I would like to see somehow a list of those available on our website for easy reference, doesn't dig into the Code for each single item, so our public knows that this is what the infractions are and it could be a simple--- Atkins/It sounds easy. So if it is, I promise I'll pursue it for you and I will suggest it to staff to put it on. I'll tell Lisa. (Laughter) Atkins/We can take care of that. Lehman/Other agenda items. ITEM 4f(4). CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION WITH THE IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR STATE TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT FUNDS Kanner/Consent Calendar 4f(4), applying for IDOT State Transportation Enhancement Fund. Atkins/Those are both Jeff's. Kanner/Tell me, Jefl; what that's going to be used for specifically, at the parking ramp there. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 23 Davidson/Yes, I can. 4F4 is which one.., oh, for the near south side transportation center, yeah. What, what happened here is that we found out that Sioux City got the streetscape elements of their transportation center funded through this program. So we decided, well, what the heck, let's give it a shot. The majority of the expense is in the pavers and the brickwork, around the perimeter of the facility, and it also included benches and smoking urns and waste receptacles, and I believe, I think, also the pedestrian scale lighting. I think that's it. Vanderhoef/Did you say fence? Davidson/No, it does not include the fence that's being through the public art program. Vanderhoef/I know, but any assistance with fence even if it was a certain amount for--- Davidson/It does not include the fence right now, I mean, Karin, would that really be considered a streetscape element? We hate to get too much beyond that because then you get out of the, what the enhancement program allows you to--- Franklin/We already are getting part of that paid for through the FTA grant. Davidson/Yes. Franklin/So what's coming out of our local coffers for this is, like, I think, eight cents. Davidson/And you know, you'll recall that we're bidding the fifth level of the parking facility of the project as an alternate, and if we have money for it, and we're hoping to have money for it obviously, so this gets us a little closer to making sure--- Kanner/The streetscape, it's not a part of the, what is it, 80-20--- Davidson/It is, Steven, but it just would free up money, to make sure we have enough money. Yeah, remember, we're, we're topped out by, I don't remember the exact number, but it's basically what we've received so far, I think the balance is like ten point something million, and we're limited to that. Anything we go over that is 100 percent City money. So, this just is kind of $250,000 worth of insurance that we don't get over that amount, if we were to get it. Champion/We, because of the different kind of parking ramp where the profit is going to go to Transit, so we can't really fund like that, that story about parking ramp with parking revenue from our other ramp? Davidson/You know, we'll explore the options. There may be a way for us to, with a hundred percent City money, they could come from wherever you want it to come from, could be parking funds. We might be able to finance that. You know, let's cross that bridge. We'll This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 24 get the bids for it and then we'll come back to it if it ends up we're a little bit short. And we might possibly work something like that out, Connie. Champion/And could that ramp then repay our parking fund? Davidson/No. All the revenue from that transportation facility goes to---. Champion/Even if we loaned it money from our own parking ramp? Davidson/Well, that might be something creative that Kevin and Steve could come up, but we just need to make sure that all the revenue, because the, the, the FDA will check the books, and when they audit us, we make sure all that revenue goes to the transit system. Champion/Sure. Well, they should. Pfab/ I'm still, I'm still concerned that the underground space is not utilized under there. Even for storage. (Laughter) Davidson/You need to talk to them, not me, Irvin. Pfab/Doesn't the City need storage space for bike racks or something? (Laughter) Vanderhoef/No, bike racks need to be on the street. Kanner/I'm going to ask this be pulled from the consent tomorrow and that it be voted on separately. Lehman/OK. Kanner/I'm not quite sure where I'm going to vote on it yet. ITEM 4f(5). CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TIlE FILING OF AN APPLICATION WITIl TIlE IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR STATE TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT FUNDS Vanderhoef/Jeff; while you're there, the application for the enhancement for the Dubuque Street. Pfab/Which item are you on? Vanderhoef/Number 5. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 25 Lehman/4f(5), bottom of page 4 of the agenda. Vanderhoef/I am presuming that this is an anticipation of the reworking of the entranceway by the state DOT and that we wouldn't be--- Davidson/I assume you mean the 1-80 project, Dee. It certainly would be done consistent with that. You know, with the state funding situation, we're a little bit unsure of exactly when and what will be happening there. So, chances are this project would be done long before that in a manner that was consistent as much as we can anticipate with the state's project. This was an application we submitted a year ago and we were the first project not funded at the state. They funded three projects; we were the fourth project. So, we got ahold of the three that were funded and looked at them and tried to make ours more like them, to make it a better, you know, enhance it, make it a better application. So we're just going to give it another shot and see if we come up any better. But this is a City only, exclusively a City project, Dee, for just cleaning up that whole entranceway and improving it in a number of different ways. Vanderhoef/Well, I know it, it needs it. I, I don't have any objection to that. All I was concerned about is what might be taken right back out if it wasn't done before--- Davidson/No, that's exactly what we want to try and make sure we don't do. So, when we get into the specific design of it, we would work with DOT as much as they know what might happen there. Vanderhoef/OK. Thanks. Davidson/Thank you. Lehman/OK. Other agenda items? ITEM 4f(9). CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST A LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR TItE TEMPORARY USE OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY BETWEEN TItE CITY OF IOWA CITY, BILL MILHALOPOULAS, AND ATLAS WORLD GRILL INC., d/b/a ATLAS WORLD GRILL, FOR A SIDEWALK CAFI~ Vanderhoef/I just have a question about, since we have our first permanent fencing for an outdoor restaurant area, and I recognize that we always, this is Bill Milhalopoulas's Atlas World, that we're doing a license for them, number 9. Karr/That's a renewal. Vanderhoef/But the question came up in my mind now that it's in place and ready to go, the maintenance of snow removal in there. I know it is the owner's obligation to do that. I This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 26 guess I'm anticipating that that might not get scooped out as well if there's no traffic through there. Karr/Well, I mean, with all due respect, if there's no traffic through there---. Lehman/Why would they shovel it? Vanderhoef/OK. What I envision is the slow-melt that makes the rest of the walk--- KaiT/I understand. Vanderhoef/...(can't hear) Kart/And especially on a shaded side of the street. And that is, is--- Vanderhoef/...underneath and I want to be sure. Karr/ I understand. We do have a lease agreement and they are responsible for keeping that shoveled, and they do have gates at either end of it. And I just wanted to know, this is a renewal so this is their second year of operation with the permanent fencing, not the first year. Champion/ So was it a problem? Dilkes/ We also have permanent fencing. Karr/We also have permanent fencing at other locations as well, Quentin's and--- Vanderhoef/ They're just relatively new. Karr/Yes. The concept is relatively new, you're absolutely right. But the lease agreement does spell that out, and they still can be cited. The other thing, too, is that this is a yearly type of review and it can affect Council's approval the next time around if that is a problem. Vanderhoef/ Mm..hmm. Champion/Well, I'm, I'm walking on there constantly and I do not notice any problems--- Lehman/And you would have noticed for the there wasn't any snow last year ..... (All talking)/ We didn't have any snow. (Laughter) Vanderhoef/ And they're telling us we're going to have snow this year. Champion/Well, I'm sure they'll take care of it. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 27 Karr/Well, it certainly can be grounds for reconsideration, if that should be a problem. Vanderhoef/Mm hmm. LEXINGTON AVENUE BARRICADE Lehman/OK. All right. Any other agenda items? OK, Lexington Avenue barricade, Jeff. Davidson/The matter that we're here to discuss this evening is part of your routine traffic calming evaluation process. The Lexington Avenue barricade has been in place for a year, and at the one-year anniversary of the installation of any traffic-calming device, we do a follow-up survey and then come back to you and determine if, if it's desired to make what has been installed a permanent installation. So, you should have received a memorandum from Beth Pfohl of the JCCOG staff, kind of summarizing the evaluation. Did you also get the traffic study? Lehman/ It's here. Davidson/OK, that's that's the third time you've received it. So I'm sorry it was an oversight, but you have seen it twice before. You should be a little bit familiar with it. Champion/ It's a lot easier to read it on a piece of paper though. Davidson/Yeah, it is, certainly. And I can answer any questions about that that you have, just real quickly to run through the other aspects that you may want to take into consideration. You do have some remarks there from the Fire Chief, you know the Fire Chief has been fairly--- TAPE 02-69, SIDE 2 Davidson/...opposition to traffic calming because it makes what he is employed by you to do harder. And he's been fairly consistent with that and you, you see his comments there. The Streets Superintendent would like us to erect some no-parking signs, which can be done easily, and then Police Captain Matt Johnson stated, as well as the Parking and Transit director, that really, no problems that they've anticipated. I know one of the residents of Lexington Avenue did feel like the police should point out that their call volume to Lexington Avenue must be drastically reduced because he said he called two or three times a night most nights. So that is another thing you might wish to take into consideration. We also updated the neighborhood survey and you can see it was approximately the same, a slightly lower percentage in favor of it, down from 71 percent to 64 percent and the comments split about equally, which is also similar to the first go- around. So, you know, basically, we're here to see if you wish to continue with the three- season operation or if you wish to make some modifications, what those might be. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 28 Vanderhoef/I'd be happy to take it out and leave it out. I've had a number of phone calls or people who have addressed me about taking it out, that they feel it disrupts the traffic pattern throughout all of Manville Heights, and it has nothing to do with speeding, it is the local citizens who use and want another entrance and exit to that area. O'Donnell/Ali my calls have been in favor of the barricade, and I don't see any dramatic increase in traffic or speed. I think it's been successful. Pfab/That would be my, feedback I'm getting. O'Donnell/What was that? Pfab/That's the feedback I'm getting. Wilburn/I would concur with that. I'd like to, I would like to see the no-parking signs put in front of it because I think that would allow for, I'm assuming that would allow for ticketing and possible towing if people are parking in front of it, because ifa vehicle did need to get through, an emergency vehicle, with the (can't hear), then that would present a problem. So--- Davidson/Want majority of Council for that? Wilburn/ Yes, for me. Davidson/OK. Ernie? Lehman/Leave it alone. Davidson/We will do that, and we'll send something out to the neighborhood indicating accordingly. Thanks. ALLOCATION CRITERIA FOR CDBG/ItOME PROJECTS Lehman/OK. Allocation of, allocation criteria for CDBG home housing project. Wilburn/I need to, consistent with my prior conflict of interest, excuse myself from this discussion. Lehman/You're excused. Wilburn/Thank you. Nasby/Last May when we did the CDBG and home allocation cycle for FY '03 projects--I don't think we're in violation (laughter)--you had some questions regarding the projects and some of the criteria that we used to evaluate those projects, so you voted to put it on a This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 29 future work session, and here we are. We're going to start the FY '04 allocation cycle this fall so I wanted to bring these items back to you. And in the memo in your packet outlining the interest that I heard at that meeting in some of these criteria. And those were an interest policy, cost per unit or cost of bedroom standards, proportion of professional fees, ratio of public and private ftmds or investment requirements by the applicants, and I just wanted to kind of go through those quickly for you and tell you kind of what the current policy or guidelines are on those issues. Last year Housing and Community Development Commission did have a guideline for the loans that was set at 3 pement for not-for for-profits, 1 percent for nonprofits. However, those were guidelines and some of the applications complied with those guidelines; some did not. So that's the guideline that HCDC had in place. The cost per unit, cost per bedroom, we asked them for that information. We evaluate it when we get the applications in, but we don't have any guidelines within the application process or the evaluation process currently. State does use some, HUD has some for their mortgage programs, so there are examples of those in existence. The proportion of professional, the fees, again, we don't have that as a criteria in our applications, but HCDC does look at it, but there are no set standards that this fee should be X percent. Again, when questions are raised, we go to the Iowa Finance Authority and look and see what they have in place. Ratio of public to private funds, again, there's, there's no firm guideline in place, but we do have in the HCDC ranking criteria, they encourage leveraging and they also look at project feasibility, project budget of the monies needed, and that's a judgment call on HCDC's part. And then, lastly, requirement for a minimum investment by the applicant. We currently do not have anything in place. So, an applicant could ask for 100 percent of the money from sources other than their own. So that's kind of--- Vanderhoef/ Could we take these one at a time? Just go down the list and see about--- Nasby/Kind of what you want to do with them, and they are more, like I refer to in the memo, they are rather technical in nature and not necessarily changing your policy but strengthening the criteria that you have for evaluating those projects. So,---. Vanderhoef/ Mm..hmm. Pfab/My primary concern is that they're not arbitrary, and I was quite frankly disappointed with the way some of these were handled last time, and it looks like after the fact, things change. And I, I'm very uncomfortable when I see that. Champion/ Well, we're talking about the criteria now; we're not talking about a decision. Pfab/No, no, no, I'm saying so, if, if we're going to make a decision, is it going to be hard and fast? Or is it going to be something that when the spirit moves us, we decide we will just ignore it or change it to suit a particular situation? Vanderhoef/ Depends on what we talk about on each one of these. I mean, I'm not going to collapse these all in--- This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 3o Pfab/ No, no, no, I'm talking about--- Vanderhoeff ..a basic statement, that's why I asked--- Pfab/...individual one and, and look at interest rate, for instance, that's what we're voting on, right? That what we're talking about? Vanderhoef/ OK. Then let's talk interest. Champion/ Let's talk about that first. Vanderhoef/ And then we'll see where we are with that. I think I was the one who brought up the interest rate originally with a project that we were talking about a year ago. And it just seemed that there might be an opportunity here for looking at differences whether it was for a nonprofit or a profit and we looked at the 1 to 3 percent, and I haven't had any feedback yet to know whether that 3 percent one was negotiated or not. Nasby/The 3 percent one you set when you passed the funding for that project, so we have signed a contract with them at the 3 percent. Vanderhoef/ They did sign? OK, I didn't know whether that---. Nasby/That was in the last couple of weeks, so that's recently completed. Vanderhoef/ OK. So it was a doable possibility in this case, and personally, I think I would like to go forward with 3 percent for nonprofits. Champion/ Dee, do we want to, do we want to set a---.. Lehman/For-profits. Kanner/For-profits. Champion/...do we want to set a certain percentage or do we want it to be 50 percent of the bank mortgage rate or, I mean, rather than spending 3 percent---... Lehman/No, no, exactly right, no, exactly right. Vanderhoeff We talked about (can't hear, clothing?) it with 2 points above the, the, I can't say it nOW. Nasby/Prime rate. Kanner/Two points below prime. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 31 Lehman/Two points below prime, you mean. Nasby/I think prime rate was the benchmark used earlier. Vanderhoef/ And is was 2.4. Thank you for reminding me about that. Champion/ I think that and I can (can't hear, see that) totally. Pfab/When you say prime, what are you referring to? Lehman/The federal reserve. Champion/The federal reserve prime rate. Pfab/OK, OK. Nasby/The federal reserve prime rate right now, just for your information, is four and three- quarters percent. I looked it up today. Lehman/So it would be about 3. Vanderhoef/ Mm-hmm. Two points below prime, which is a good offer--- Kanner/Sounds good. Vanderhoef/ ...with a break for the for-profit. Pfab/What happens and it's probably going to happen at some time, if it goes up to 7 or 8, 9? Champion/Well, then it would be--- Lehman/ Then you'd still be 2 points below. Champion/...it would still be 2 points below. Vanderhoef/ If it's 9, they'll get the opportunity to--- .. Pfab/And what, what about exception, exceptions, no exceptions? Vanderhoef/ I don't know. Pfab/You see, this is the part I, I don't care what it is, I just don't want it to be a single, you looked at a, at a project and say I don't like the project, so let's just do whatever we want. I don't care what it is, but I would expect that it would go all the way across the board, no This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 32 exceptions. Champion/Well, it depends, they might be asking for---. Pfab/Well, then, you see, then I'm saying, this is, I have, I have a tremendous amount of problems with the way that was handled the last time, and I don't know what can be done, but I certainly will not be one to sit still. Champion/You know, I, we're not going to, it's--- Pfab/Well, it's over, and I just, and that's done. I just, but I just don't ever want to see that, that kind of a situation go up again. Champion/Well, you know, you can look at how much profit people are making on things. Lehman/Well.--- Champion/ We're not making people rich off of government money. Lehman/The last time this came up, though, we, we did have a 3 percent. And that number was used and the CDBG committee chose not to use that number. Nasby/That's correct. Lehman/We used the number. Now as we have in our criteria that the for-profit interest rate will be 2 points less than prime and everybody knows the rules going into it, I suspect that we would always have, as any council does, the option of making some sort of exception. But everybody would know going in that that is, that's one of the ground rules. Nasby/Yeah, the applications will all be based on the same level---. Lehman/Yes. Sure, and if the rate should be 5 and someone comes in with a 3, we can always say no, because it did not comply with the regulation. Nasby/Correct. Lehman/So, I think it's important that we have the same, we did have the rules with it last time. Nasby/Yeah, it wasn't adopted by the Council--- Lehman/Right. Nasby/...it was an HCDC policy or decision. Karmer/ A couple questions. For nonprofits, what is, what is the rules that we go by now? This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 33 Nasby/ HCDC had a 1 percent loan for nonprofits--that was their guideline, 3 percent for profits. Vanderhoef/ And that's the federal--- Kanner/Is that an informal guideline or is that written? Nasby/It was written. It was actually in the applicant guide, and--- Pfab/ And when you got all the way to the end of the projects, was, was it consistent all the way through? Nasby/No, it was not. All the applicants asked for a different item, a different rate. Pfab/ And, and what did you do? Nasby/We noted that on the applications and so when HCDC reviewed it, they had that information and they made their recommendations to you, based on what their judgment was. Kanner/I, I think that's good to have some flexibility with the nonprofits. Champion/I agree. Karmer/And the other question is, do we ever have a case where there's nonprofits working with for-profits? Nasby/We have had one case where they formed a limited partnership and if they want to qualify as a nonprofit, the nonprofit has to be the managing general partner and that's something Eleanor can walk you through from a legal standpoint, but if the nonprofit is the controlling entity of that nonprofit, then we would cost for that as a nonprofit organization. Karmer/Would we say informally that they'd have to have at least 50 percent of the nonprofit money? Nasby/Fifty percent. Kanner/I guess since it's not their own money, that's sort of a moot point. So you're saying they are the managing--- Nasby/Whether or not they would be qualified as a nonprofit or a for-profit would depend on how much, who had controlling interest, basically. And in the case that we did have, the nonprofit had the controlling interest. They have the powers of the partnership. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 34 Pfab/ But what happens when you mix federal money with other money, which characteristic does the pot have then? Nasby/The most stringent, which typically would be the federal dollars. Pfab/ And is that, is that, does that ever, was that ever breached in any of those? Nasby/No, I believe everybody is OK. Lehman/All right, so 2 percent below prime seems to be the, is that the---. Nasby/Is that for everyone? Or is that the for-profit rate? Lehman/ For profit. Champion/No, for profit. Nasby/The nonprofit rate then would be--- Pfab/I think--- Champion/ We probably should set a date because these applications (can't hear ~ a different-- Lehman/I expect that this whole thing will be effective by--- Nasby/Applications are due in January, so I think what we would do in the criteria, we'll just say, "As of January 1, this was the prime rate. Therefore, our rates will be X." Pfab/ I would like, before we go, before we go forward with that, I believe that I would rather see a 3 percent and not a floating prime. Lehman/Well, that's ridiculous. If you get the interest rates are 15 percent in the market, you're going to loan money out at 3? When the banks are paying 7 or 8? Pfab/ Well, but what does that money cost us? Lehman/That isn't the point. We're trying to perpetuate a program. This money goes back into the program. They could literally take the money, invest it in the bank at 12 percent, pay us 3 and make 6. Pfab/ But that, but that money isn't, that isn't where it goes though. Lehman/Well, but the point, all right, I understand what you're saying. Is there consensus on a 2 percent below prime? This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 35 O'Donnell/ Yes. Champion/ Yes. Vanderhoef/Mm..hmm. Kanner/Absolutely. Lehman/We've got---. Nasby/For for-profits. OK. Lehman/Right. OK. Vanderhoef/ And nonprofits are, federal guidelines are 1 percent? Nasby/No, federal guidelines--- Vanderhoef/Can go--- Nasby/...let the cities choose what they want to do. You can grant all the money if you want you- -you can give it away. Or you can charge interest. That's a local call. Champion/Well, what, when the non-, what were the nonprofits charged for interest on this last go-around, do you remember? Nasby/I have to look. Vanderhoef/Guidelines have been 1. Nasby/Now, let me see. Champion/Yeah, have been 1, but I don't think they've been that strict. I like the flex, the idea of keeping it flexible. Lehman/So it floats with the market, I agree. Kanner/Oh, you mean for the---. Champion/For the nonprofits. Kanner/...nonprofits. Not, that's not floating. Pfab/I think we're, I think you were speaking of the three different things. That was my understanding. You were saying you want to be able to adapt it to an individual party. Is This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 36 that right? And you were saying that you--- Champion/ The nonprofits. Pfab/ Right, the nonprofit. And you were saying, Dee, I think misunderstood what she had said. You were saying floating with the interest rate. Lehman/Well, we are, the interest rates will float with the for-profits. Pfab/Right. Lehman/Now we're talking about the nonprofit. Vanderhoef/ Yeah. Champion/Right. Lehman/We want those to float. Pfab/Well---.. Champion/I think I'd like the (can't hear) to be flexible. Vanderhoef/ Negotiable, but I would like to keep minimum of 1 percent in that I think every nonprofit recognizes, quotes, their turn comes around and they need to help support the next people behind them, and that this is one way that they can help the next person on the list. Nasby/Mm hmm. In, for the '03 projects the nonprofits were given, two of them got conditional occupancy loans which means there's no interest, no payments until they sell the property. Then they'll pay us back with the original principle. The other one got a declining balance which means we forgive it over time. So, there was no interest--- Lehman/ Right. Nasby/... in repaying the '03 projects. Champion/I'd, I'd like to keep that flexible. Pfab/I, would, you mean, flexible or... individual--- Champion/I'd like to set I percent as the--- Lehman/Target. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 37 Champion/ ... request, but not written in stone. I don't know how you word that so that--- Pfab/Well, I would say, just say--- Vanderhoef/ Oh, you can say negotiable, Connie. Champion/ OK. Vanderhoef/ And if you have three projects that come in for the same one, if they're using their tally sheets at HCDC, the one who would offer the 1 percent would rate higher--- Nasby/There is ... points than--- Vanderhoef/ ...would get more points in that, there--- Lehman/That's good. Pfab/It may be a, it may be a project that is less needed by the community. Champion/ It'll be a judgment call too. Pfab/So, I mean, it's something to consider, but I, I'd hate to see it at the weight, weight factor in it, because somebody says well, I can give them 1 pement, the other two say no. You got it at 1 percent, we'll take it. Champion/Well, that would--- Lehman/I don't think it's--- Pfab/Yeah, but I say, I would, that's my point is, I don't want this to be what determines it. Kanner/ I think if we put in "negotiable," that--- Champion/Right, I like that. Kanner/ I think that's a good thing. Nasby/One percent is the guideline--- Lehman/Negotiable. Nasby/...however, Council may modify--- Pfab/ Well, I think that should go, I think that should almost be done by the CBDG. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 38 Lehman/Council ends up, Council always ends up doing that. Pfab/Yeah, but I--- Kanner/HCDC. Pfab/ I can't remember, whatever. Pardon. Kanner/ I think both bodies will look at it in that light. Pfab/If it can't get in, if you can't get into the process because it's not eligible to be (can't hear)- Nasby/Will, will that get you into number crtmching? Lehman/You got it. Vanderhoef/ Pardon me. Nasby/Will that get you into number crunching when you get the applications? Kanner/What do you mean by that? Nasby/Will it bring your level decision making down from policy level to more of a line-by-line review of the applications, which is what you've.charged the Commission with? Lehman/I really don't think it will--- Vanderhoef/ I don't think it will. Lehman/ ...it's called a nonprofit. I don't think it will. Champion/I don't, who knows? Nasby/OK. (Laughter) Karmer/Council does what it does now. Nasby/OK. (Laughter of several) Champion/ We do what we do-- This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 39 Vanderhoeff Well said. Nasby/All right, and on these loans now we've got some interest rate guidelines, how, the inevitable question then is, repayment terms. Right now, we have them as amortized loans over a certain period of time. Champion/ We have what, amortized--- Nasby/Just like your mortgage, you pay it off over a set period of time and then it's paid off. People may say I'll pay you interest only or I'll make a balloon in 20 years. Do we want to stick with just an amortized loan schedule? Pfab/ Could I make a suggestion? I would say, does it say "negotiable" now? Nasby/It does. Pfab/ Then I think I'd leave it that way. Kanner/Well, there was some concern about someone got a break in being able to spread it out over 30 years--this was a year or two ago--and someone was not, the terms, they thought they were playing with terms of 20 years, they understood it. So I do think we do need to be a little more precise. Nasby/Typically, what we have done, we've allowed 30 years, but we matched the term of their loan with how long they're going to say they'll keep it affordable. If they say we're going to keep it affordable 20 years, then we don't invest for 30. If they say they'll do it 30, then we will go 30. That may or may not be the case (can't hear). Pfab/ So, that, so "negotiable" will cover that, right? Vanderhoef/ That was last year. Champion/ Because we had one with a 30~year mortgage, one with 20 years over 40 (can't hear). Some real shafty deals going on with this money. Kanner/And is that, is that going to be the limit, 30 years? Because some are going to say 50 years of affordability. Champion/ Thirty. That 30 is the limit. Nasby/Well, that, I mean, that's another issue that wasn't on this--- Kanner/I think there should be a--- This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 40 Nasby/...that you may or may want to--- O'Donnell/ Thirty should be max. Vanderhoef/Max? Lehman/ Yeah. Nasby/As far as the loan term? Vanderhoef/ Yes. Nasby/What if a nonprofit comes in and says I'll keep it affordable for 99 years? Lehman/Fine, you're going to get your loan for 30. Nasby/OK. I don't see anybody going for 99 years if that's going to be the case. Champion/They won't be around to check it out. Lehman/OK. Nasby/OK. Lehman/All right. Next. I've got a real problem with these next three, not that they're not important because I think that they are, but I don't know on what basis we decide what's reasonable for unit cost per bedroom--- Champion/No. Lehman/Is there some sort of standard that we have that we can use? Vanderhoef/ I just had a conversation with some home builders one day and off the top of their head, they stood there and figured up and said this is about where it should fall in, of what they build, and what I asked them to look at was, they were familiar with the ones that the City built out on Shannon Drive. Nasby/OK. Lehman/Mm..hmm. Vanderhoef/The three of them, the new ones. Nasby/The skinny houses? This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 41 Vanderhoef/Yup, skinny houses. Nasby/OK. Vanderhoef/And they were real comfortable within about a $500 range in there, and I think if we had a little help from the private sector in setting a range for us to look at, that could be, we could set a benchmark for--- Champion/But that would change every year. Nasby/Yeah. Is this something you might like HCDC to look at? I can get them some information. Lehman/There's a couple of issues here we've got. Particularly if they're going to be sold in, if they're a single-family, four-plex, duplex, multi-family, bedrooms vary with the type of building. Nasby/Correct. Vanderhoef/ The number of bedrooms per unit. Lehman/Right. I mean all of those things are variables that I think it would be very difficult to say that this is what the cost of bedroom; I think what Dee is getting at, and I absolutely agree, some outrageous cost per bedroom for an 18-plex or whatever. We ought to have some sort of way to evaluate that. Kanner/Well, right now--- Lehman/Depend on how you do it--- Kanner/Right now we go per unit cost. Pfab/ We do--- Nasby/No, we do per bedroom and per person. Kanner/You do per bedroom? Nasby/And per person. That's what we do now. We don't necessarily do unit. Vanderhoef/So we get the cost at the tail end on some of these projects and how do we compare those costs with what the private sector--- Champion/I think you compare it with the other applications, to see if they all come in the same. If you're building elderly housing, are they going to be more expensive, you got to put in This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 42 all kinds of stuffin the bathrooms and it probably has an elevator. Vanderhoef/But remember, everything that we are building now is under the minimum guides for accessibility if there's any government money in it. They're all going to have the wide doors; they're going to have accessibility. Champion/But maybe we don't really, what are they, they always ask that on the application, right? Nasby/Yup. We ask for that information and we would have it available. Champion/We would have it available (can't hear) ... I'm not sure we should say it in the guidelines for that. Nasby/OK. Lehman/I don't know how we do it, but I do think that there's some issues there. Champion/There are some issues. Vanderhoef/ I would like to approach the Home Builders Association and see what they would come up with for various sites. Maybe three categories: multi-family, 18-plex, like you're talking about, senior residences, and that kind of thing. Like the skinny houses on Shannon Drive and then something like the four-plexes--- Pfab/I think that, I have a different suggestion here. If we're gathering all the data now, and it's pretty transparent, and as these people evaluate these, these things are going to show up. And if some, if they're evaluating them and some of these things are way out of line, I'm sure that they're not going to get the points that something is, that, you know, is closer to, you know, (can't hear) end of it. Lehman/I don't think that that's necessarily true. Kanner/Why do you think it's not true, Ernie? Lehman/I think if you like a project well enough and it serves a population you like well enough, you might select a project with an outrageous cost per unit because it fills a void. Now, is that appropriate? I don't know. Pfab/But, I wouldn't think, I think if it's, if the information is there, comparisons are there, these people are going over this stuff, they can say, well, this might be nice, but nice, it's expensive. So I think if the information and the data is provided, which you say it is, it's requested on the application, I would say that's what these people do. They go through some of these things, they have a lot more time and they put a lot more energy into it than we do. We kind of give it a quick blessing and on it goes. And these people, they just go This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 43 through these things and approve them. Vanderhoef/ I personally do not have the expertise and I'm not sure that the people on the HCDC do-- Pfab/Well, we--- Vanderhoef/ ...and I think they might be more comfortable if they had some sort of guidelines. Pfab/Well, we've hired some wonderful staff to help these people out, if they have any questions. Vanderhoef/But it comes to us, and so when we make that judgment, I need to compare that to something. I need to compare it to what the costs were that we spent in the various types of things last year, the year before, what the inflation was, and, and, move on from it. Pfab/But that data is provided to you and then you can make the decision. But I think that to fritter away at their, at the front end of it, it doesn't make a lot of sense. But I mean, I mean, that's why--- Lehman/Do you have any ideas? You work with this all the time. Nasby/Well, I think--- Lehman/ Is there a method for measuring the cost of unit? Obviously, it can't be an ironclad, it can't be terribly, terribly detailed. But on the other hand, I don't think Council wants to see a project that's outrageously cost, high cost per unit. How do you do it? Nasby/Well, state, sate housing authorities, some of them, do put cost per bedroom thresholds in. If you have one to zero bedroom, one-two bedroom, three-bedroom, they've got a list. So some housing authorities do that. The home program itself has a limit and currently that limit is $144,000 and change. Now--- Lehman/Per bedroom? Nasby/No, no, per, for a unit. Champion/Oh, I see. Nasby/For a unit. So what that does then is it gets you two-bedroom units or smaller units to fit under that $144 so if you want to house three- and four-bedroom families, you're probably not going to get a unit funded if you put that in as a guideline. Vanderhoef/ And those are national--- This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 44 Nasby/It's a HUD regulation actually. Vanderhoef/Yeah. So it's based on--- Pfab/The actual--- Vanderhoef/...a demographic--- Nasby/They set a limit for Iowa and there it goes. Vanderhoef/ And that was a concern, I think. I saw locally that some of the other things we're going to talk about, the national guideline from HUD may not be appropriate for Iowa City--- Champion/Right. Vanderhoef/ ....Housing Authority. Pfab/Right, but it's already limiting you, so--- Vanderhoef/No, I'm thinking it's those HUD guidelines are far too high. Champion/Way too liberal. Way too liberal. Kanner/New York City. Vanderhoef/Mm-hmm. Right, New York City. Pfab/But these are not New York. These are in Iowa. Champion/Well, that's a good (can't hear)--- Lehman/That's a --- Vanderhoef/And that's why we shouldn't be using federal guidelines. Pfab/But, he said they're designated for Iowa though. Nasby/The one that, the one rule that's in the home program is designated by jurisdiction, so yes, it's for Iowa. Pfab/So it's already .... Vanderhoef/ One is, but all the others--- This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 45 Nasby/But all the other ones are not. Pfab/OK. OK. Nasby/So they apply to one program. Kanner/I think that. one, it wouldn't be hurtful to get perhaps some guidelines, if we talk to some people in the Home Builders, perhaps we talk to Maryann Dennis in the Housing Fellowship to come up with some general guidelines. What we might want to ask HCDC is if we want to give more weight to those that come in with lower cost per unit or bedroom, whatever, whatever it is, and maybe they can come back to us and say, Yeah, we want to give a little more weight, a certain higher pementage, and then we can OK that. I think that might be the best way to go about this. I think they are looking at these issues right now--- Vanderhoef/ Yeah, and that's good. Kanner/...to put something down hard and fast and say this is how much you're going to spend. It's pretty hard to do. Vanderhoef/ Mm..hmm.. Kanner/And I think if we do have some guidelines they'd look at and we can look at also, but they're not hard and fast rules, they'll continue to do this and if we want to give more weight to someone who comes down lower in cost, then we can do that. Champion/Although sometimes the cost may have to do with they've been used for. So I kind of, I mean, I understand where Dee is coming from, but I don't know ifI have any way to really get into that, since they already look at it. The committee already looks at it. Pfab/I think the fact that the information is asked for and it's given, then I think it's on an individual basis is it, is it what are you going to do? And so I think it's, I think you're putting one more level of rules in there that probably, that are just going to get in the way. Vanderhoef/ How about this--could you put together or have the committee work with you to put together some guidelines of what they would be looking at? I like Steven's idea of maybe waiting, but just to give us some ballpark numbers for ranges for our region versus the federal. I mean, obviously we follow the federal law, but I want something more regional. Lehman/Well, I think that the same thing is tree (can't hear) excellent ..... professional fees. I~d really like to see you and the committee work on that. I think there are basically accepted ranges for professional fees on building projects and that those fees should be in those accepted ranges, and those really are not difficult to find out. It's not like cost of bedroom--- This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 46 Vanderhoef/ Mm...hmm. Lehman/...unless you've got an extremely unusual project that requires the compliance of various (can't hear) with tremendous amount of fees, but an average piece of property, the design and professional fees for that building is pretty easily calculated--- Champion/Very easy. Lehman/ ...using standards that arc used throughout the community. And I do think that's something that probably they could look at. And, you know, when, a lot of buildings are built and those fees are negotiated, where you're going to build a new building at a million eight-hundred-thousand dollars and the architect comes in and says my fee is a certain percent and they end up with a flat fee for projects and this happens, I think, somewhat regularly. I mean, those kind of numbers are not hard, I don't think, to come up with. And I think within a range, it's probably all right and so we don't have anything that's tremendously out of line on professional. I think the committee can do that. Champion/They should look at that because, I mean, we, we've had some projects with what I consider astronomical fees and---. Vanderhoef/ Duplication of fees. Champion/ ...duplication of fees. Lehman/Steve, can we take those to the committee and then see what you come up with? Nasby/Yes. Will do. Lehman/The last two items, really, are basically an issue of how much are, and they obviously apply to the private sector, what are we, what do we expect to be invested by the individual who's applying for the money of their own private fund? Whether it's a minimum or it's a percentage of or ratio of public to private. Champion/Boy, that's a tough one, too. Lehman/Yeah, I know, that's why, I mean, that to me, is a policy issue, to some degree. That we expect a certain amount of commitment from a developer. Pfab/I think l'm going to be a little bit sarcastic here, but I think--- Lehman/No. Now. (Laughter) This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 47 Pfab/....I think we just went through a big public entity and this would have never passed what we wanted, what we're trying to do here. And I think the best thing is to leave it alone or this whole thing may come back and bite us. Lehman/Well, the one you're talking about, Irvin, had about $17 million invested that wasn't government money. We're talking about public money here, as opposed to private money. Pfab/Will you put some public money in that too? Lehman/What, what's your pleasure? Vanderhoef/ Somehow I want to address this. I don't have a great idea on how to do it, but it seems like there ought to be at least 25 percent and I pull that number out and I can't justify yes or no. Champion/Twenty-five percent of what? Kanner/Which one, the second to last one or the last one? Pfab/Developer money. Kanner/Which one? Vanderhoef/ The private funds. Champion/ Private sector, investor funds, private funds, investor funds. Vanderhoef/Mm...hmm. Kanner/So you're looking at the second to last one on this list here. Vanderhoef/Yes. Uh-huh. Lehman/But private funds could then be characterized as any funds the developer comes up with that he can put in the project, whether it's a bank loan, whatever. As long as it doesn't come out of the public sector. Anything other than public funds. Champion/Right. Vanderhoef/Mm...hmm. Pfab/That's kind of like getting a very comfortable (can't hear). And these are supposedly projects to help the lower income part of the population. And this is what pushed a lot of- This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 48 Champion/We're talking about for-profits here. We're not talking about nonprofits. We're talking about for-profits. Lehman/Wait, I, that is a pretty significant--- Pfab/Damn right. I mean there's a lot of houses that are sold that are for a heck of a lot less--- Lehman/ But that's all private money there. Here we're talking about the amount of private investment against, against public money. Pfab/But these are, these are for the public good, public housing--- Vanderhoef/We're leveraging. We're supposed to be leveraging our federal dollars for housing in our area. O'Donnell/I would think 10 percent would be more realistic. Pfab/Twenty-five percent is just totally out of... Kanner/What's the range, the last year of private funds versus public funds? Nasby/For housing. Let me look them up here. Champion/We're not, by private funds, we don't mean personal money. It could be investors, it could be corporate loans, it could be--- Kanner/Yeah, that's the next issue on the list--- Vanderhoef/Because there are many, many federal-state programs that are getting packaged into the whole package--- Pfab/We're talking public funds--- Vanderhoeff ....to the point that there's very little private dollar into it. Pfab/Right, but some of these people went through god-awful hoops to get to that. Kanner/Then how do we consider tax credit? Vanderhoef/That would be public money. Nasby/Public money. Kanner/Public money. And just to clarify again, we're talking about for-profit--- This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 49 Champion/Right. Kanner/...applicants only. Champion/Right. Kanner/And we're setting this criteria of 25 percent. Vanderhoef/ I just throw that number out. I mean, play with that number. Kanner/That makes sense, I think that makes sense as a minimum and then also say that again we want HCDC to maybe look more favorably on those that use more private funds. Champion/Probably 25 is a little high. O'Donnell/That's incredibly high. Champion/That's high. O'Donnell/Is there an average, Steve? Nasby/Well, last year your one private applicant had 90 percent public money. Your nonprofits: 1 percent had 18 percent public money, another one had 80 percent public money, and 80 percent public money. So, actually the for-profit was asking for more public money than the nonprofits were. Champion/But the 80 percent did not include tax credits, I bet. Nasby/The 90 percent? Champion/They didn't count that as--- Nasby/Yes. They used that as, they counted that as public money. Vanderhoef/Oh, they do? Nasby/[lecanse, Dee, we make them count it as public money. Vanderhoef/Good for you. Lehman/We're not going to come to any conclusion on these at all. And I don't know how we do this. Nasby/It's something that we can refer to HCDC and get their input on it and then we can bring This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 50 it back to you. Champion/Yeah, could you-- Lehman/Why don't you guys talk about it and come back to us? I don't think that we're--- O'Donnell/Good idea. Lehman/I can just see this being so complicated and so project-specific. If we make certain rules, we're going to eliminate some really, really wonderful projects--- Champion/Yeah. It's got to be--- Lehman/...because they don't qualify with the rules. Champion/Yeah. Vanderhoef/The best thing that I think that we might have going for us is to adjust the points on the tally sheet according to even more private money that goes in, just as we did on the previous. If you put more private in, you get a few more points than if you don't. Champion/And I think also that, I think one of our other concerns and one reason we're interested in addressing this is how many fees are attached to the--- Lehman/To the professionals, I think that's right. Champion/ ...the professional fees, I mean, that's a major target of ours. You know, architect fees, contracting fees, development fees. You can, I mean, one of the fees was $150,000. When you add up all the fees on a $3 million project. This is the kind of thing that we're- ___ Lehman/Hard to justify--- Champion/...hard to justify. Yeah. Kanner/Emie? Lehman/Yes. Kanner/We don't, I don't think we have agreement on what a minimum should be, but perhaps we have a majority that wants to say let's have a minimum and have some discussion on it, hear from the community, hear from HCDC. Lehman/I think that's what we just said, send it back to them--- This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 51 Kanner/But I think that we have to send the message, if we agree, that we want a minimum on this point number 4. Nasby/Yeah. Karmer/ Is there a majority here that wants to have a minimum of private investment? Lehman/I think I would, but I really want to hear what the committee--- Vanderhoef/Mm..hmm. I think that's where we're leaning. Nasby/I think, Steven, is that you want the consensuses for a minimum, let HCDC give you some ideas on the range? Kanner/Yes, that's what I'm proposing. Nasby/That's what I'm hearing too. Kanner/Good. Champion/But I think it can also be negotiable, like they're willing to give something else, too, like less fees, or, I mean, because I don't really want to make all these rules so rigid--- Lehman/Oh, no, I think the more we--- Champion/ I just want to nitpick every little project, don't I? (Laughter by several) Vanderhoef/ Yes, the more ranges that we have for each of these questions, the better informed and the better Commission members, and the better Councilors and better decisions--- Champion/And better use of the money. Vanderhoef/... and use of the money. That's the bottom line. We're trying to get to the best use and turnover of our federal dollars. Lehman/You come back with a silver bullet. Kanner/A silver bullet. (Laughter) Champion/And we'll give you a nice dinner or something. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 52 (Laughter) Nasby/A number 4, $2.99. Kanner/They used to get pizza at the HCDC. Nasby/HUD took that away from them, so--- Lehman/ Thank you, sir. We're going to take a break. That's one thing we do know how to do. How about that? (Laughter) TIF AGREEMENT FOR 1555 S. FIRST AVENUE Lehman/TIF agreement for First Avenue. Fees. Nasby/OK. Gerry Ambrose is redeveloping the exiting Plamor building and adding on a new commercial structure. He has requested tax increment financing. The project is located within the Sycamore-First Avenue TIF, which is right there. The mall is over here in this area and right up here is where the Plamor building is. It's in that area. The letter from Mr. Ambrose is in your packet. He had requested the TIF financing in a similar fashion to what was done to Sycamore Mall and let's see, the project, the existing building, is about 23,000 square feet. He'll be remodeling that Plamor building and like I said, he'll be also adding a new commercial building in between the strip mall and the existing Plamor building, and that building is roughly 4,600 square feet. I do have a picture of that for you. That is an artist depiction of the site when it's completed. You'll notice the smaller building down toward the strip mall, that's the new 4,600 square foot building, and then this bigger box is the Plamor building. It's got a new facade and they would have a pedestrian scale to it. There's some windows and it would be access in the building. Now, it's one, more or less, it's kind of like a pole building or a Menard's building. So this would be the scene that you see off First Avenue. The building with the new commercial- -there are four parcels that would be involved. There's parking lots and the existing building right now. The four parcels together appraise for $972,000, so that would be the initial base value of what we're talking about. The anticipated investment by Mr. Ambrose is between $1.2 and $1.5 million. And that's where the tax increment financing would come into place is--he's asking for the taxes to be rebated on the increase in the assessed value. Vanderhoef/ And, just for clarification, that is for building the new building and the exterior of Plamor? Nasby/That's correct. The improvements to those properties. Vanderhoef/The exterior, though. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 53 Nasby/Well, it could be, it could be anything that improves the value of that property. Vanderhoef/OK, so you're, when he says the $1.2 to the $1.5, he is including interior changes to Plamor? Nasby/Probably some. He also would have tenants that would be fitting out space, so that may or may not add incremental value. But this is Gerry's estimate of what his investment will be initially. The agreement is in your packet Like I said it was modeled after the Sycamore Mall development agreement and some of the highlights of that agreement are in the memo that was in the packet. Just briefly those are that the assessed value of the structure must increase at least 15 percent or else there won't be any rebates. There are also occupancy standards like we had with Sycamore Mall. They have to attain 65 percent occupancy within the, I think, it's the first year. That escalates up to 80 percent and then that must be maintained through the length of the development agreement. In this case, the length of this agreement that has been requested is seven years, which is what you did with Sycamore Mall. Design review is required, the same with the Sycamore Mall, so Design Review folks get a chance to look at this building. And the taxes that would be rebated, it's important to note that those are due to the improvements in the value, so if there's changes in the market, they don't get those. They get changes that are due to the improvements and that's an assessor's evaluation when they make the assessment. And that the maximum tax rebate--and this is part of the agreement--was set at $500,000. And that's maximum amount that they could possibly be rebated and based on the investment. And the way that $500,000 is figured in the Sycamore Mall agreement-- TAPE 02-71, SIDE 1 Nasby/... arrived at that number, so--- Vanderhoef/ Is there anything in the agreement about what we talked about at the ED meeting for the connection, to get a pedestrian connection throughout the district? Nasby/Yeah, that would be something that when a site plan is submitted, that when the staff does the evaluation of that with the departments, that would be a consideration at that point in time. But that's not part of this agreement. Karmer/What's the history of the valuation of that property in the last year? My understanding is that it hasn't really gone down like Sycamore Mall. Nasby/Well, the bowling alley had just closed. So there hasn't, hadn't been a new assessment on it as is that structure was closed. The historical assessments in the property were as an operating facility. So that just quit in January and so the new assessment would have--- Karmer/But it hadn't gone down. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 54 Nasby/No, it had been relatively stable. Kanner/Yes. Vanderhoef/ And the purchase price, from what was reported in the letter, was less than the assessed value. Pfab/Oh, no, it was quite a bit more. Nasby/No, the purchase price, I believe, was $900,000, which is what Mr. Ambrose stated. The assessed value is $972. Vanderhoeff Assessed value was $972. Pfab/ I remember, it stuck in mind, it was like $750,000. Nasby/That was, that was just the Plamor building. That didn't include the other parcels that are involved in this project. Vanderhoef/Didn't include the property. Nasby/It didn't include the property. It included just the Plamor building. Pfab/OK. Well, all right. Nasby/$754, you're right. That was for the Plamor building, but not the surrounding properties. Kanner/So, maybe someone's stretching the truth. We do have a letter here from a businessperson saying they offered a million dollars on that a year ago in our packet. Solon, Coralville, they seem to be putting TIF money into infrastructure improvement and so forth. Are there any infrastructure needs up in that area that would benefit business in general and maybe that in specific? Nasby/I know Karin has been working on, Karin's been working the capital improvement plan. Maybe she would--- Franklin/One project that's possible related to what he is mentioning and that is the sidewalk connection in this area. There's also a storm sewer that is over land fall and part of the storm sewer back behind the small building property, and potentially that could be a public project to enclose that storm sewer and create more land for development or parking that supports development in the area. So we're looking at that right now. But that could be done if the Council plans TIF revenues from the entire district. Pfab/That would be taxes, or whatever you described, how you described it, does that have to be This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 55 for improvements on site? Franklin/No, because it's in a district, I mean, this is similar to--- Pfab/OK. Let me rephrase it. (can't hear). Do they have to be, do improvements have to be in that district? Franklin/They have to be in the district, yes. Pfab/What I was thinking maybe like the intersection up on Rochester and First Avenue, maybe that intersection onto Court, you know, some traffic could get down there easier if that site--- Nasby/No can do. Champion/(can't hear) connecting sidewalks like Coralville. Pfab/Hey! (laughter by several people) Yes, maybe we can get up to the other side of Rochester Avenue, and the sidewalks, and then we can use that for that (can't hear). Champion/And so now, the economic development committee has negotiated a different agreement on the funds? Lehman/No, we indicated at our meeting that we would support, actually we were recommended sending it to Council, that we would afford some sort ofTlF. I expressed some concern at the Economic Development Committee meeting that this area is, I believe, significantly more healthy economically than it was two years ago when Sycamore was started. And we have designated a rather significant area as a TIF area. And I do not believe. That designation, I believe, is for 20 years, is it not Steve? Nasby/That's correct. Lehman/I do not believe that it's reasonable for the City to consider TIFs to the extent that they were used for Sycamore Mall to apply to that entire district over a 20-year period. So my concern is and I would, if the Council would concur, I would like to see that maximum tax rebate reduced from $500 to $400,000 so that there is an indication on the part of the Council to those folks who own property out there that the same level of abatement that took place through the Sycamore, which I think was a big, big--- Pfab/Generous. Well--- Lehman/ It was also a huge risk. And I think that the benefit should be commensurate with the risk, and I don't think the risk involved in this one is as great as Sycamore. If we reduced the maximum rebate by 20 percent, that would be $400,000 and I believe that's a number that Mr. Ambrose can live with. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 56 Nasby/That was my understanding. Pfab/I would even pay $350 or $300, I would be more comfortable with. Because the City put in a lot of, I mean you, First Avenue, is not going to hurt that property. They are doing some more improvement down on the fire station down there, and yes, it's not the same. It's not the same place, even the district wasn't that bad. It was just that piece of property that some landowner decided he was going to die on, die with, and somebody finally pulled his cold hands off of it. (Laughter by several) Pfab/That's exactly the story, no more, no less. Lehman/All right, what do we want to do? If we're going to change any numbers, it would be nice to do it tonight so that we can vote on an agreement that includes the numbers. Pfab/I would, I would certainly support your $400,000, but I would even be more comfortable if you said $350. Vanderhoef/ I would go with $400 also. I think it's appropriate and it allows for some of the interior upgrades. Obviously, the new businesses will have some costs in putting it under the single TIF through Mr. Ambrose is the appropriate way to go. And it seems that the numbers that I've been hearing, even of Sycamore Mall, is that that whole amount of, may not ever be reached anyway. So to set them artificially high sends a message out them to the community that really isn't true that they're going to get $500 anyway because they'll never get up to that point. So I'd rather be closer to what is truly doable on that property. Pfab/I would like to make another suggestion them, that this TIF is for how many years? Lehman/Seven. Pfab/I would say divide it up in a maximum over one-seventh of it over each year. Nasby/The way the TIF mechanics work is it's based on what the increase in the assessment is. Pfab/But, say there's a maximum of this for over seven years. Lehman/That's what it would be changing it from 500 to 400. Pfab/No, no, it doesn't. I would say that this, it would be payable at a maximum of one-seventh of that $400,000 over each year. Vanderhoef/That doesn't work out real well for me because there's an initial investment that is This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 57 much greater in the first years than perhaps in the later years. So we need to make it consistent. Pfab/Well, what's happening over at Sycamore? Is that a (can't hear) maximum of $3,000? Is that going to be paid out over seven years or whatever the number of years was? Lehman/A maximum of $2 million. Nasby/It was actually $2 million and it was over seven years, but they get, again, you look at what your TIF levy is and then multiply it by the improvements, and then you come up with the taxable rebate number. And in Sycamore Mall, the first-year number is about $149,000. Pfab/So if you divide it by seven, what would you have got. Nasby/Two million by seven? Pfab/That's the maximum. But I would say a maximum is not out of line. Champion/We are giving a maximum. Pfab/Pardon? Champion/We are giving a maximum. Pfab/Over per year, on a seven-year basis. Champion/I don't think we can do that. Pfab/Why? Lehman/Well, the problem with that is that, for example, he redoes the bowling alley, gets his lease. He builds another building and he, this project could take a two- or three-year period. You going to start rebating the maximum amount before he--- Pfab/No, no, no, no. I said, up to a maximum of one-seventh per year. Lehman/Well. Pfab/I'm not saying, no--- Lehman/ Is anybody interested else in that formula? Champion/Well, I would support the proposal that's in the packet, but I don't have any objections to your proposal. I can support either one. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 58 O'Donnell/And I feel that way, too. This building, I believe, is in drastic needs of improvement. This is a TIF area. Gerry Ambrose has demonstrated his ability to bring back an area that needs a great deal of help, and I think this needs it so I'm comfortable with either one. Pfab/There's one thing that gives me pause, and that is when the greeting card company that was over on Court Street supposedly made the comment Gerry wanted him really bad in the mall. And so you're taking a viable business off Court Street and Muscatine and bringing it down there. And what do you get? You're shuffling the chairs on a certain ship. O'Dom~ell/Let's move this forward, Emie. Pfab/Well, let's, are there--- (can't hear) Lehman/How many vote to say changing it from $500,000 to $400,000 for a maximum? Vanderhoef/Well, I'll support that. O'Dormell/I'll support it, but--- Lehman/Would you change the numbers for tomorrow night to reflect the $400,000? Nasby/I'll make them change the packet. Champion/You didn't have to support the (can't hear)... Lehman/Well, we have the majority that supported the four--- Nasby/Which makes that moot. Lehman/Is there any other discussion on the TIF? O'Donnell/I hope not. Lehman/OK, thank you very much. Nasby/Thank you. Pfab/Have a good day. MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC UTILITY Lehman/OK, municipal utility, Dale. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 59 Helling/You received a week before last in your packet a memorandum just outlining and a copy of the first draft of the request for proposals, that was a product of the meeting we had in Ankeny in mid-August. Basically, this is kind of a minor decision point along the way, because what we need to do is just make sure to confirm that we want to be named in the RFP. That would be sent out probably some time this month, that's the hope anyway; and that that would come back within about 30 to 40 days. The whole process is estimated to take probably four to six months before you would have the feasibility study actually finished. So, essentially what we're doing is we're using the Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities to be our consultant in putting together a joint feasibility study and then once we review those responses and hire a consultant to do the study, then that would be our study. Rather than doing it on our own, so--- Pfab/What's the cost of doing it this way, estimate? Helling/We don't know. If you look at the, I guess, the second page of the feasibility study, it outlines the scope and these are all the kind of things that we would ask the consultant to turn into deliverables. Based on that they will come back with a proposal that names two things: number 1, the total cost of the feasibility study, and number 2, how it would break down in tums of cost-sharing among the cities that participate. So, the estimates that were floating around in Ankeny were somewhere in the neighborhood of $80 to $100,000. Iowa City's share is something in the neighborhood of $15 to $20,000. But those are not reliable numbers at all, and we won't know whether we commit financially or otherwise to this until the proposals are back and reviewed and we can see what people are proposing. Lehman/What you need from us now is permission to put our name in the pot. We will then have the opportunity after the RFP has been submitted, a bid will come back. We will then know what our share of the cost will be prior to authorizing the study to--- Helling/ They'll be a series of proposals, just like we would get if we put out, hopefully, they'll be a number of them. And we will review all of those, based not just on the funding, but also on the quality of what they are proposing to provide. But, yes, once we've zeroed in on the group through the IMU, to zero in on whose proposal we would want to accept, then we'll be able to tell you exactly what the cost will be for that phase. Lehman/Right now all we're looking for is a nod to move forward. Helling/Right. No commitment and no money at this point. Chan~pion/The only question that I have and I certainly support the idea of doing this study--if somebody---I don't know who does these studies. But I think we have to be careful that it's not somebody who is from the Association of Municipal Utilities. I think we need to have a neutral study. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 60 Helling/Right. There are a number of firms nationwide that they're aware of that do these kinds of studies and have done them and have a track record of doing them for other communities, and they're the people the RFPs will be sent to. Pfab/ So you're saying that the League of Municipalities isn't saying why, use our--- Helling/No, this is the Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities. Pfab/I mean, yes, what I'm saying, we have one we want you to use. Helling/No, no. This is much the same process as we would do if we were submitting an RFP for a consultant, a design consultant or something. Pfab/OK. Wilbum/Did, I saw in the paper that someone from the University was quoted as saying they might be interested. Did you ever follow up with them? Helling/Yes. We have. They are interested and they sent a representative to the meeting in Ankeny. They are interested in participating in the feasibility study, and they--- Wilburn/So they'll be part of the RFP? Helling/We have met with them and have talked, just generally, about the kinds of things they're interested in. I think I can sum it up to say their interest is primarily that if the City were to become a municipal electric utility, they generate about 30 percent of their power and purchase about 70 percent, so they would be very interested in joining with us in ways to try to find to reduce their costs or get the best deal on the power that they buy as well. Wilburn/Good. Kanner/Under State Code, are they allowed to form their own utility? I believe they are. Helling/I don't think they've ever become a public utility but right now, my understanding is they are in the service area of MidAmerican and so any service that they buy, other than what they generate themselves, they're much the same as we are or anybody else in the service area--that's who you deal with. Kanner/I had two things I wanted to explore with the Council, Emie. Lehman/OK. Karmer/As far as what's in the RFP. One of the things that I would like us to look at would be in the scope of proposed work would be energy-efficiency and conservation. That's mentioned in the sort of the preamble on the first page, as far as the IAMU, the Municipal This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 61 Association's energy study. They looked at some of these issues. So that, those studies are going to be available to whoever makes, does the feasibility study. But I think we need to ask the, whoever does the study, in their request for proposal, we want to know what their approach is to looking at energy-efficiency and conservation. I think that's a big issue, and if this thing is going to go forward, there's a lot of people in this community that are concerned with those type of issues. And we can put it in the sense that we want them to quantify the cost. And so it would be almost like an add-on. Is that the term we use for bidding in--- Helling/Like a bid alternative. Kanner/Oh, bid alternative. To say, what would it cost for you to figure how much to project what our savings and cost will be from energy-efficiency measures. For instance, MidAmerican now does about 2 percent of their gross revenues, they put into energy- efficiency and conservation. What if we, as a City, did 10 percent? How would that affect us in our future need for power, our savings to our citizens? So this could be as a bid alternative in a sense. I think it's important to ask in the RFP what their approach is to this, using the same language they use in number lA. So that's one thing I would throw out that I'd like to see. Should I mention the other thing or should we talk about each point? Lehman/Well, go ahead. I don't know whether these things are appropriate at this point in the process or the next step, after we receive the consultant report, if we choose to do an in- depth sort of analysis. I see that being very important at that point. I'm not sure that it's important here. But go ahead, what's your other? Kanner/Well, the other thing is to get a sense of how much more might we have to spend and again, in the introductory paragraph, we have, in the second paragraph, it says for those issues that are conceptually common to all participants but require analysis of specific fact situation, the objection is to identify a common analytical approach on behalf of the participants and to utilize that approach to provide a specific analysis for each city. My sense of what's being said here is that there has to be some common ways to measure things, but I think we want to know, and I talked a little bit, I think, with Dale about this. Is it going to cost us more to do a subsequent study and I think we should get a sense when we put out an RFP, for them to quantify a bid. What will we need? Will this just look at it in broad terms? What are we going to get--a range of prices? Emmetsburg, when they did their feasibility study, they got a report back that said worst case scenario is 10 percent savings, best case is 25. I think we need to be a little more specific in this RFP in saying, what do you expect to give us? Do you expect to give us one figure? Is it going to be a very loose figure? And give us an idea of how much more we have to put in to doing a subsequent figure. So, don't come back and say this will cost total $200,000, and we'll know our share will be $30,000 or whatever we agree upon. And if we put it in now in the RFP, we'll also know that this will be very preliminary and you're going to need to do so much more work. And we'll get a sense of how much more we might have to spend. Because I don't really know at this point if we're going to have, certainly, we're This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 62 going to have to spend more money down the line if we go down that road. But as far as initial studies, we don't know how much more we have to do. If we're being told $30,000, is that very, very preliminary. I think we should ask in the RFP for them to quantify that a bit. Lehman/Well, my sense is that we're going to be one of several folks involved in an RFP that has a commonality of all of those folks who are funding the RFP, certain generalizations that are true to all of the municipalities and perhaps the University will be looked at in this RFP that we're talking about. Based on the results that we get from this, then we individual if we choose to look further. If we individualize, those situations that are unique to Iowa City and the things that we would like to see, if we decide to move forward. Is that correct? Helling/Well, yeah. I had some conversation with Bob Hang about this and in terms of what people might want to add in, and I think his feeling right now is come back and let us know what your interests are and then we'll see what we can work in. That latter point as far as a sense of how much more it will cost, I think we'll have a lot better idea of that after we look at the responses and know what the initial cost is going to be and how the consultant defines those deliverables and how they address these criteria. Once we have an idea there, then I think we'll be in a better position to project whatever things we might need. As far as the energy conservation aspect of it, I think that's a legitimate question and is something that can be asked, and I wouldn't be surprised if other cities may not have also suggested that. Now, how that can be worked in, I don't know. We would leave that up to them or to come back and tell us, that's premature. But on that point, I doubt that it is. There will probably be, everybody will be interested in how the consultant looks at energy conservation and efficiency measures. Lehman/Do we have agreement that we'd like to have a look at that? Champion/Well, if everybody else wants to look at~-- Vanderhoef/Certainly pose it to the consultants and get feedback from them. Lehman/OK. Good. Kanner/Good. That's it. Lehman/OK. Then we have proceed with the caveat that we had (can't hear) ... also look at that. Helling/ That can be submitted by September 13th--- Lehman/ First of October, middle of October, November 1st, when it comes due. Helling/ I think the timetable is a little flexible. We have anywhere from eight to twelve cities participating. I don't know how close everybody will come to that September 13th This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 63 deadline, so I think that schedule is going to fluctuate a little bit as we move along, but we'll keep you updated. Lehman/Kind of like when you refund CBDG money, isn't it? Helling/ Probably. Vanderhoef/Some of those folks meet once a month, too. Lehman/All right. Thank you, sir. COUNCIL TIME Council time? Kanner/Save it for tomorrow night. Wilbum/I have a couple items. One, I just wanted to point out that the East Central Iowa Council of Government meeting in your packet, I put that draft of the fine little community best practice to certify that ECICOG did approve that. I know some of the items in there are related to urban design and agricultural preservation, probably aren't that new to Johnson County and Iowa City specifically, but for some of the counties, I think it would be some new practices. Also, the second, maybe this is more for the Economic Development Committee. It was mentioned at the meeting that there was conversation with the state Department of Economic Development that they may be looking at other ways to get their funding out to communities, possibly even through the COGS. So we directed staff to just attend any and all meetings about that. And finally I just wanted to actually have Steven, if you could kind of clarify a vote that you took at the last JCCOG meeting. I would be interested in knowing what your thoughts were, your understanding of what you were voting against when you voted against, the Council had had adopted some changes to the arterial street plan and the funding mechanism, shifting some projects over to Mormon Trek in the south-central district. It was my understanding that it was Council policy at that point, so if you could just elaborate on what you were--- Kanner/Sure, we'll put it on the agenda and we'll talk about it at the next work session. I don't think it's appropriate to talk about it at this time. Wilburn/OK. I'm--- So, Council agree the next work session? Vanderhoef/Can't you give us a little something now? Kanner/No, I'd rather not. If you, it would be easier if you'd put something in writing, Ross. Wilburn/Well, we voted--- This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002 September 9, 2002 Council Work Session Page 64 Kanner/I'm not going to respond to it now. Vanderhoef/Do you want to put it on the agenda? Kanner/I think it's appropriate to put it on the agenda. Wilburn/OK. I'd, I'd be glad to hear. Vanderhoef/I'd like to hear, too. Kanner/OK. Champion/I would, too. Karmer/All right. Lehman/Anything else for Council time? Wilbum/Not for me. This represents only a reasonable accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of September 9, 2002